Why The Health care Bills are Unconstitutional

[Meister]

Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.
The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Maybe this will clarify for those liberals on the left

Promote the general welfare does not mean or imply provide for the general welfare

If you want to promote the general welfare then let us all keep more of what we earn then we can decide what insurance to buy or not to buy.

eh, skull......The Founding Fathers had an entirely different meaning to the word "welfare"
"health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being" That is their definition of welfare.
Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.
The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Maybe this will clarify for those liberals on the left

Promote the general welfare does not mean or imply provide for the general welfare

If you want to promote the general welfare then let us all keep more of what we earn then we can decide what insurance to buy or not to buy.

eh, skull......The Founding Fathers had an entirely different meaning to the word "welfare"
"health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being" That is their definition of welfare.
Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

regardless of the definition of welfare, promote does not mean provide for.

 

[Meister]

Promote the general welfare does not mean or imply provide for the general welfare

If you want to promote the general welfare then let us all keep more of what we earn then we can decide what insurance to buy or not to buy.

eh, skull......The Founding Fathers had an entirely different meaning to the word "welfare"
"health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being" That is their definition of welfare.
Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

regardless of the definition of welfare, promote does not mean provide for.

Of course it doesn't, and that's the point I'm making.
"health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being" This is their definition of welfare. Not the use of public or private funds. The definition of the word welfare has morphed since the Founding fathers. THAT is my point.

 

[Navy1960]

SOUTH DAKOTA v. DOLE, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)


"[E]very rebate from a tax when conditioned upon conduct is in some measure a temptation. But to hold that motive or temptation is equivalent to coercion is to plunge the law in endless difficulties. The outcome of such a doctrine is the acceptance of a philosophical determinism by which choice becomes impossible. Till now the law has been guided by a robust common sense which assumes the freedom of the will as a working hypothesis in the solution of its problems." 301 U.S., at 589 -590.

Here Congress has offered relatively mild encouragement to the States to enact higher minimum drinking ages than they would otherwise choose. But the enactment of such laws remains the prerogative of the States not merely in theory [483 U.S. 203, 212] but in fact. Even if Congress might lack the power to impose a national minimum drinking age directly, we conclude that encouragement to state action found in 158 is a valid use of the spending power. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed.....
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=483&invol=203

Even in this case when the Govt. uses withholdings as a vaild means to compel a state to comply with Federal legislation the State makes the "Choice" and the "Choice" itself is not mandated. What the current healthcare bill has done is take the general welfare clause one step further to mean that Congress has unlimted power to compel individuals and states to comply which they clearly do not.

 

[Polk]

Although I would go with the latter, Joe is not alone in his stupidity. Ms Pelosi believes the constitution is a "non - issue".

What constitution? We don't need no stinkin constitution!

That takes a lot of nerve, considering the most recent president of your party called it "a goddamned piece of paper".

 

[Meister]

Although I would go with the latter, Joe is not alone in his stupidity. Ms Pelosi believes the constitution is a "non - issue".

What constitution? We don't need no stinkin constitution!

That takes a lot of nerve, considering the most recent president of your party called it "a goddamned piece of paper".

In what context , Polk?
Is it in the context "The constitution is a Goddamned piece of paper."?
Or, was it "No, the constitution is not just a Goddamned piece of paper."?
See, why you need to be more specific, and maybe a source to go along with your claim, so we CAN see the context?

 

[Meister]

Hmmm, Polk.....tsk, tsk, tsk...shame on you


December 12, 2007
Q: Did President Bush call the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper?"
Is it true that President Bush called the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper?" He has never denied it, and it appears that there were several witnesses.
A: Extremely unlikely. The Web site that reported those words has a history of quoting phony sources and retracting bogus stories.
The report that Bush "screamed" those words at Republican congressional leaders in November 2005 is unsubstantiated, to put it charitably.

We judge that the odds that the report is accurate hover near zero. It comes from Capitol Hill Blue, a Web site that has a history of relying on phony sources, retracting stories and apologizing to its readers.


The Quote


The report was posted on Dec. 5, 2005. According to author, Doug Thompson, unnamed Republican leaders complained to Bush during a White House meeting about "onerous" portions of the USA Patriot Act, prompting the following:
Capitol Hill Blue: “I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

The evidence


There's no record of Bush ever using these words in public and no other news organization has reported him using them privately. Thompson based his report on three sources whom he didn't name. He gave the date of the quote as "last month," which would put it sometime in November 2005.

