article 1 section 8

[emilynghiem]

Dear One Cut: The First and Fourteenth Amendment also provide checks and balances on how govt policies are made applied and interpreted. You basically cannot abuse govt to discriminate against people's religion and equal protection of the law.

If the health care mandates, for example, merely required people NOT to impose costs on others without ability to pay and required people to "find some way to cover their costs" (without dictating how, such as requiring insurance which is not the same as directly paying for one's costs), that would not have been intrusive on people's free choice.

The bill went too far by requiring people specifically to "buy insurance" and furthermore, by the govt regulating which people's religious affilitions qualify for exemption or not,
where some people are basically penalized by religious discrimination enforced by govt.

That is clearly unconstitutional. Nor can I see how any liberal politician can continue to make pro-choice arguments against penalizing people if they choose abortion while in this case penalizing taxpayers for choosing health care alternatives instead of insurance!

If people CONSENT to mandates people have the right to pass laws as social contracts the public agree to. In general, the spirit of Constitutional law is consent of the governed, equal protection and representation, but the health care mandates violate such standards.

This is a question for the strict constitutionalists who believe we take the constitution literally, exactly as written.

Section 8 of Article 1 in known as the "enumerated powers" section. Here is where the various powers granted the congress are spelled out. The first article in that section is quoted, verbatim, below.

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Taking that literally, strictly as written, how does that limit the power of congress to legislate on any social program it chooses so long as it provides for the "general welfare"?

It is quite simple. The founders were educated and very literate. How can you interpret that any other way? Remember though, you are not supposed to interpret, you are to take it literally.

You cannot put the letter of the law before the spirit of the law, no matter how educated and skilled you are at making such an argument. If you don't include representation and protection of all people's interests EQUALLY, that is political abuse of govt authority.

The government already requires you buy old age, survivors, and disability insurance.


Actually the government already requires you buy health insurance, you just can't use it until your old.

so you are telling me that expanding these requirements more is going to help?
that's fine if you consent to this, but others who don't have equal right as you to be freed of it.

If you don't consent to this, there are ways to set up alternatives (as long as you are not imposing on others but covering your share of the costs) and not be under such laws if they are unconstitutional because of religious views. You can avoid paying taxes you feel are unconstitutional by setting up a business to run things yourself, and writing off the business expenses so you pay for your way, instead of paying for govt programs you don't believe are constitutional. you can run your life and activities under a church program or school and write off taxes that way. there are many ways to take control and not have to pay for anything you believe is unconstitutional. you just can't be depending on the system you are opposing; you really have to make the decision to be financially independent in order to make a consistent argument that has weight, and yes this can and has been done.

I know people who get into real estate investment and pay very little to ZERO TAXES.

there are even systems of independent currency and barter exchanges to localize economic resources as much as possible. many ways to do this where you don't depend on the govt but health care can be provided through educational programs and internships instead of relying on more mandates or bureaucracy to add to the mess we have now. Even insurance cos are blamed for making health care unavailable by dictating what will be covered or not, so the current system is already problematic and we don't need more.

 

[tjvh]

Yes... "General welfare of the United States" when written in 1776, was not referring to Government blocks of free cheese.

The Constitution wasn't written in 1776 you fucking moron.

Wow, It was 1787, and I put the wrong date... Relax nut-bag... No reason to get nasty.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This is a question for the strict constitutionalists who believe we take the constitution literally, exactly as written.

Section 8 of Article 1 in known as the "enumerated powers" section. Here is where the various powers granted the congress are spelled out. The first article in that section is quoted, verbatim, below.

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Taking that literally, strictly as written, how does that limit the power of congress to legislate on any social program it chooses so long as it provides for the "general welfare"?

It is quite simple. The founders were educated and very literate. How can you interpret that any other way? Remember though, you are not supposed to interpret, you are to take it literally.

What did they originally mean by the term "General Welfare"

As a person who feels the constitution should be read and interpreted according to its original intent...

