Steny Hoyer claims the “general welfare” clause in the constitution grants congress the broad authority to mandate healthcare coverage
If the founders could have looked into the future while they were writing and debating the constitution I believe that there is one phrase, which appears twice in the constitution, that they would have eliminated, or probably more accurately, modified– the “general welfare” clause.
Over the years the “general welfare” clause has been misconstrued in various ways to implement “social welfare” programs, this was not the intent of the “general welfare” clause. The “general welfare” clause was tied directly into the “national defense” clause.
In Federalist 41 Hamilton argued that the “general welfare” clause could not be used to expand the federal government beyond what was intended.
It has been urged and echoed, that the 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,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare…But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even 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? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity
He explains that the “general welfare” clause is a general term immediately followed by strict guidelines of federal powers. Here are the only powers granted to the federal government under national defense and general welfare:
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 an 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, dock-Yards, 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.
The general statement of “national defense and general welfare” was clearly defined right after the statement appears. Congress was only given 17 clearly defined powers.
But if Hamilton’s explanation is not enough to convince you I will provide a statement from Madison on the “general welfare” clause.
With respect to the words general welfare… To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators
There is no more evidence that needs to be submitted to prove the argument that the “general welfare” clause was not meant to provide “social welfare.” The general welfare clause was a vague statement immediately followed by rules that should be followed to ensure the general welfare.
Almost since the adoption of the constitution judges have looked outside the constitution in attempting to interpret the constitution, some have even used the laws of foreign nations to interpret the constitution as they see fit. If one is to look outside the constitution to interpret what the founders intended than it would seem to me that we should look at the debates and the opinions that the Federalists had while fighting to ratify the constitution. That is what I have done here and I have proven that the founders did no have the intent to provide “social welfare” to citizens of the United States.
But that is exactly what has happened over the years and now House Majority leader Steny Hoyer is claiming that the “general welfare” clause grants congress the authority to force all Americans to buy healthcare insurance whether they want to or not. When he was asked where in the constitution he and congress found the authority to force Americans to purchase insurance he invoked the “general welfare” clause.
Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end,” Hoyer said. “The end that we’re trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility
Certainly this is a perversion of the “general welfare” clause as argued by both Hamilton and Madison. When asked if the government could force people to buy other products he claimed that eventually the Supreme Court would have to find a limit to government power.
I’m sure the [Supreme] Court will find a limit,
He has more faith in the Supreme Court than I do. Once the precedent is set that the government can force a person to buy anything they are not going to find a limit to what the government can force an individual to buy. Steny Hoyer claims that eventually the “due process” clause in the constitution will trump the “general welfare” clause in the eyes of the Supreme Court.
Steny Hoyer claims that forcing Americans to buy healthcare is constitutional because they can buy any healthcare plan from any insurance company that they want to but he forgets that the option not to buy healthcare insurance will be taken off of the table. That means one option is being taken away from the people.
The last time that the government tried to implement national healthcare the Congressional Budget Office even questioned the constitutionality of the proposal.
A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government
What has changed?
Steny Hoyer is trying to equate buying healthcare insurance to paying taxes in order to justify his position.
we mandate other things as well, like paying taxes
That is true but the power to levy taxes is actually one of the powers strictly granted to congress in the constitution. On a sidenote, is he admitting that healthcare reform is nothing more than a tax?
Steny Hoyer is desperately trying to find constitutional grounds to stand on for the attempt by the federal government to mandate healthcare insurance but the fact is that he has no constitutional grounds to stand on.
In the end a healthcare mandate will probably be passed and made into law. The question is will the Supreme Court hear arguments about the constitutionality of healthcare mandates? And if they do, will the Supreme Court find the limit that Steny Hoyer claims they will eventually? We better hope so.
United Nations Report: Counterterrorism measures are unfair to transgendered people
The United Nations has written a report, still to be approved by the general assembly, that claims that counterterrorism measures are unfair to transgendered people.
The theory goes something like this: Because,with rare exceptions, all of the suicide bombers have been male, some suicide bombers disguise themselves as female to avoid detection. Because of this if you are a female who looks masculine than you run the risk of being stopped and unfairly “harassed.” Hence, if you are transgendered you may be stopped and questioned because you may look like a terrorist masquerading as a female.
Enhanced immigration controls that focus attention on male bombers who may be dressing as females to avoid scrutiny make transgender persons susceptible to increased harassment and suspicion
The United Nations report basically states that counterterrorism measures are unfair to transgendered people because they may be profiled in the effort to thwart terrorism. That leads me to ask the question, is profiling wrong?