Thompson told us he once removed the story from his Web site when others raised doubts and no other news organization came up with a similar story. But he said he later reinstated it and currently believes it to be true. "I wrote the story and I stand by it," Thompson said in a telephone interview.

Thompson told us he based the story on e-mail messages from three persons he knows, all of whom claim to have been present at a White House meeting and to have heard Bush make the statement. He said he finds their account credible: "Sometimes I just have to go with my gut, and my gut tells me he did say this."


The unreliable gut


Thompson's "gut" has proven to be a unreliable guide in the past, however. He has admitted quoting trusted sources in the past who later turned out to be frauds -- twice.

In 2003 Thompson confessed that he had been "conned big time" by a source who claimed to be a former CIA contract consultant named Terrance J. Wilkinson. Thompson quoted this "source" as claiming to be present at two White House meetings in which Bush ignored intelligence officials' doubts about reports of Iraq seeking uranium. Thompson said he had been relying on the same man for two decades and had "no doubt" about his credibility, only to discover that "someone has been running a con on me for 20 some years and I fell for it like a little old lady in a pigeon drop scheme." He erased a number of stories from the site that had been based on information from "Wilkinson" and deleted anonymous quotes given to him by "Wilkinson" from other stories.

Thompson said then: "It will be a long time (and perhaps never) before I trust someone else who comes forward and offers inside information. The next one who does had better be prepared to produce a birth certificate, a driver's license and his grandmother's maiden name."


That was two years before the "piece of paper" quote attributed to three unnamed sources. But, far from demanding solid proof, Thompson continued to quote at least one more phony source until 2006, when a blogger started to question the existence of "George Harleigh." Thompson had for years quoted this supposed former Nixon and Bush appointee. But when no records of such a man could be found, Thompson admitted he had never even met him.
FactCheck.org: Did President Bush call the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper?"

 

[Polk]

Shame on me? You think he's going to admit to saying something like that? You really are naive.

 

[Meister]

Shame on me? You think he's going to admit to saying something like that? You really are naive.

No named source, and you would use it? Doug Thompson, known for using fraudulent sources, and this is what you hang your hat on? Yes...shame on you. You are a dishonest hack with no integrity, Polk. Yep....shame on you....and still no credible source from you, that's pathetic.

 

[Citizen]

Hatch, Blackwell and Klukowski: Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional - WSJ.com

The federal government may exercise only the powers granted to it or denied to the states. The states may do everything else. This is why, for example, states may have authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance but the federal government does not. It is also the reason states may require that individuals purchase car insurance before choosing to drive a car, but the federal government may not require all individuals to purchase health insurance.

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.

I would like to point out two quotes from the Founding Fathers that may clear up your misunderstanding.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." - James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 25, 1788 - considered the 'father of the Constitution'

"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

 

[Polk]

Shame on me? You think he's going to admit to saying something like that? You really are naive.

No named source, and you would use it? Doug Thompson, known for using fraudulent sources, and this is what you hang your hat on? Yes...shame on you. You are a dishonest hack with no integrity, Polk. Yep....shame on you....and still no credible source from you, that's pathetic.

Any source I'd provide you'd deem as not being credible because it doesn't align with your view on the issue. If you want to see a hack, look in the mirror.

 

[Meister]

Shame on me? You think he's going to admit to saying something like that? You really are naive.

No named source, and you would use it? Doug Thompson, known for using fraudulent sources, and this is what you hang your hat on? Yes...shame on you. You are a dishonest hack with no integrity, Polk. Yep....shame on you....and still no credible source from you, that's pathetic.

Any source I'd provide you'd deem as not being credible because it doesn't align with your view on the issue. If you want to see a hack, look in the mirror.

All I asked for is a credible source, and the person who printed it wasn't credible. That leaves you with nothing. But, you still used it, which makes you a dishonest hack, Polk.

 

[Polk]

No named source, and you would use it? Doug Thompson, known for using fraudulent sources, and this is what you hang your hat on? Yes...shame on you. You are a dishonest hack with no integrity, Polk. Yep....shame on you....and still no credible source from you, that's pathetic.

Any source I'd provide you'd deem as not being credible because it doesn't align with your view on the issue. If you want to see a hack, look in the mirror.

