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.
Okie-doke, pal. You go right ahead and think your opinion is equivalent to "truth and facts." …………… The fact is that the SC disagrees with you, and its opinion is the only one that matters.
.
I have provide documentation substantiating my contentions. You have offered nothing in rebuttal.
You are wrong that the Supreme Court disagrees with me! As I documented in POST NO. 1 the Supreme Court ignored the documented intentions and beliefs stated during the framing and ratification of our Constitution, and went on to attach a meaning to the phrase “general welfare” which was not in harmony with its meaning as stated during our Constitution’s framing and ratification debates.
If you have nothing productive to offer, why do you post here?
JWK
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.___ 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
Bottom line is, Steny Hoyer and his control freak crowd on Capitol Hill [Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Barney Frank, Anthony Weiner, John Murtha, David Obey, Debbie Wasserman to mention a few] are without constitutional authority to enter the various united States to tax for, spend on and exercise the countless regulatory powers mentioned in the “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act”, which is a proposal intended to subjugate and overrule the personal health care choices which the people of the various united States may prefer to make!
Regards,
JWK
So who can arrest them and take them to court and what would the charge be?
I hear they can work wonders by pulling a persons head out in order to see better.
[It boggles the mind that the people we elect to represent us and uphold the Constitution fail to do so time and time again.
When is the last time you elected a Supreme Court Justice?
Quote:
Thomas Jefferson -"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
No slight to Mr. Jefferson intended but that is about the dumbest piece of advise that he ever uttered (given that the entire text is not cited so that we can read it for ourselves regarding context). How does one recollect a "spirit" when one wasn't their to witness the "spirit" being enumerated? Jefferson certainly wasn't. So, how else, 200 years plus are we to recollect this spirit when the only extant notes from the Constitutional Convention are those that Madison reconstructed years later? I would suggest that the text is the only means for divining any meaning from a document that even at the time held as many meanings as the numbers who ratified it.
Quote:
"That definition of “welfare” would have been unknown in 1776. Welfare was, in truth, the exact opposite of poor relief. If you have “welfare” today you would be on the government dole. If you had “welfare” in 1787 you had health, wealth and happiness. Such a system of government aid would only have been known as “poor relief” and a law requiring a tax to support “poor relief” would have been called a “poor law.”
There were other “poor laws” and poor reliefs of the time. None were ever called “welfare.” Two of them were known as “The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834,” and the “Formation of Dungarvan Poor Law Union - In 1838”
Your definitional argument falls flat since, Aid to Dependent Children, Social Security, Unemployment Compensation, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or even now national health care, which has yet to take shape, aren't welfare but as you point out "poor relief". But it was a nice try. The enactment of such programs under the hubris of welfare are programs that insure the nation's, as a whole, general welfare.
Quote:
“Welfare” is defined in Noah Webster’s original 1828 Dictionary as:
WEL’FARE, noun [well and fare, a good going; German wohlfahrt; Dutch welvaart; Swedish valfart; Danish velfoerd.]
1. 1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.
Hmmm, exemption from any unusual evil or calamity... sounds about right!
Quote:
George Washington had it right in his farewell speech when he said
"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
Once again pulling quotes without context, meaning, or review of legislative and Court opinion is meaningless, pulling quotes out of context.
How does one recollect a "spirit" when one wasn't their to witness the "spirit" being enumerated? Jefferson certainly wasn't. So, how else, 200 years plus are we to recollect this spirit when the only extant notes from the Constitutional Convention are those that Madison reconstructed years later? I would suggest that the text is the only means for divining any meaning from a document that even at the time held as many meanings as the numbers who ratified it.
The documented intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted are found by researching the debates during which time the Constitution was being framed and ratified. Some of the historical record would be: the Notes of those who attended the Convention, such as Madison’s Notes, Hamilton’s Notes, Paterson’s Notes, etc. Additionally, the Federalist and Anti Federalists Papers are used, and also Elliot’s Debates are used which contains a number of the State Ratification Debates.