If the police have a description of a person who committed a violent crime and they stop and question all of those people who fit the description is that profiling? Yes it is. Is it wrong? No it isn’t. If I fit the description of a man who had committed a crime and I was “harassed” by the police I would not take offense to it, I would rest assured knowing that the police were doing their job. Profiling, it would seem to me, is a vital part of law enforcement, but we have reached a point with the politically correct mindset that suddenly questioning people who fit a description of a criminal is wrong.
There is no difference between the scenario that I laid out above and stopping a person who may fit the description of a terrorist, even if that person is of a group that the politically correct crowd is trying to protect at the risk of endangering innocent lives. Is it really that troublesome to a person to be detained for a few minutes if it ensures that the lives of innocent people could be saved?
If this is the point that we have reached than we should just give up all of our counterterrorism efforts. There is no point in continuing them. We can just sit back and hope that we don’t get hit again, kind of like we did before September 11th. And if we do get hit again, fuck it, we deserve it. We haven’t learned anything, it is a shame.
New York Democrats begin to turn on Charlie Rangel
New York Democrats are beginning to turn on one of their own–Charlie Rangel. With all of the tax problems that the chairman of the committee that writes the tax laws that we have to abide by is in, Democrats in his own state are beginning to turn on him.
As the investigations continue to widen around this tax cheat and as Republicans continue to demand that he step down as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Democrats have remained loyal. But now something has happened and the New York Democrats are beginning to have second thoughts about Rangel remaining as head of the powerful committee.
What has changed? Have New York Democrats had an epiphany? Do they now realize the error of their ways? Are they suddenly now concerned about the tax payers that have to follow the laws that Charlie Rangel writes yet ignores?
NO!
They don’t give a damn about Rangel’s tax or ethics problems– they couldn’t care less about his tax fraud or he wouldn’t still be chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, they would have demanded his resignation long ago.
But just let Charlie Rangel’s problems impact them where it hurts the most– their re-election bid– and watch out. All bets are off. These self-centered, selfish politicians who don’t give a damn that Rangel has been ripping off the taxpayers only want him gone now that it can impact their re-election campaign. Democrats are now beginning to worry that Charlie Rangel’s legal problems could hurt them in the 2010 elections, only now are they having second thoughts about supporting this crook.
This shows us where their loyalties lie and what their number one priority is– not protecting the taxpayer but protecting themselves.
Obama to ease up on marijuana prosecution
Today President Obama announced that he would loosen the federal guidelines on pursuing federal drug laws on people who are using medical marijuana, and those that sell it, in compliance with state laws.
prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law.
This is a complete reversal of President Bush’s policy of prosecuting people on federal statutes who were in compliance with the laws of the states in which they reside. As someone who considers himself a libertarian leaning conservative Republican and state’s rights advocate I believe that I hold a position that is at odds with most conservatives– I agree with President Obama.
I believe that the states hold the right to institute various laws that the federal government has no right interfering with; this would fall under a state’s rights issue in my book along with gay marriage and yes even abortion among many others. This does not mean that I agree with these issues only that I believe the states have the right to decide these issues, considering the fact that the people elect the state officials the people are the ones who end up deciding these issues in their states. If you live in a state that has laws that you don’t agree with you have two options– either help to elect people that will either institute or overturn the laws that you agree or disagree with or move to a state that more reflects your viewpoints. That is the reason so much emphasis was put on state’s rights at the founding of the country, it left people with options. Those options have slowly been eroding under an over-reaching federal government.
If a state legalizes marijuana use for medical reasons than the federal government has no business prosecuting people that are participating in an activity that a state deems is legal. Currently there are fourteen states that allow marijuana use for medical reasons, people who are residents in these states and who have a doctor’s prescription should not be prosecuted, George Bush overstepped his authority on this issue.
You can argue the legitimacy of using marijuana for medical reasons, I have my doubts about the legitimacy, and there are many people who use these laws to illegally smoke marijuana, the new federal guidelines still leave the option open to prosecute these people.
the government will still prosecute those who use medical marijuana as a cover for other illegal activity. The memo particularly warns that some suspects may hide old-fashioned drug dealing or other crimes behind a medical marijuana business
If you live in a state that allows medical marijuana use and you are using marijuana illegally you can still be prosecuted under federal law. To me this is the proper interpretation of federal law.
With all of the problems currently facing this country it seems to me that prosecuting people who are in compliance with state laws on marijuana use should be far down on the list.
A firefighter in Pennsylvania has been suspended for refusing to remove an American flag sticker from his locker. The fire department implemented a new policy that bans stickers from lockers after some racist stickers were found on some firefighter’s lockers.
The new policy bans all stickers– union, cartoon and political must be removed from lockers. Surely an American flag sticker doesn’t fall into any of those categories so James Krapf left his sticker on his locker, prompting the chief to tell him it had to be removed. James Krapf refused and has been suspended.