...then you are wrong on too many counts to list here.

Read other posts: Founders/Framers/Ratifiers

The Constitution itself has no intent as it is only a document.

Madison argued that to interpret the Constitution, yes interpretation...one would have to look for the meanings and intent of the ratifiers.

The Constitutional Convention (the Framers NOT the Founders) meeting in secret...

...purposefully sent the document out to be ratified by the people and not the state legislatures. Up or down vote. No debate on changes...ratify up or down.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Both Hamilton and Madison were original authors of the Constitution, so you can't choose which view to accept based on which is the original view.

Again...once informed, your opinion, or mine, is as valid as any lawyer or Justice.

Ours doesn't have the force of law.

Nope. They were the main authors of the Federalist Essays...articles in newspapers.

 

[Pho_King]

Dear One Cut: The First and Fourteenth Amendment also provide checks and balances on how govt policies are made applied and interpreted. You basically cannot abuse govt to discriminate against people's religion and equal protection of the law.

If the health care mandates, for example, merely required people NOT to impose costs on others without ability to pay and required people to "find some way to cover their costs" (without dictating how, such as requiring insurance which is not the same as directly paying for one's costs), that would not have been intrusive on people's free choice.

The bill went too far by requiring people specifically to "buy insurance" and furthermore, by the govt regulating which people's religious affilitions qualify for exemption or not,
where some people are basically penalized by religious discrimination enforced by govt.

That is clearly unconstitutional. Nor can I see how any liberal politician can continue to make pro-choice arguments against penalizing people if they choose abortion while in this case penalizing taxpayers for choosing health care alternatives instead of insurance!

If people CONSENT to mandates people have the right to pass laws as social contracts the public agree to. In general, the spirit of Constitutional law is consent of the governed, equal protection and representation, but the health care mandates violate such standards.

This is a question for the strict constitutionalists who believe we take the constitution literally, exactly as written.

Section 8 of Article 1 in known as the "enumerated powers" section. Here is where the various powers granted the congress are spelled out. The first article in that section is quoted, verbatim, below.

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Taking that literally, strictly as written, how does that limit the power of congress to legislate on any social program it chooses so long as it provides for the "general welfare"?

It is quite simple. The founders were educated and very literate. How can you interpret that any other way? Remember though, you are not supposed to interpret, you are to take it literally.

You cannot put the letter of the law before the spirit of the law, no matter how educated and skilled you are at making such an argument. If you don't include representation and protection of all people's interests EQUALLY, that is political abuse of govt authority.

The government already requires you buy old age, survivors, and disability insurance.


Actually the government already requires you buy health insurance, you just can't use it until your old.

And if you OWS parasite have your way, there will be no end to the purchases the gubmint forces citizens to make. After all, you know best what the individual needs.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Both Hamilton and Madison were original authors of the Constitution, so you can't choose which view to accept based on which is the original view.

Again...once informed, your opinion, or mine, is as valid as any lawyer or Justice.

Ours doesn't have the force of law.

Nope. They were the main authors of the Federalist Essays...articles in newspapers.

They were also both authors of the Constitution.

Jeezums

 

[Dick Tuck]

Hamilton did not agree with Madison. Why should Hamilton's view be rejected in favor of Madison?

That's actually a pretty good question.

I hope that you can see that an answer to same requires, first, an understanding of the differences between the concepts of Originalism, and that of a 'living Constitution.'


Then, one chooses which is correct.
With understanding and exposure to debate on both sides, your opinion becomes the answer to your question.

Both Hamilton and Madison were original authors of the Constitution, so you can't choose which view to accept based on which is the original view.

Yes you can. Madison argued against the clause being too broad. His view didn't prevail. The losers don't get to say what a law or clause they opposed means.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes... "General welfare of the United States" when written in 1776, was not referring to Government blocks of free cheese.

The Constitution wasn't written in 1776 you fucking moron.

