Posted on 08/19/2009 11:29:11 AM PDT by mek1959
(Excerpt) Read more at gazette.net ...
Here's James Madison's view of the General Welfare Clause of Article 1. Section 8. This response is from a letter written to Edmund Pendleton on January 21, 1792;
“Having not yet succeeded in hitting on an opportunity, I send you a part of it in a newspaper, which broaches a new Constitutional doctrine of vast consequence, and demanding the serious attention of the public. I consider it myself as subverting the fundamental and characteristic principle of the Government; as contrary to the true and fair, as well as the received construction, and as bidding defiance to the sense in which the Constitution is known to have been proposed, advocated, and adopted. If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated is copied from the old Articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, (emphasis mine)
Engage the constitutional battle in your local communities with your local media.
Liberals have been using the vagueness of the “general welfare” clause to drag this nation into Socialism for generations. I’ve argued this point with libs too many times to count. I don’t think that even Madison’s words will sway their thinking on this, unfortunately.
The only reason Social Security was found constitutional in 1937 was because FDR threatened to stack the court. They had already turned down three or four of his crap programs 5-4 then the switch in time that saved 9..I dont know how they would rule this time but if passed it needs to be tested
“The real debate - is healthcare reform Constitutional?”
I couldn’t agree more!!! As things stand now there is the attitude that there are no limits to what the federal government can do, despite the fact that the framers made it abundantly clear that their intent was to place strict enumerated limits to the power of the federal government - and that most of the power should be reserved for the states.
Just think what this country will look like if they were to take control of the energy sector (cap&tax), the medical sector (HR 3200), labor laws (card check), amnesty for illegals, etc, etc. - they’ve already gone way beyond what is mandated by the constitution (thanks to FDR), we need to stop them here, or the constitution is trash, and we’ll be slaves.
Where are the conservative legal minds and why aren’t they launching a challenge to take this to the supreme court in case it passes?
Point out the Supreme Court decision that ruled Medicare unconstitutional and you might have an argument.
Was Medicare ever challenged?
The Supreme Court doesn’t operate out of a vacuum. They can only rule something unconstitutional if there is a challenge brought before them. If no one challenges this, then the Supreme Court won’t rule one way or another.
Makes me sick to my stomach when I think about it. Um, maybe that isn’t the kind of constitution you mean...
Secondly, HR 3200 contains a provision to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose “Taxes on Individuals Not Obtaining Acceptable Coverage” (p167). This clearly violates Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 of the Constitution that provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed." Singling out individuals or groups for punitive taxes because they don’t behave as the government demands is clearly prohibited. No one can argue that it would simply be a penalty or sentence for breaking the law because it denies due process and a trial by jury. The government would simply pronounce you guilty and confiscate your money. HArly wht the Fouders had in mind.
Third, it violates the 14th Amendment for equal protection under the law. Obamacare will cover abortions, 90% (at least) of them being an elective procedure. If an elective abortion is paid for, but my elective hair transplants wouldn’t be, then that’s not equality before the law.
No, Madison’s, nor any other founder’s words or opinions matter to a leftist. Not only do they disregard any argument, regardless of its merit, that gets in the way of their agenda, the inherent assumptions of their ideology goes against giving the founders any credence.
They see it as a conflict between “modern Constitutional scholars” and “people who lived in the past with inherently less information than we have today”. When viewed this way, the opinions of the founders don’t mean diddly to them.
“Liberals have been using the vagueness of the “general welfare” clause to drag this nation into Socialism for generations. I’ve argued this point with libs too many times to count. I don’t think that even Madison’s words will sway their thinking on this, unfortunately.”
Maybe we need to pass an amendment that clearly defines general welfare as what it was intended - limited to the subsequent enumerated powers of Article 8. It’s a tough row to hoe, but this may be the ideal time to start, given the disgust that this latest power grab by the federal government has elicited in most people.
Not only is it UNconstitutional,
its intent is to KILL the Constitution.
This system gives the federal gov’t full arbitrary power over your life on the pretext that your choices, behaviors, and consumption “affects the public healthcare system”.
This is a basic difference in premise. Liberals want no restrictions on their ability to restrict others. The Constitution is based on restricting the powers of the Federal government.
I don’t think ANY plain wording would convince any leftist that they can’t and shouldn’t centralize power.
“I don’t think ANY plain wording would convince any leftist that they can’t and shouldn’t centralize power.”
No question there, but it would help in the supreme court.
That’s another mistake -
the Constitution doesn’t give the Supreme Court to twist its meaning.
The states are going to have to tell the feds “you ain’t got no juice here, and that includes your court rulings against us.”
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
Ben Franklin
--
"the government strong enough to give you what you want is strong enough to take it all away."
Barry Goldwater in 1964
--
AND IT IS CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.