Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by Skull Pilot, Jan 3, 2010.
Hatch, Blackwell and Klukowski: Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional - WSJ.com
If these guys are going to make a constitutional argument, they have to use all the Constitution.
The Tenth Amendment ends with the words "...or to the People." The First Amendment includes the words "...petition congress for a redress of grievances." Together they mean the People may require Congress to address those situations which the People find bothersome or vexatious and remedy them. Considering the stated intent of the Constitution to "promote the general welfare," any policy is permissible.
This is why we have a SCOTUS, which makes such determinations based not only on the Constitution, but on case law and something you've never heard of -- the Federalist Papers, which in much more detail lay out the framers' intentions.
Wrong as usual. The ENTIRE point of the Constitution and Article 1 Section 8 is to LIMIT the Federal Governments power and that of Congress specifically. Claiming that two words in a sentence somehow negates that is ignorant beyond belief. 2 words in a sentence that is not EVEN one of the powers listed.
This is exactly why we must challenge every time someone regurgitate lies as truth. 'General welfare' does not give congress the power to do whatever the hell it wants.
Oh, I've heard of them. In fact, unlike you, I know what they mean.
Here's your case law:
You believe that's a broad, blanket ruling that says Congress can basically do what it wants to do? You didn't even READ the stuff your google search sent you to, before posting it!
You didn't read.
Why do you say that?
Separate names with a comma.