Both Hamilton and Madison were original authors of the Constitution, so you can't choose which view to accept based on which is the original view.

Again...once informed, your opinion, or mine, is as valid as any lawyer or Justice.

Ours doesn't have the force of law.

Nope. They were the main authors of the Federalist Essays...articles in newspapers.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I too have much faith in the US of A and it's people. We have been through harder times than this and we will always have chicken littles.
It is disheartening to hear such, but I remember that the one does not represent the many hard working faithful patriots of our nation.
To those that speak of fear and loss from strife I remind them of the eagle, how majestically it flies and soars looking for food, and never once have you seen that eagle in flight just give up flying and drop to the ground, refusing to give up on living.

We look about as graceful as a one winged turkey right now. Yes, we will always have chicken littles....too many that turn their back to the imminent dangers while keeping their hand out in respite.

Your remind me of the alarmists who scream because a single battle is lost, oh woe...the war is lost. Process. We may look one-winged now, but that is just because your perspective is skewed by a few things too numerous to list here

Likewise.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Dear One Cut: The First and Fourteenth Amendment also provide checks and balances on how govt policies are made applied and interpreted. You basically cannot abuse govt to discriminate against people's religion and equal protection of the law.

If the health care mandates, for example, merely required people NOT to impose costs on others without ability to pay and required people to "find some way to cover their costs" (without dictating how, such as requiring insurance which is not the same as directly paying for one's costs), that would not have been intrusive on people's free choice.

The bill went too far by requiring people specifically to "buy insurance" and furthermore, by the govt regulating which people's religious affilitions qualify for exemption or not,
where some people are basically penalized by religious discrimination enforced by govt.

That is clearly unconstitutional. Nor can I see how any liberal politician can continue to make pro-choice arguments against penalizing people if they choose abortion while in this case penalizing taxpayers for choosing health care alternatives instead of insurance!

If people CONSENT to mandates people have the right to pass laws as social contracts the public agree to. In general, the spirit of Constitutional law is consent of the governed, equal protection and representation, but the health care mandates violate such standards.



You cannot put the letter of the law before the spirit of the law, no matter how educated and skilled you are at making such an argument. If you don't include representation and protection of all people's interests EQUALLY, that is political abuse of govt authority.

The government already requires you buy old age, survivors, and disability insurance.


Actually the government already requires you buy health insurance, you just can't use it until your old.

so you are telling me that expanding these requirements more is going to help?
that's fine if you consent to this, but others who don't have equal right as you to be freed of it.

If you don't consent to this, there are ways to set up alternatives (as long as you are not imposing on others but covering your share of the costs) and not be under such laws if they are unconstitutional because of religious views. You can avoid paying taxes you feel are unconstitutional by setting up a business to run things yourself, and writing off the business expenses so you pay for your way, instead of paying for govt programs you don't believe are constitutional.

You can also go to prison for doing just that.

you can run your life and activities under a church program or school and write off taxes that way. there are many ways to take control and not have to pay for anything you believe is unconstitutional. you just can't be depending on the system you are opposing; you really have to make the decision to be financially independent in order to make a consistent argument that has weight, and yes this can and has been done.

I know people who get into real estate investment and pay very little to ZERO TAXES.

If the house they buy to "flip" is their primary residence, they are exempt from all cap gains less than 250k. If it isn't their actual primary resident, they're just tax cheats.

there are even systems of independent currency and barter exchanges to localize economic resources as much as possible. many ways to do this where you don't depend on the govt but health care can be provided through educational programs and internships instead of relying on more mandates or bureaucracy to add to the mess we have now. Even insurance cos are blamed for making health care unavailable by dictating what will be covered or not, so the current system is already problematic and we don't need more.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Both Hamilton and Madison were original authors of the Constitution, so you can't choose which view to accept based on which is the original view.



Ours doesn't have the force of law.

Nope. They were the main authors of the Federalist Essays...articles in newspapers.

They were also both authors of the Constitution.

