Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-16-2009, 03:48 PM
 
Location: Illinois Delta
5,767 posts, read 4,994,745 times
Reputation: 2063

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
Please...informal amendments are a non issue here, as it does not change the wording of the Constitution, but rather people's perceptions. We are discussing a change to the wording itself. Obviously judicial precident is important, however again - it cannot be in direct conflict with the wording of the Constitution. The general welface clause is not ambiguous. It is worded such that it only applies to the nation as a whole, and not to individuals who reside within.

I am not sure what you mean by 'win friends', however I will match the level of contention shown to me. Please look at the context to which you are posting, as while the facts you displayed here are true and good, they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Stay on topic.
************************************************** ********
I am on topic; you disagree that the Constitution is a living document, and insist on trying to delineate "the nation" from "individuals who reside therein." The people are the nation...without them, you have nothing but
empty land...and that isn't much of a "nation." I only posted info from a site based on the Constitution and not on one person's interpretation, which was contradicted by the legal scholars who maintain the site.
Quite clearly, they disagree with your allegation that a nation and its inhabitants are separate entities. To reiterate one point from the sections quoted:
[The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, "... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them."]
In short, if the majority of Americans desire a change in interpretation, (that would be "individuals therein") that is a right which exists. The Constitution is to serve and reflect the people, not the reverse.

 
Old 09-16-2009, 03:49 PM
 
Location: CO
1,603 posts, read 3,528,186 times
Reputation: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post

Wendell Potter: Baucus Bill is not reform, it is bogus

I hope that is how Baucus thinks, and his bill isn't exactly all his idea of a reform.
Which is evidence he worked with Republicans in putting it together - as they have been fighting for changes in the bills that benefit the insurance companies.
 
Old 09-16-2009, 04:52 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,224 posts, read 4,984,226 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post


Are you saying national defense is the same as preventing an old lady's purse from being robbed?

After all, they are both defense.

Think about what you just said, there is a very big difference between national welfare and the welfare of individuals.

I have thought about what you said.

what does an old ladies purse have to do with anything

I'm saying that the health of the individuals within a nation ARE important to the nations health as a whole.

but putting that aside.. the health care issue is not about health of the individuals individually.. BUT is a matter and a problem for our economy AS A NATION.. particularly when it comes to the ability for our nation to compete in a global market.

If you can't see that you truly need to take yoru blinders off.... our nation is a sinking ship and our health care system is the biggest hole taking on the most water fast!
 
Old 09-16-2009, 04:57 PM
 
Location: Mastic Beach
752 posts, read 1,457,209 times
Reputation: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post


Are you saying national defense is the same as preventing an old lady's purse from being robbed?

After all, they are both defense.

Think about what you just said, there is a very big difference between national welfare and the welfare of individuals.
Yes there is, There wont be anyone left healthy enough to defend the place if we dont fix this soon.
 
Old 09-16-2009, 06:46 PM
 
Location: On Top
12,373 posts, read 13,146,466 times
Reputation: 4027
Sen. John Barrasso(R) Wyoming and Grant Mitchell(L) Alberta, member of the Canadian Senate debate Canada's health care system. Barrasso clearly doesn't know much about Canada's system....


YouTube - U.S. Senator & Canadian Senator Debate Canada's Health System
 
Old 09-17-2009, 03:57 AM
 
296 posts, read 272,594 times
Reputation: 100
more brilliance from the "free healthcare" advocates... There are two women to see you, Gordon... Pregnant Zoe Ball and celebrities turn up at No10 | Mail Online

seriously, how do "celebrities" even get an opinion? They probably can't even spell opinion.. then again, look at the rest of the advocates
 
Old 09-17-2009, 06:32 AM
 
Location: Europe
2,735 posts, read 2,454,189 times
Reputation: 639

YouTube - Daily Show Jon Stewart Destroys Bill Kristol on Health Care - The Ultimate Smackdown!

"The Government can run the best health care system"

Maybe that has been posted before...
 
Old 09-17-2009, 06:49 AM
 
Location: Mastic Beach
752 posts, read 1,457,209 times
Reputation: 303
Funny, and true.
I have said it before and I will say it again.
Old money is trembling,
they know reform is coming.
 
Old 09-17-2009, 07:37 AM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,154,599 times
Reputation: 5481
Quote:
Originally Posted by minesbroken View Post
Yes there is, There wont be anyone left healthy enough to defend the place if we dont fix this soon.
And we should fix it. WE should fix it. Not government. Start by walking out your door and giving money/volunteering in your town. If everyone started doing that, we wouldn't have problems. Stop asking someone else to solve things for you.
 
Old 09-17-2009, 07:44 AM
 
3,348 posts, read 1,406,609 times
Reputation: 1083
Exclamation general welfare, our founder’s meaning!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
Promoting the general welfare!
Oh and I suppose Jefferson was throwing out the constitution when he introduced the idea of public school supported by founding fathers including Washington


What we are talking about TM is, what is and what is not within the powers granted to Congress by our Constitution. I agree with Jefferson that providing education to children so they may read, write and do math is of great importance to a nation. But the question remains, who is legally responsible for that education under our constitutionally limited system of government?



Under The Massachusetts Law of 1642 the parents of children were legally responsible for providing their children’s education.



Now, getting back to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, which you seem to attach your own meaning to, what did our founding fathers intend by these words?



“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; “



The most fundamental rule of constitutional law is stated as follows:




The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”



Now, with reference to the phrase “general welfare” what did those who framed and ratified our Constitution mean with these words during the framing and ratification debates?



Let us look at the documented intentions concerning these words.



Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:



"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction...But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power...But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning...is an absurdity."



Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution:



"the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."[3 Elliots 95]



[also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out "was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."]



Even Hamilton, who changed his tune after the constitution was ratified, says in Federalist 83, in reference to the general welfare clause, that "...the power of Congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended..."



Hamilton’s words in Federalist No. 83 are also in harmony with that of Jefferson:


"Our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark that divides the Federalists from the Republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provided for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently that the specification of power is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." (letter from Jefferson to Gallatin, June 16th, 1817)



Similarly , George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention


"The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.". SEE: 3 Elliots 442



For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified, to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the phrase general welfare and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording “promote the general welfare“.



“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”



And this brings us to the following line of reasoning. If the Anti Federalist feared the general welfare wording would create a general and unlimited legislative power and were against such power being granted to Congress, and, the Federalists assured the Anti-Federalists that such an interpretation was not within the intended meaning of the clause in question, who can be pointed to as being an advocate of granting this unlimited power to Congress during the framing and ratification of our Constitution?



Expounding upon our Constitution is not a matter of “interpretation” as some would have us believe…it is a task of “documentation”! Enemies of our constitutional system wish to ignore the recorded intentions for which our Constitution [each article, section, clause and amendment] was adopted in order to then be free to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean.



Now, back to the real question: under what article, section, clause or amendment of our federal Constitution have the people of the various States granted a power to Congress to tax for, spend on and regulate their personal health care needs?



JWK



“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. “___ South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top