I appreciate your feelings, however, the most fundamental rule of constitutional law is to adhere to the documented intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted, see:
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
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.
In addition see: Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.
Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument. (numerous citations omitted )
Also see par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings
“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )
You might also want to take the time to read UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ in which the Federalist are referred to 18 times to establish the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted.
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. Let us look at some additional authoritative sources:
“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)
“A constitutional provision is to be construed, as statutes are, to the end that the intent of those drafting and voting for it be realized."(Mack v Heuck (App) 14 Ohio L Abs 237)
"No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .
"the rule being that a written constitution is to be interpreted in the same spirit in which it was produced" Wells v Missouri P.R. Co.,110Mo 286,19SW 530.
"Where language used in a constitution is capable of two constructions, it must be so construed as to carry into effect the purpose of the constitutional convention.” Ratliff v Beal, 74 Miss.247,20 So 865 .
"In construing federal constitutional provisions, the United States Supreme Court has regularly looked for the purpose the framers sought to accomplish.”Everson v Board of Education, 330 US 1, 91 L Ed 711,67 S Ct 504, 168 ALR 1392.
"The primary principle underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law." Rasmussen v Baker, 7 Wyo 117, 50 P 819.
“The intention of the law maker constitutes the law.” U.S. vs. Freeman, 3 HOW 565; U.S. vs. Babbit, 1 Black 61; Slater vs. Cave, 3 Ohio State 80; Stewart vs. Kahn, 11 Wall, 78 U.S. 493, 504
The constitution "...must necessarily depend on the words of the Constitution; the meaning and intention of the conventions which framed and proposed it for adoption and ratification to the Conventions...in the several states...to which this Court has always resorted in construing the Constitution." ___ Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12Pet.) 657,721(1838),
Fact is, even Congress understands this fundamental principle of constitutional law, even though they no longer follow it.:
"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution."_____ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),
“The intention of the legislature, when discovered, must prevail, any rule of construction declared by previous acts to the contrary notwithstanding.” 4 Dall 144
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
In a seemingly articulate post, the use of the phrase "control freak" removes some credibility. That said, why hasn't Medicare been ruled unconstitutional? Indeed, using your argument, there are a host of programs that would be unconstitutional, yet no one has challenged them. This alone suggests that your argument is incorrect.
It has not, because they are not unconstitutional. The 'general welfare' clause has been debated since 1700s and there has been people expressing different opinions. It was solidly on the table during the New Deal debates and again there were people expressing arguments both ways.
The bottom line is not that SS or HC bills are unconstitutional. The bottom line is that as long as the 'general welfare' clause is in The Constitution, it will be used to legalize all kinds of miscellaneous bills. Not only is it mentioned on Section 8, but also on the Preamble.
IMO it was put in place for the very reason of allowing some flexibility to the Constitution. Obviously the founders did not want to write a Constitution which restricts the government to only providing defence, post office, money coinage etc other things listed in Section 8. Such Constitution would be too rigid, so they added a 'general welfare' clause. Did they know it was going to get abused? Yes, probably, but leaving it out would have left them with a Constitution which would have been too restrictive.
My problem is with the tendency of the "general welfare" clause being interpreted to mean the welfare of the rich and connected at the expense of everyone else. If this health care bill does not contain provision for a government owned and operated system the bill should be voted down and another drafted to provide a government supported HCS.
If we can afford to bail out the financiers and the warmongers we can afford to provide inexpensive health care for everyone. We do not need private sector insurance companies to do this. We can hire the employees as government clerks and throw the overpaid executives under the train. They already ripped enough money out of the insured to keep them off the streets.
I'm confused that somehow more power to government will fix anything.
