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.
Article one, section eight of the US Constitution, the enumerated powers granted to Congress, offers no provision for requiring citizens to purchase a product or service. This is at the heart of a law suit to be filed by FL Attorney General Bill McCollum on behalf of FL and, at present, eight other states in opposition to the health care bill recently passed by Congress. Thirty-six states are currently considering filing their own law suits individually or in unison with other states.
McCollum to file suit after health care bill signed | mccollum, bill, governor - News - The News Herald (http://www.newsherald.com/news/mccollum-82444-bill-governor.html - broken link)
I have been unable to find authorization in the Constitution for Congress to force citizens to purchase health care insurance. And before someone makes the argument that Congress may do whatever they deem appropriate to promote the general welfare, note the first paragraph of Article 1, Section 8 gives no general authority to Congress to "promote general welfare" but rather only that taxes, duties, imposts and excises may only be used for the purpose of paying public debts, providing for the common defense and promoting general welfare. In short, all it says is that these funds raised may be used for no other purpose. The third paragraph, the commerce clause, does not apply since citzens by simply living are not engaged in interstate commerce. So, by what what authorization does Congress propose to force us to buy a health insurance policy?
Article I
Section 8.
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;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Under Article I, Section 8 you will find the following:
"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;"
Referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" the Constitution grants the National Legislature broad powers to enact laws which promote the nations general welfare. This has been the prevailing view for over 200 years and without which, such things as the Louisiana and Alaskan Purchases, establishment of national parks, social security, and medicare would not have been possible.
Writing in his 1791 Report on Manufactures, Framer and then Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton explained the General Welfare Clause thusly:
"A question has been made concerning the constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement; but there is certainty no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence (1012) and general welfare,” with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States; and that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to numbers, ascertained by a census or enumeration, {250} taken on the principles prescribed in the constitution," and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State."
These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are no less comprehensive thin the payment of the public debts, and the providing for the common defence and general welfare. The terms "general welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded; otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the "general welfare;" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
It is, therefore, of necessity, left to the discretion of the National Legislature to pronounce upon the objects which concern the general welfare, and for which, under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt, that whatever concerns the general interests of learning, of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce, are within the sphere of the national councils, as far as regards an application of money.
The only qualification of the generality of the phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this: That the object, to which an appropriation of money is to be made, be general, and not local; its operation extending, in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
No objection ought to arise to this construction, from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude, which is granted, too, in express terms, would not carry a power to do any other thing {251} not authorized in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
Now with the establishment of the General Welfare Clause, scroll down to the bottom of Article I, Section 8 and read the following:
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers,
Under Article I, Section 8 you will find the following:
"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;"
Referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" the Constitution grants the National Legislature broad powers to enact laws which promote the nations general welfare. This has been the prevailing view for over 200 years and without which, such things as the Louisiana and Alaskan Purchases, establishment of national parks, social security, and medicare would not have been possible.
Writing in his 1791 Report on Manufactures, Framer and then Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton explained the General Welfare Clause thusly:
"A question has been made concerning the constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement; but there is certainty no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence (1012) and general welfare,†with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States; and that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to numbers, ascertained by a census or enumeration, {250} taken on the principles prescribed in the constitution," and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State."
These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are no less comprehensive thin the payment of the public debts, and the providing for the common defence and general welfare. The terms "general welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded; otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the "general welfare;" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
It is, therefore, of necessity, left to the discretion of the National Legislature to pronounce upon the objects which concern the general welfare, and for which, under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt, that whatever concerns the general interests of learning, of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce, are within the sphere of the national councils, as far as regards an application of money.
The only qualification of the generality of the phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this: That the object, to which an appropriation of money is to be made, be general, and not local; its operation extending, in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
No objection ought to arise to this construction, from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude, which is granted, too, in express terms, would not carry a power to do any other thing {251} not authorized in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
Now with the establishment of the General Welfare Clause, scroll down to the bottom of Article I, Section 8 and read the following:
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers,
Interesting article. Can you show me the quotes in which Hamilton says what the writer says he said? I would like to see that.
