Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Exactly the opposite interpretation of the General Welfare clause, which James Madison (y'know...the guy who WROTE IT) spelled out in Federalist 41.Let me help.
Article 1, Section 8 empowers Congress to:
Congress has determined health care for all Americans to be necessary for the general welfare so the spending at issue is permissible.
Congress is going 180° against the spirit and intent of that clause, tovarich.
The Federalist is a sales brochure. It was written to encourage the citizens of New York to ratify the Constitution. It is no more reliable an exposition of the Constitution than a Ford sales brochure is of the ideal automobile. Would you say a Ford sales brochure was a perfect and complete definition of the ideal automobile?
Federalist 41, 19 January 1788, very likely was written as a response to Brutus V, 13 December 1787 and Brutus VI, 27 December 1787. They give a bit of a different view of the general welfare, one which I find far more reasonable. You should read them.
Let me help.
Article 1, Section 8 empowers Congress to:
Congress has determined health care for all Americans to be necessary for the general welfare so the spending at issue is permissible.
WRONG!!!! Article 1, Section 8 DOES NOT apply to healthcare and more entitlements for no loads. Why should I work my 60 hours a week, pay my bills on time, pay for me and my families health care and then have worthless lazy fucks who refuse to earn their keep and young bulletproof yuppies refuse to buy healthcare so they can have a Porsche get healthcare ON MY FUCKING DIME!!!!!
Not so. The general welfare is anything Congress says it is. If they define the health of all those persons you dislike so much as the general welfare, you're just going to have get out your checkbook.
Since you know so much about the Constitution and I, according to you, know nothing. Perhaps you would be so kind as to post the part of said document that says these payoffs are legal. I would really appriciate it being as your so smart and I'm just an ignorant Rube.
Thank you so much for your kindness.
Let me help.
Article 1, Section 8 empowers Congress to:provide for the...general welfare of the United States...
Congress has determined health care for all Americans to be necessary for the general welfare so the spending at issue is permissible.
WRONG!!!! Article 1, Section 8 DOES NOT apply to healthcare and more entitlements for no loads. Why should I work my 60 hours a week, pay my bills on time, pay for me and my families health care and then have worthless lazy fucks who refuse to earn their keep and young bulletproof yuppies refuse to buy healthcare so they can have a Porsche get healthcare ON MY FUCKING DIME!!!!!
WRONG!!!! Article 1, Section 8 DOES NOT apply to healthcare and more entitlements for no loads. Why should I work my 60 hours a week, pay my bills on time, pay for me and my families health care and then have worthless lazy fucks who refuse to earn their keep and young bulletproof yuppies refuse to buy healthcare so they can have a Porsche get healthcare ON MY FUCKING DIME!!!!!
Not so. The general welfare is anything Congress says it is. If they define the health of all those persons you dislike so much as the general welfare, you're just going to have get out your checkbook.
well well well look what the libtards dragged in. a diff board now. tired of getting you ass handed to you ????
Exactly the opposite interpretation of the General Welfare clause, which James Madison (y'know...the guy who WROTE IT) spelled out in Federalist 41.Let me help.
Article 1, Section 8 empowers Congress to:
Congress has determined health care for all Americans to be necessary for the general welfare so the spending at issue is permissible.
Congress is going 180° against the spirit and intent of that clause, tovarich.
The Federalist is a sales brochure. It was written to encourage the citizens of New York to ratify the Constitution. It is no more reliable an exposition of the Constitution than a Ford sales brochure is of the ideal automobile. Would you say a Ford sales brochure was a perfect and complete definition of the ideal automobile?
Federalist 41, 19 January 1788, very likely was written as a response to Brutus V, 13 December 1787 and Brutus VI, 27 December 1787. They give a bit of a different view of the general welfare, one which I find far more reasonable. You should read them.
The Federalist is a sales brochure. It was written to encourage the citizens of New York to ratify the Constitution. It is no more reliable an exposition of the Constitution than a Ford sales brochure is of the ideal automobile. Would you say a Ford sales brochure was a perfect and complete definition of the ideal automobile?
Federalist 41, 19 January 1788, very likely was written as a response to Brutus V, 13 December 1787 and Brutus VI, 27 December 1787. They give a bit of a different view of the general welfare, one which I find far more reasonable. You should read them.
