Posted on 01/09/2015 8:46:34 AM PST by MosesKnows
I just listened to members of the House read the entire United States Constitution aloud on the floor of the House. This is the third Congress to follow this tradition.
However, as before, the Congress failed to read Article 1. Section 1. in its entirety. That begs the question, why did the Congress intentionally omitted reading this language in the Constitution.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons
They did read the 14th Amendment, which modified that portion of Article 1. Section 1.
They also read Article 1, Section 9, No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken, and the
16th Amendment, which modified Article 1. Section 9, The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
They also omitted reading the Preamble to the Constitution. The preamble was not ratified so there is justification to omit it. However, the Congress did read the preamble to the Bill of Rights the first time they read the Constitution. That begs another question, why did the 112th Congress read it and the 114th Congress omit it?
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.
"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
There are two more short procedural sections but this was the meat of it. Does not "declaratory and restrictive" make the intentions of the Bill of Rights clear? Now the Government's role and my role as citizen both seem clear. As long as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are intact, I will remain a citizen and not a subject.
Now, they will subsequently ignore it.
That was the essence of my point.
Why did they skip over "that" amended language but did not skip over other amended language? E.g. the 16th amendment.
Your display of ignorance off America's Constitution is shared by the progressive movement.
America's Constitution is not about the people. It is solely about how the government is to function within the herein Granted powers.
If Article 1. Section 1. said, “All legislative Powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives" you would have a point.
However, what Article 1. Section 1. actually states is, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives".
The herein granted powers do not include feeding, clothing, sheltering, or educating the people.
The Constitution does prohibit the Congress from interfering with the people's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Jefferson said it as well as it can be said regarding the general welfare.
To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare”. For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up strictly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.
You have mistaken America's Constitution with the Communist manifesto.
Uh, that wasn’t me. I was responding to a post explaining the origin of the phrase.
You were addressing:
To: DesertRhino
““Promote the general welfare” is an absolutely fine idea. It simply means broad brush, create a society where people prosper.”
14 posted on 1/9/2015 12:11:41 PM by cotton1706 (ThisRepublic.net)
That was DesertRhino’s quote. That’s why there’s a second set of quotes (I forgot the ones at the end).
I was addressing that quote in my post.
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.