Gubernatorial Decrees and the Fifth Amendment

MadChemist

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
641
Reaction score
60
Points
75
National Emergency

All bets are off

My state just closed the schools, restaurants, bars, movies, gyms
And why are the bets off ?

All a president has to do is declare national emergency and our whole system of government is set aside ?

Does not seem correct to me.
 

MadChemist

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
641
Reaction score
60
Points
75
National Emergency

All bets are off

My state just closed the schools, restaurants, bars, movies, gyms
Can we count on government employees to not get paid while the private sector is closed?
Who do you think is leading the charge against Coronavirus?

Those worthless government employees
Only a few government workers are fighting the commie virus

teachers for instance

but if government is going to deny private citizens the right to work it should share the pain by denying itself also
Show a public health threat and I am sure they will shut it down
Who decides when it is a threat.

What is the standard ?
 

MadChemist

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
641
Reaction score
60
Points
75
National Emergency

All bets are off

My state just closed the schools, restaurants, bars, movies, gyms
Can you point to that power in the constitution?
At the State level?
That is where they are being closed
Sigh
There is no emergency powers in the constitution.
States right do not Trump the amendments of the constitution.
Of course, you do not care about any of that. Do you
Helping in an emergency is for the General Welfare of We the People.
Well within the broad powers of Congress
That is not what General Welfare means.

Madison was quite clear on the subject.


It is supposed by some gentlemen, that Congress have authority not only to grant bounties in the sense here used, merely as a commutation for drawbacks, but even to grant them under a power by virtue of which they may do anything which they may think conducive to the “general welfare.” This, sir, in my mind, raises the important and fundamental question, whether the general terms which had been cited, are to be considered as a sort of caption or general description of the specified powers, and as having no further meaning, and giving no further power, than what is found in that specification, or as an abstract and indefinite delegation of power extending to all cases whatever; to all such at least, as will admit the application of money, which is giving as much latitude as any government could well desire.

I, sir, have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the constitution conceived; it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, those who ratified the constitution conceived, that this is not an indefinite government deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers—but, a limited government tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.
 

Gdjjr

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
4,362
Reaction score
1,239
Points
145
Location
Texas
The General Welfare Clause Is Not a Blank Check

“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.”
Here the phrase actually carries legal weight. As a result, these words create something of a dilemma. Either the founders didn’t really intend to create a general government with limited powers, or the general welfare clause doesn’t really mean Congress has the authority to fund anything and everything it deems beneficial to the nation as a whole.

The fact that the framers followed up the general welfare clause in Article I Sec. 8 with a list of specific powers indicates the latter. The enumerated powers serve as a qualification [limitation] on federal authority to collect taxes for the general welfare. If the framers of the Constitution had intended for Congress to have the power to do virtually anything and everything to promote the “general welfare” however it defined the term, they wouldn’t have bothered to include a list of specific powers. They would have just stopped at the general welfare clause.


In fact, legal rules of construction dictate that when reading a legal document, the enumeration of certain powers logically excludes all other powers not listed. This is actually a legal maxim – Designato unius est exclusio alterius – meaning, “the designation of one is the exclusion of the other.”

James Madison made this very point in a letter to James Robertson dated April 20, 1831.


Notice too, if you will, the word welfare is capitalized making it a noun, which is a person, place or thing, not an action. general Welfare- to promote the, is what the preamble says- not provide welfare in general. Provide and promote are not the same thing. It's a word castigation lawyers like to use along with empty suits in the District of Criminals can play with- kinda like "authorizing military force" vs Declaring War (as they know wars of aggression are not constitutional) to abdicate their congressional authority elsewhere and allow the press to use the words "war on" the cause de jour to placate and appease idiots that either can't or refuse to read and acknowledge *words mean things* as does the use of capitals and commas.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top