There is a logical fallacy involved in trying to interpret the first paragraph to grant permission to Congress to enact whatever laws they deem necessary to accomplish the goal of promoting "general welfare" while the balance of the section list specific items about which Congress may pass laws.
Furthermore, the sentence isn't constructed in such a way as to allow this interpretation.
"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;"
By your interpretation. Congress shall have power to do A, to pay B and to do C where C means anything Congress decides it does and no logic relates any element of the sentence to any other. But the sentence is written in such a way that it can only mean Congress has power to collect A for the sole purpose of paying B and providing for C. The purpose of generating revenue is to pay debts (past expenses) and provide for the common defense and general welfare (current expenses).
Talk about bait and switch. Was the O.P. worried that yet another health care thread would be merged by a moderator? Really, would some of you explain why only now has the right grown a pair and seen fit to challenge their leadership. You can't tell me that you had things that great under Bush. That man deserved to face Tea Party demonstrators, not Obama. You are all frothing at the mouth about a Trillion dollars over the next ten years but I have yet to hear that there were calls for his impeachment when Trillion after Trillion were being racked up. The last couple of Trillion of the Bush administration piling on in just one year. You know, there was a time when you could drive around without car insurance. That time is over. There also was a time when you could drive around without health insurance. That time will soon be over. Different? How? Times change. Call it Social Evolution.
Interesting article. Can you show me the quotes in which Hamilton says what the writer says he said? I would like to see that.
The writer was I, and I provided not only the quotation, but the title and date in which it was written, and a link to Hamilton's report in full.
Quote:
"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;"
By your interpretation. Congress shall have power to do A, to pay B and to do C where C means anything Congress decides it does and no logic relates any element of the sentence to any other. But the sentence is written in such a way that it can only mean Congress has power to collect A for the sole purpose of paying B and providing for C. The purpose of generating revenue is to pay debts (past expenses) and provide for the common defense and general welfare (current expenses).
Isn't my interpretation, it is the Supreme Court's.
Writing for the majority Justice Owen Roberts wrote in United States v. Butler (1936):
"...Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained 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, [p66] limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. [n12] We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one."
The writer was I, and I provided not only the quotation, but the title and date in which it was written, and a link to Hamilton's report in full.
Isn't my interpretation, it is the Supreme Court's.
Writing for the majority Justice Owen Roberts wrote in United States v. Butler (1936):
"...Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained 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, [p66] limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. [n12] We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one."
I'm not contending the Congress may not tax and spend. I have found nothing in the Constitution that limits the taxes that may be levied or the spending that may be done by the Congress. But non-delegated powers are reserved to the states or the people. They may tax as much as they like and they may spend it as they please as long as it provides for the common defense and promotes the general welfare as otherwise allowed. What they cannot do is force me to purchase something without due process. For example, if I slashed my neighbor's tires and was convicted in a court of law for the vandalism, I might have to purchase tires for my victim as part of my punishment, but I have done no such thing and have been convicted of nothing.
Talk about bait and switch. Was the O.P. worried that yet another health care thread would be merged by a moderator? Really, would some of you explain why only now has the right grown a pair and seen fit to challenge their leadership. You can't tell me that you had things that great under Bush. That man deserved to face Tea Party demonstrators, not Obama. You are all frothing at the mouth about a Trillion dollars over the next ten years but I have yet to hear that there were calls for his impeachment when Trillion after Trillion were being racked up. The last couple of Trillion of the Bush administration piling on in just one year. You know, there was a time when you could drive around without car insurance. That time is over. There also was a time when you could drive around without health insurance. That time will soon be over. Different? How? Times change. Call it Social Evolution.
H
The federal government does not operate the DMV because it has no authority to do so, and no one has federal auto insurance for the same reason. Get the picture?
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.