The General Welfare clause can be interpreted in more ways than one.
How do you know it means that the Govt can mandate healthcare to all and that they have the right to do so?? That the Congress can use taxpayer money as "bribes"? Is this in the general welfare?? Or just the welfare of some??
The" General Welfare " statement can cover a pretty broad area.
Federalist 41, 19 January 1788, very likely was written as a response to Brutus V, 13 December 1787 and Brutus VI, 27 December 1787. They give a bit of a different view of the general welfare, one which I find far more reasonable. You should read them.
Funny, SCOTUS feels differently and has since Marshall was Chief Justice:
http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/documents/MAGGS.pdf
Federalist 41, 19 January 1788, very likely was written as a response to Brutus V, 13 December 1787 and Brutus VI, 27 December 1787. They give a bit of a different view of the general welfare, one which I find far more reasonable. You should read them.
Funny, SCOTUS feels differently and has since Marshall was Chief Justice:
http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/documents/MAGGS.pdf
Sum it up for me. What's your point?
Pretty interesting read. I will definetly try to get a copy of these papers. Interesting.Exactly the opposite interpretation of the General Welfare clause, which James Madison (y'know...the guy who WROTE IT) spelled out in Federalist 41.
Congress is going 180° against the spirit and intent of that clause, tovarich.
The Federalist is a sales brochure. It was written to encourage the citizens of New York to ratify the Constitution. It is no more reliable an exposition of the Constitution than a Ford sales brochure is of the ideal automobile. Would you say a Ford sales brochure was a perfect and complete definition of the ideal automobile?
Federalist 41, 19 January 1788, very likely was written as a response to Brutus V, 13 December 1787 and Brutus VI, 27 December 1787. They give a bit of a different view of the general welfare, one which I find far more reasonable. You should read them.
Funny, SCOTUS feels differently and has since Marshall was Chief Justice:
http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/documents/MAGGS.pdf
Pretty interesting read. I will definetly try to get a copy of these papers. Interesting.The Federalist is a sales brochure. It was written to encourage the citizens of New York to ratify the Constitution. It is no more reliable an exposition of the Constitution than a Ford sales brochure is of the ideal automobile. Would you say a Ford sales brochure was a perfect and complete definition of the ideal automobile?
Federalist 41, 19 January 1788, very likely was written as a response to Brutus V, 13 December 1787 and Brutus VI, 27 December 1787. They give a bit of a different view of the general welfare, one which I find far more reasonable. You should read them.
Funny, SCOTUS feels differently and has since Marshall was Chief Justice:
http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/documents/MAGGS.pdf
Pretty interesting read. I will definetly try to get a copy of these papers. Interesting.Funny, SCOTUS feels differently and has since Marshall was Chief Justice:
http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/documents/MAGGS.pdf
Sold in any bookstore:
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Federalist-Papers-Signet-Classics/dp/0451528816/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261586271&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: The Federalist Papers (Signet Classics) (9780451528810): Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, Clinton Rossiter, Charles R. Kesler: Books[/ame]
The Federalist is a sales brochure. It was written to encourage the citizens of New York to ratify the Constitution. It is no more reliable an exposition of the Constitution than a Ford sales brochure is of the ideal automobile. Would you say a Ford sales brochure was a perfect and complete definition of the ideal automobile?
Federalist 41, 19 January 1788, very likely was written as a response to Brutus V, 13 December 1787 and Brutus VI, 27 December 1787. They give a bit of a different view of the general welfare, one which I find far more reasonable. You should read them.
The General Welfare clause can be interpreted in more ways than one.
How do you know it means that the Govt can mandate healthcare to all and that they have the right to do so?? That the Congress can use taxpayer money as "bribes"? Is this in the general welfare?? Or just the welfare of some??
The" General Welfare " statement can cover a pretty broad area.
Exactly. That's why the Founders added the so-called enumerated powers. Reasonable persons can have good-faith disagreements about what serves the general welfare. The 15 or so things following the general welfare clause are explicitly defined as the serving the general welfare. Congress may do these things without further discussion but that doesn't mean they can't do whatever else they think would serve the general welfare.
It falls under the equal protection clause.
