Repeal, Reform, Reload

[SpidermanTuba]

Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

Bullshit.

Hamilton is not my favorite Founder - but he never never said that.

,

Sorry, but I'm going to take the word of both former Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts and Hamilton himself over yours.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures


A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

 

[Contumacious]

U.S. v. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)


.

Its funny you would give me a link that helps me support my case. From your link:

While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of section 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

That was the opinion of the Government.

SCOTUS opinion begins after the following introduction:



Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

.

 

[Vast LWC]

The Mandate and Mug Clause

Where is the constitutional authority for ObamaCare?

David Harsanyi | March 24, 2010

What does it say about your cause that nearly every policy idea you cook up is based in some form or another on coercing the American people?

When House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), was asked recently to identify where the Constitution grants Congress the authority to force all Americans to buy health insurance, he replied, "Under several clauses, the good and welfare clause and a couple others."

For those of you who aren't familiar with the "good and welfare" clause, it states, "The Congress shall have Power to make Citizens of each State compelled to partake of the Privileges of Health Care Insurance, & those who refuse will be fined, charged with a misdemeanor Crime or lashed (or receive Medicaid)."

.

You keep proposing the same argument over and over again.

Did this debate change since the last 25 times we had it?

Please tell us, specifically, how the health care bill is "unconstitutional".

Please explain to us how it is unconstitutional for congress to create a law to prevent what they see as harm to society, in other words, "protecting the general welfare".

If they determine it is a crime for people to go without health insurance, then it is a crime. If they define the punishment for such crime to be a fine, then so be it.

The reason congress uses to make this a crime is that if people do not carry health insurance, they are causing harm upon society, due to the fact that society is then forced to pay their bill when they are injured or seriously ill.

It's the same rationale used for car insurance requirements. Is requiring car insurance also "unconstitutional"?

I imagine some right-wingers will say yes to that last question, that is, right up until the point someone hits their car.

 

[Vast LWC]

You may feel this is the wrong approach to the situation, and that's fine.

You may feel that this places an unfair burden on people, and that is also fine.

But this is NOT, in any way, "unconstitutional". Repeating your opinion that it is "unconstitutional" over and over again is not going to make it more true.

 

[Vast LWC]

Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

Bullshit.

Hamilton is not my favorite Founder - but he never never said that.

Actually he's completely correct.

There were at least two diametrically opposed schools of thought on this issue even then.

 

[Contumacious]

When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”

James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”
general welfare

Excellent.

 

[Contumacious]

Firstly let me state that I believe that the federal government has no jurisdiction over health care under any constitutional proviso.

But the reality is that Supreme Court justices are low life scumbags. They have done more to destruct the Constitution than any democrat son of a beach.


There is no doubt that Obama and his marxist legion relied upon


Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 545 U.S. 1, 162 L.Ed.2d 1 (U.S.06/06/2005)
for their decision to nationalize healthcare.



Justice Thomas, dissenting.

[135] Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything -- and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.


Our Constitution has been abolished - we no longer have rights - only those privileges allowed by the fascist state:


...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

Benito Mussolini:
1932

.