I guess if you assume everyone will be thinking as you, not greedy think healthcare is a right, or in some way money will just be collected via force to support any program government deems "welfare" I see new regulations, restrictions to benefit and or cause destruction against anyone who goes against the "government mandates". If we have new taxes in this cost in government healthcare, who is going to pay the new costs? The middle class, the poor. I'm sure it will be told that only the the rich will have to pay. Of course the rich will always have enough money to make it thru the new taxes and or find ways to send people down to washington to make new tax loop holes. Or like any government program will cost more then they say and in the end once everyone has it they will just say it will cost you. Nothing is free and in most cases with this government the program is usually in debt. In having a government strong enough to do this and in making the government in charge you just set up the people in power to have more control over medical costs. Now with NHC, congress will have the taxing power and new income of money and laws to control peoples lives and control who has access in the industry. If you believe the poeople and are in control of the government then you can sleep easy. I happen to believe we the people have no say, corporations and other groups control washington and washington itself has many people inside it who see washington a chance to play god. As a consumer I need freedom to choose the coverage I need, want or how I gain access to it. Currently I still have no control over my coverage, and want the access to change it move it across a state. Buy drugs from other countries. My health insurance and or any other thing I pay for should be open, free just like a cell phone company. Government at this time with the help of the insurance companies have already paid for washington to give us the laws we have now. Now you wish to reward both washington and the companines by saying here tax us more, make new laws and take the control of any idea of freedom we had left to a pile or RED tape and waste. Is congress going to vote on what it costs for cancer treatment, a broken leg, a doctor visit. Congress will create a "group" to set prices, set standards, laws, healthcare practices, work shifts, pay amounts and waiting lists. I question how is an UNELECTED group have the power, knowledge to control a market and peoples lives. Government created a insurance company laws to promote greed, limited access and let companies offer different plans and products. But they didnt give the people the freedom to do whatever the insurance companies wouldnt offer BY LAW!!!
A law created by washington and other states to limit freedom to the person and also set up large lawsuits against doctors, hostipals when these professionals are licenced to save lives. All of it driving up costs, and nothing promoting the idea of lowering the costs to the persons paying the bill. If you wanted Government sponsered insurance offer it and run it via a state and or federal tax that you AGREE to be a part off. See if its any cheaper if govenrment runs it compared to what a insurance company offers. Remember its a voluntary tax of which you pay to get your "free healthcare" Call it medicare. :-) Difference is we have to pay into medicare.
When is the last time you elected a Supreme Court Justice?
nonsensical go figure
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
No slight to Mr. Jefferson intended but that is about the dumbest piece of advise that he ever uttered (given that the entire text is not cited so that we can read it for ourselves regarding context). How does one recollect a "spirit" when one wasn't their to witness the "spirit" being enumerated? Jefferson certainly wasn't. So, how else, 200 years plus are we to recollect this spirit when the only extant notes from the Constitutional Convention are those that Madison reconstructed years later? I would suggest that the text is the only means for divining any meaning from a document that even at the time held as many meanings as the numbers who ratified it.
A slight to you but your musings here are idiotic. Easy enough to read the written language of the founders. The only "notes" were those written by Madison years later????? Do some research instead of making up what YOU THINK was written.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Your definitional argument falls flat since, Aid to Dependent Children, Social Security, Unemployment Compensation, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or even now national health care, which has yet to take shape, aren't welfare but as you point out "poor relief". But it was a nice try. The enactment of such programs under the hubris of welfare are programs that insure the nation's, as a whole, general welfare.
Your weak attempt at redefining what was written by the founders has fallen flat. It is laughable the way people like you portray themselves as knowing what the founders meant when anyone without an agenda can see the plain simple truth written in plain simple language. Good to know YOU know better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Once again pulling quotes without context, meaning, or review of legislative and Court opinion is meaningless, pulling quotes out of context.
LMAO Your ability to see things that are not there is mind boggling. The ironic part is you making false claims while trying to rewrite what the founders said all the while making absurd "out of context" claims. Oh I get it now. The founders didn't really mean that because ovcatto knows better. riiiiiiiiiiight lol
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.
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.