The Feds can't make laws that include one state and grants favors to others. Also, states can add more laws to federal laws but not take away laws.
This is the important part and well worth looking at. I don't think anything they are doing is Constitutional. How can you tell someone that they HAVE TO BUY anyhthing??
Was wathching Greta last night and she had Sen Thune on and he said they will be bringing their questions on some of these hidden little gems to the floor for debate. Seems the Dems will do just about anything to get this peice of shit passed and be part of this HISTORIC moment. Not cool.
now stop pretending you know anything about the Constitution, please.
Of course some of your fellow legal scholars may disagree with you
WSJ
Mandatory Insurance Is Unconstitutional
Why an individual mandate could be struck down by the courts.
Federal legislation requiring that every American have health insurance is part of all the major health-care reform plans now being considered in Washington. Such a mandate, however, would expand the federal government’s authority over individual Americans to an unprecedented degree. It is also profoundly unconstitutional.
now stop pretending you know anything about the Constitution, please.
Of course some of your fellow legal scholars may disagree with you
WSJ
Mandatory Insurance Is Unconstitutional
Why an individual mandate could be struck down by the courts.
Federal legislation requiring that every American have health insurance is part of all the major health-care reform plans now being considered in Washington. Such a mandate, however, would expand the federal governments authority over individual Americans to an unprecedented degree. It is also profoundly unconstitutional.
I'm sure Baker Hostetler will be very proud that it's attorneys so zealously represent their interests.
But there is no caselaw substantiating that opinion piece.
Nice find, though.
The equal protection clause still applies only to people.
She did not say it was unconstitutional because the federal government was overreaching. She said it was unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. Insofar as "overreaching" of the federal government, the caselaw as it stands would not agree.
And i have no doubt that the writers of the OPINION PIECE would also have claimed that social security is unconstitutional -- which has been the right wing rant since Roosevelt was president.\
At least you found something interesting. She didn't have a clue what she was talking about. For some reason, there is this whole segment of the population that pretends it has some expertise in an area that even the justices who sit on the high court are split on.
My comments to her stand... regardless of the right's wishes that social security and its sequellae were unconstitutional...
it sure as heck has nothing to do with some purported equal protection argument on behalf of the states. so in answer to your comment...no, the don't disagree with me. In fact the disparity of funding between states wasn't an issue when the article was written.
No matter what they pass, they cannot inhibit a future Congress, as that is illeagal.Most Ethical Congress ever- A list of the bribes for PapaObama Care
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most Ethical Congress ever- A list of the bribes for PapaObama Care
This Liberalcare bill is as filthy and nasty as American politics can get. Further, it is flat out socialism in it's conception, as the voice of the American people is not even considered and they are inhibiting future congresses.
It is time for the liberal party, the democrats to be disassembled for good.
As we need a good solid change in Washington on both sides, across the board, it is imperative that the liberals be ran out for good.
Mike
Exactly the opposite interpretation of the General Welfare clause, which James Madison (y'know...the guy who WROTE IT) spelled out in Federalist 41.Since you know so much about the Constitution and I, according to you, know nothing. Perhaps you would be so kind as to post the part of said document that says these payoffs are legal. I would really appriciate it being as your so smart and I'm just an ignorant Rube.
Thank you so much for your kindness.
Let me help.
Article 1, Section 8 empowers Congress to:provide for the...general welfare of the United States...
Congress has determined health care for all Americans to be necessary for the general welfare so the spending at issue is permissible.
Congress is going 180° against the spirit and intent of that clause, tovarich.
politics is the art of compromise and you idiots call deal making bribery.?
what a world, what a world.
the koolaid must be so much stronger this year.
politics is the art of compromise and you idiots call deal making bribery.?
what a world, what a world.
the koolaid must be so much stronger this year.
The wingnuts don't know what compromise is. That's why they're trying to drum all of the moderates out of the GOP. They think there is something admirable about going down with all of your political principles intact, rather than compromising a little so you can get a lot.
Funny, SCOTUS feels differently and has since Marshall was Chief Justice:
http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/documents/MAGGS.pdf
Sum it up for me. What's your point?
Don't make statements that are wrong. SOTUS has cited the Federalist Papers time and time again.