Jeezums

you were just calling people morons and you are the biggest moron here: Who wrote the US Constitution? :even Answers R US knows better than you.

Answer:
A man named Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania was in charge of the committee to draft the final copy of the Constitution. Other men who had much to do with writing the Constitution included John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, and George Wythe. Morris was given the task of putting all the convention's resolutions and decisions into polished form. Morris actually "wrote" the Constitution. The original copy of the document is preserved in the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C.

Jacob Shallus who, at the time, was assistant clerk of the Pennsylvania State Assembly, and whose office was in the same building in which the Convention was held, was given the task of engrossing the Constitution prior to its being signed.

Here is more input from other WikiAnswers contributors:

The U.S. Constitution is the work of several men, directly and indirectly. The three most notable persons whose work influenced the Constitution but who were not involved in its writing are Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine. The group of men involved in the writing of the Constitution are generally referred to as the "framers".

----

Hamilton was NO author of the US Constitution. Dope

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We still have a federalist system. Hamilton won. Suggesting we do not have a federalist system anymore is silly

I don't think I suggested that at all, I simply pointed out that the principle author of the constitution made it clear what the clause meant, the Federalist view notwithstanding. You and I both know that is why we have a Supreme Court and since the 30's that view has prevailed, that said it does not mean those views will not or never change.

The Constitution didn't have a "principle author"

and Hamilton was not an author.

stop calling other people morons

go away

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Nope. They were the main authors of the Federalist Essays...articles in newspapers.

They were also both authors of the Constitution.

Jeezums

you were just calling people morons and you are the biggest moron here: Who wrote the US Constitution? :even Answers R US knows better than you.

Answer:
A man named Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania was in charge of the committee to draft the final copy of the Constitution. Other men who had much to do with writing the Constitution included John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, and George Wythe. Morris was given the task of putting all the convention's resolutions and decisions into polished form. Morris actually "wrote" the Constitution. The original copy of the document is preserved in the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C.

Jacob Shallus who, at the time, was assistant clerk of the Pennsylvania State Assembly, and whose office was in the same building in which the Convention was held, was given the task of engrossing the Constitution prior to its being signed.

Here is more input from other WikiAnswers contributors:

The U.S. Constitution is the work of several men, directly and indirectly. The three most notable persons whose work influenced the Constitution but who were not involved in its writing are Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine. The group of men involved in the writing of the Constitution are generally referred to as the "framers".

----

Hamilton was NO author of the US Constitution. Dope

Uhh, HELLO, Hamilton was at and participated in the Constitutional Convention!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I don't think I suggested that at all, I simply pointed out that the principle author of the constitution made it clear what the clause meant, the Federalist view notwithstanding. You and I both know that is why we have a Supreme Court and since the 30's that view has prevailed, that said it does not mean those views will not or never change.

The Constitution didn't have a "principle author"

and Hamilton was not an author.

stop calling other people morons

go away

He wasn't an EDITOR - everyone at the Constitutional Convention was an AUTHOR.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hamilton did not agree with Madison. Why should Hamilton's view be rejected in favor of Madison?

That's actually a pretty good question.

I hope that you can see that an answer to same requires, first, an understanding of the differences between the concepts of Originalism, and that of a 'living Constitution.'


Then, one chooses which is correct.
With understanding and exposure to debate on both sides, your opinion becomes the answer to your question.

Again...once informed, your opinion, or mine, is as valid as any lawyer or Justice.

If you want to discuss the founders intent, I suggest you read the July, 1798 law, "An act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen", that was signed by Adams. BTW, at the time, virtually all 13 states had imported into their own laws a version of "British Poor Law", sans the workhouse.

1. The act was approved by Congress on July 16, 1798. Just TWO DAYS EARLIER, on July 14, that same Congress approved the Alien and Sedition Acts, which Adams likewise accepted and signed. Jefferson–himself not a drafter of the U.S. Constitution but no slouch in the ConLaw department–denounced it as unconstitutional, and used it against Adams to win the Presidency in 1800.
“An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” | MetaFilter


2. " BTW, at the time, virtually all 13 states had imported into their own laws a version of "British Poor Law", sans the workhouse."

