[ForYourChildren]

This is the best article I have seen come out of Politistick.

Great job Matthew K. Burke.

Thanks!

http://thepolitistick.com/government-charity-unconstitutional-says-author-u-s-constitution/

[ForYourChildren]

From the article...

---

Madison further imagined where Congress might stretch the General Welfare clause if it were misinterpreted to be open-ended:

“If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads.”

“In short, everything, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.”

[politicianslie]

I take your word for it. No matter what Roberts said, anyone with an IQ much above dirt knows it is unconstitutional. For the illiterate Obamobots, that means it needs to be repealed.

STOP THERE, then let the private sector handle it.

[ForYourChildren]

From the article...

---

For all of the reasons above, with the Democrat Party all but merging with the Communist Party USA and the Republicans, led by big government RINO’s Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, only wanting slightly smaller and just barely less unconstitutional than the Democrats,..

[gunnyg]

rE cROCKETT—nOT yERS tO gIVE, pILGRIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

http://www.devvy.com/pdf/not_yours_to_give.pdf
*********************

[gattaca]

bmp

[SaxxonWoods]

Davy Crockett explained this very well in the 1830’s.

[Malcolm Reynolds]

Madison’s interpretation and approach is basically the way things went until United States v Butler in 1936.

[Brian Griffin]

Congress has the power to grant patents on drugs under Article I, Section 8.

Patents make drugs expensive.

If somebody with a pre-existing condition needs an expensive drug, “insurance” companies don’t want to cover that person.

Patents create a “need” justifying “proper” federal government action to pay for expensive Article I, Section 8 patented drugs. The Supreme Court allows Congress to decide what is proper under the “necessary and proper” supplemental power to the enumerated powers.

The “need” doesn’t have to that of the federal government itself, since no adjective precedes “need” in Article I, Section 8.

[loveliberty2]

Combine the Founders' ideas, as cited in the following essay, with the "Farmer's" understanding, as stated in the Congressman Davy Crockett story for a bit of clarity on the subject of "charitable" "redistribution" of the earnings of one citizen for the benefit of others:

Private Property Rights – A basic Premise Of America’s Constitution

Tired of having the fruits of their labors confiscated by an overpowering British government, America’s Founders declared themselves free and independent.

Most American schoolchildren can recite their claim that “. all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights … to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Less familiar, however, are these lines from their Declaration of Independence:

“He ( King George III ) has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance …. He has combined with others to subject us, … imposing taxes on us without our consent.”

What, then, did the Founders consider to be the real cornerstone of man’s liberty and happiness? On what basic premise did they devise their Constitution? Let them speak for themselves:

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God … anarchy and tyranny commence. PROPERTY MUST BE SECURED OR LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST”-John Adams

“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort …. This being the end of government, that is NOT a just government,… nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has … is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”-James Madison

Their guiding principle was that people come together to form governments in order to SECURE their rights to property – not to create an entity which will, itself, “take from the mouths of labor the bread it has earned.” What was wrong for individual citizens to do to one another, they believed, was equally wrong for government to do to them.

The right to own property and to keep the rewards of individual labor opened the floodgates of progress for the benefit of the entire human race. Millions have fled other countries to participate in the Miracle of America.

---

Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution,"> W. David Stedman &La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III: ISBN 0-937047-01-5

[V K Lee]

The writer has stated his facts, which show just how illiterate our congressional critters (and SC Judges) are in regards to understanding our Constitution. Either they deliberately fail to understand, or they attempt to take power from WTP by raising their right hand and lie when taking an oath. They are ALL failures.

SEND congress juvenile delinquents and judges back to school for a refresher course on WHAT our Founding Fathers envisioned and how far they’ve strayed from the path.

[gattaca]

I’m so sick of the left using the excuse “living breathing document” meant to be changed. I hear that all the time.