All I asked for is a credible source, and the person who printed it wasn't credible. That leaves you with nothing. But, you still used it, which makes you a dishonest hack, Polk.

He's "not credible" in your eyes because you say he's not credible. That's in not even remotely evidence.

 

[Meister]

Any source I'd provide you'd deem as not being credible because it doesn't align with your view on the issue. If you want to see a hack, look in the mirror.

All I asked for is a credible source, and the person who printed it wasn't credible. That leaves you with nothing. But, you still used it, which makes you a dishonest hack, Polk.

He's "not credible" in your eyes because you say he's not credible. That's in not even remotely evidence.

Polk, at this point you are looking embarrassingly stupid. I see you didn't even read post #27....if's from FactCheck. For the love of God, Thompson was busted on several occasions. Geeze, try reading before you make yourself look stupid at least.
I was wrong about you, your not a dishonest hack....your a stupid dishonest hack.

 

[Polk]

All I asked for is a credible source, and the person who printed it wasn't credible. That leaves you with nothing. But, you still used it, which makes you a dishonest hack, Polk.

He's "not credible" in your eyes because you say he's not credible. That's in not even remotely evidence.

Polk, at this point you are looking embarrassingly stupid. I see you didn't even read post #27....if's from FactCheck. For the love of God, Thompson was busted on several occasions. Geeze, try reading before you make yourself look stupid at least.
I was wrong about you, your not a dishonest hack....your a stupid dishonest hack.

I guess anything reported by Fox is not credible either, as they've been busted on many occasions for making up stories out of thin air.

 

[Meister]

He's "not credible" in your eyes because you say he's not credible. That's in not even remotely evidence.

Polk, at this point you are looking embarrassingly stupid. I see you didn't even read post #27....if's from FactCheck. For the love of God, Thompson was busted on several occasions. Geeze, try reading before you make yourself look stupid at least.
I was wrong about you, your not a dishonest hack....your a stupid dishonest hack.

I guess anything reported by Fox is not credible either, as they've been busted on many occasions for making up stories out of thin air.

I thought we were talking about what Bush supposedly said.

 

[Joe Steel]

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.

So the government can mandate that you buy X pounds of tomatoes, broccoli, and spinach a year and then slap you with a punitive tax if you don't comply?

So the government can mandate that everyone buy a house with no more than 100 square feet per occupant or tax you if you don't comply?

So the government can tell you that you have to buy a new car every year and tax you if you don't comply?

An argument can be made that the three examples above are for the general welfare of the country and its citizens and any policy is permissible right?

Yes.

You obviously believe you are utterly incapable of handling the responsibilities that come with liberty but your real flaw is that you believe no one else can handle said responsibility either.

No.

 

[Joe Steel]

Promote the general welfare does not mean or imply provide for the general welfare

If you want to promote the general welfare then let us all keep more of what we earn then we can decide what insurance to buy or not to buy.

eh, skull......The Founding Fathers had an entirely different meaning to the word "welfare"
"health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being" That is their definition of welfare.
Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

regardless of the definition of welfare, promote does not mean provide for.

See Article 1, Section 8.

 

[Navy1960]

Promote the General Welfare is in the Preamble and Provide is in Article 1 Sec. 8, however this does not give Congress unlimted legislative powers to legislate no matter how much the " living document" views and those who side with Hamilton the matter would like it too. There are literally numerous cases where the Supreme Court has struck down all or part of legislation based on constitutional merits. In fact as I poseted elsewhere, the Supreme Courts view on the matter is quit clear

ButlerCase
T]he [General Welfare] 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. &#8230; 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. &#8230; But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations. &#8230; [T]he powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.


but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Same Justice Story commenting on this clause...

It was to cut off all undue preferences of one state over another in the regulation of subjects affecting their common interests. Unless duties, imposts, and excises were uniform, the grossest and most oppressive inequalities, vitally affecting the pursuits and employments of the people of different states, might exist
Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a reason why it's called the tax and spend clause, and not the compel for general welfare clause.

The General Welfare clause in Article I Section 8
is an introduction to the enumerated powers that follow
and not itself a grant of power.

James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,

If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.

 

[Joe Steel]

ButlerCase

T]he [General Welfare] 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. … 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. … But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations. … [T]he powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Your citation tends to support the "unlimited powers" interpretation rather than the "enumerated powers" interpretation.

What's your point?