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.
Where, in the full text of the constitution and not amendments, does it allow anyone but white male landowners to vote? Where does it say in there you can be 18 and vote? Where does it allow taxation? Where does it make slavery illegal?
It's a document that changes over time, that's the point of the amendments.
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1
"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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
There is no doubt that national(universal) healthcare is entirely constitutional.
Wrong!
WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]
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; applies to states.
A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.
The founders were very precise in their wording. They used the words "person" or "citizen" when speaking of individuals and the phrase "United States" or the word "union" when referring to the federation of states. The general power to tax and spend in Article I, Section 8 clearly states that the powers are directed at the "United States" not "persons" or "citizens" therefore the power applies only to objects which will promote the solidarity and prosperity of the union of states, not its citizens.
I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
Do I win a prize if I show the mechanism?
Source of authority - Article six.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
Engagements = mutual promises.
All promises made under the Articles are binding on Congress under the USCON.
Specific promise:
"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; ."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
A pauper is defined as one who is so poor that he accepts charity from the public treasury. Coincidentally, the only people eligible to receive "entitlements" (aka "Charity") from the public treasury are duly enumerated participants in National Socialism (FICA).
Every enumerated American is EXCEPTED from the privileges and immunities, as well as the powers and rights of the free citizens.
And since there is NO LAW compelling participation, nor punishing those who do not participate, it is 100% voluntary - voluntary servitude.
And every duly enumerated American is a status criminal - guilty until proven innocent. Congress has wide latitude over such persons, and can expend public resources in their care and welfare.
"STATUS CRIME - A class of crime which consists not in proscribed action or inaction, but in the accused's having a certain personal condition or being a person of a specified character. An example of a status crime is vagrancy Status crimes are constitutionally suspect."
Black's Law Dictionary, sixth ed., p.1410
" VAGRANT - At common law, wandering or going about from place to place by idle person who has no lawful or visible means of support and who subsisted on charity and did not work, though able to do so.... One who is apt to become a public charge through his own laziness."
Black's Law Dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1549
"PAUPER - One so poor that he must be supported at public expense."
Black's Law Dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1128
"Constitutional" violations of inalienable rights
" State code 124 Sections 6, and 7, authorizing the overseer of the poor to commit to the workhouse able-bodied persons, not having the means to support themselves, and who live a dissolute and vagrant life, and do not work sufficiently to support themselves, are not repugnant to the constitution, giving every man an inalienable right to defend his life and liberty."
In re Nott, 11 Me. (2 Fairf.) 208. (Me. 1834)
Translation: compelled labor and restricted liberty is constitutional - when
dealing with paupers and vagabonds.
"Act May 29, 1879, providing for the committal to the industrial school of dependent infant girls, who are beggars, wanderers, homeless, or without proper parental care, in no way violates the right of personal liberty, and is constitutional."
Ex parte Ferrier, 103 Ill. 367, 42 Am. Rep. 10 (Ill. 1882)
Remember the exclusions: pauper and vagabond?
Compelled labor and restricted liberty are constitutional - when dealing with paupers and vagabonds.
Would you be surprised to learn that most state codes redefine "resident" to be synonymous with "vagabond"?
D'Oh...
P.S. - before 1935, vagrants were routinely arrested, and incarcerated. After 1935... hmmmm. Now we have the "homeless", and government can't seem to do anything about them. Perhaps they cannot prosecute them without prosecuting ALL the vagabonds wandering about. Selective prosecution is not allowed.
The healthcare bill is going to help the gov. a whole lot more then us. If it was to really to benifit the people they would on Tort reform and Pharma. BUT there not. Its total control of every American. This bill will help the gov.s WELFARE only. Collecting for this bill for 4 years BEFORE they even do anything is a good example. Come on people wake-up. Our gov. is out of control, there is no doubt about that.
Everyone will eventually HAVE TO DEPEND on the gov., JUST LIKE THEY WANT.
Here read the 14 charges against them--WE THE PEOPLE need to help ourselves. The Constitution is only paper if YOU DON"T DEFEND IT. Sign the petition--send to your friends--post on facebook etc.
Here watch what WE THE PEOPLE are doing-THAT"S YOU TOO. There trying to help YOU and EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN. Everyone needs to stop acting like there is nothing we can to. Learn and educate yourself.
On October 23rd, a reporter asked Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Speaker Pelosi shook her head and before moving on to another question replied: “Are you serious? Are you serious??” Pressed for a more substantive response later, Pelosi’s press spokesman admonished the reporter: “You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”
In 1994, the CBO said that a mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action.
The Supreme Court has never validated a federal power this intrusive. Never before has the Supreme Court said the power to regulate commerce enabled Congress to force an individual to do something just because he existed.
If the individual mandate is Constitutional, then Congress could do anything. They could require us to buy a new car each year to support the government-supported auto industry; require us to buy war bonds to pay for wars; require us to grow wheat (10 bushels each), or pay someone else to grow your share; require us to buy whatever they want.
There you have it,the first {D} that goes straight to the general welfare clause to prove that it is the federal gvts role for health care.
I wonder if he can name a socialist program or any program that the forefathers started and saying it is under the general welfare clause?
Lets say that people became so lazy they would'nt wipe their own ass,under your thinking should the federal gvt hire people to do it under the general welfare clause? I mean these people would smell and could spread diseases.Does the general welfare clause cover that?
This law would be constitutional, whether it was a good idea would be for the president and congress to decide, just like everything else.
WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]
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; applies to states.
A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.
The United States refers to the nation(otherwise referred to as The United States of America). Providing healthcare is providing for the general welfare of the United States.
Justice Roberts in US vs Butler, 1936
"The 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."
It can be up to the congress to send us all into a bloody downward spiral of debt so they can get re-elected too. The question remains. Should we make health care more affordable or should would extend it to everyone even in the face of its insolvency.
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.
Maybe Speaker Pelosi should take this more seriously