States.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes... "General welfare of the United States" when written in 1776, was not referring to Government blocks of free cheese.

The Constitution wasn't written in 1776 you fucking moron.

Wow, It was 1787, and I put the wrong date... Relax nut-bag... No reason to get nasty.

don't worry. the nutjob keeps insisting Hamilton wrote the Constitution

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Constitution wasn't written in 1776 you fucking moron.

Wow, It was 1787, and I put the wrong date... Relax nut-bag... No reason to get nasty.

don't worry. the nutjob keeps insisting Hamilton wrote the Constitution

If you insist on being completely literal, Madison didn't "write" the Constitution either.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They were also both authors of the Constitution.

Jeezums

you were just calling people morons and you are the biggest moron here: Who wrote the US Constitution? :even Answers R US knows better than you.

Answer:
A man named Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania was in charge of the committee to draft the final copy of the Constitution. Other men who had much to do with writing the Constitution included John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, and George Wythe. Morris was given the task of putting all the convention's resolutions and decisions into polished form. Morris actually "wrote" the Constitution. The original copy of the document is preserved in the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C.

Jacob Shallus who, at the time, was assistant clerk of the Pennsylvania State Assembly, and whose office was in the same building in which the Convention was held, was given the task of engrossing the Constitution prior to its being signed.

Here is more input from other WikiAnswers contributors:

The U.S. Constitution is the work of several men, directly and indirectly. The three most notable persons whose work influenced the Constitution but who were not involved in its writing are Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine. The group of men involved in the writing of the Constitution are generally referred to as the "framers".

----

Hamilton was NO author of the US Constitution. Dope

Uhh, HELLO, Hamilton was at and participated in the Constitutional Convention!

You started out claiming Hamilton and Madison were the principles authors of the US Constitution.

You then fell back on your claim and stated they were both authors of the US Constitution.

methinks you confused the Federalist Essays with the Constitution, but were just too sleazy and skanky to admit the error

find a link that credits Hamilton as an author of the US Constitution

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

when wingnuts fly:

He led the Annapolis Convention, which successfully influenced Congress to issue a call for the Philadelphia Convention in order to create a new constitution. He was an active participant at Philadelphia and helped achieve ratification by writing 51 of the 85 installments of the Federalist Papers, which supported the new constitution and to this day is the single most important source for Constitutional interpretation. Alexander Hamilton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

even Wikipedia is not silly enough to claim Alexander Hamilton as Madison's principle co-Author of the US Constitution. but Pooh-shit-pants-bahahaha, has called others morons

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

you were just calling people morons and you are the biggest moron here: Who wrote the US Constitution? :even Answers R US knows better than you.

Answer:
A man named Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania was in charge of the committee to draft the final copy of the Constitution. Other men who had much to do with writing the Constitution included John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, and George Wythe. Morris was given the task of putting all the convention's resolutions and decisions into polished form. Morris actually "wrote" the Constitution. The original copy of the document is preserved in the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C.

Jacob Shallus who, at the time, was assistant clerk of the Pennsylvania State Assembly, and whose office was in the same building in which the Convention was held, was given the task of engrossing the Constitution prior to its being signed.

Here is more input from other WikiAnswers contributors:

The U.S. Constitution is the work of several men, directly and indirectly. The three most notable persons whose work influenced the Constitution but who were not involved in its writing are Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine. The group of men involved in the writing of the Constitution are generally referred to as the "framers".

----

Hamilton was NO author of the US Constitution. Dope

Uhh, HELLO, Hamilton was at and participated in the Constitutional Convention!

You started out claiming Hamilton and Madison were the principles authors of the US Constitution.

No I DIDN'T
I said they were both AUTHORS - not that they were "the principle authors"