Here is what James Krapf had to say:
The chief came out and said ‘You have to remove your stickers,’ I said ‘No disrespect chief, but I’m not taking the flag off
Fire Commissioner James Johnson, a former marine, denies that this had anything to do with the image of the flag:
We wear the American flag on our uniform…it’s flying outside that station,” he said. “It is not about the American flag or patriotism
I believe him, I don’t think that this has anything to do with the fact that the sticker in question is the American flag. But this does highlight a larger problem in our society today– political correctness.
Instead of singling out and punishing the firefighters who actually put racist stickers on their lockers the fire department thought that it would be better served to ban all stickers no matter how innocent and unoffending they may be. The fire department decided that instead of trying to decide what is offensive and what is not offensive they would insulate themselves from making that decision by telling everyone, even those who have done nothing wrong, that they can no longer put anything on their lockers.
It would seem that a better approach would have been to discipline those that put racists stickers on their lockers. The people who put offensive stickers on their lockers incur no punishment while everyone else has to suffer for their misdeeds. This is a perfect example of political correctness. Nobody is held accountable for their own actions and others have to suffer for it.
Climate Change treaty will end United States’ sovereignty
When I wrote the following in this post I was alluding to something but I never actually came out and said it:
In addition to the real climate change agenda of American politicians on a national level to tax and regulate the behaviors of American citizens there is also a second, worldwide agenda to redistribute the wealth from rich nations to poor nations. That is what this push by the Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development is really all about. The global redistribution of wealth. There is no doubt that rich nations, such as the United States, will be required to send money to the poor nations.
What I was alluding to was a loss of American sovereignty to the United Nations, now we have the following video that emphasizes that President Obama may be signing away American sovereignty if he signs the climate change treaty in Denmark in December.
We need to stop this at all costs!
House Democrats spar with Senate Democrats over healthcare reform
I have purposely stayed away from posting anything on healthcare reform, it has been nine posts and three days since my last post on this issue, because frankly I have become tired of writing about the issue and I fear that people have become tired of me writing on the issue. But healthcare reform is the big issue that is currently on the table, and an issue as important as this deserves the attention that I have been giving it while it is being debated so I will now step back into the fight over healthcare perform.
We all remember the president addressing a joint session and lecturing us that the “time for bickering is over,” he was basically talking to Republicans. He was admonishing them for holding up the legislation that is so near and dear to his heart. But it isn’t only Republicans who are “bickering” over the healthcare reform bill; Democrats are “bickering” with Democrats over this legislation as well.
While this bill inches closer to passage every day there are still unanswered questions remaining and Democrats are split on what should and should not be included in this bill. Democrats in the house and Democrats in the senate have differing opinions on the healthcare reform bill.
We all know that liberal Democrats want a public option, (which is missing from the Baucus bill) while moderate and conservative Democrats do not; while that is the most obvious and publicised disagreement it is not the only one.
One of the biggest undecided issues among Democrats is how to actually pay for the healthcare reform legislation.
Senators would tax high-value health insurance plans to pay for covering the uninsured, an approach supporters say would curb health costs because it would lead to employers offering less generous benefits. The more populist House would tax the highest-income people, placing the burden of caring for the neediest Americans on the backs of millionaires.
And there are other issue that have to be ironed out between Democrats before this bill is voted on. So while the president admonished Republicans for being the obstructionists he should also look within his own party. If the Democrats cannot agree what is in the best interest of the people on this issue how can he call out the Republicans and warn them to stop “bickering” with Democrats?
The truth is that this is a large and complicated bill and while he may think that political debate on this issue is nothing more than “bickering” the fact remains that debate is necessary and vital, his own party realizes this and have disagreements on what should be included. We can not hurry legislation as vast and far-reaching as this through congress.
The president would do well to learn a little patience and let the political process run its course instead of lecturing the opposition party for doing the same thing that his party is doing internally.
My new hero, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was ordered by Janet Napolitano and Homeland Security to stop arresting illegal immigrants is still defying the federal organization and is still conducting widespread sweeps against illegal immigrants. He remains defiant, claiming that the federal government lacks the power to stop him from performing this aspect of his duty as an elected official of Arizona.
It doesn’t bother me, because we are going to do the same thing,” said Arpaio, whose deputies had arrested 16 people by Friday evening on unspecified charges. “I am the elected sheriff. I don’t take orders from the federal government
He is facing charges of racial profiling because he is arresting Mexicans who cross the Mexican border illegally. The criticism is mounting by immigration special interest groups who claim that this he is doing this to protest the Obama administration.
He is doing this to thumb his nose at the Obama administration,” said Lydia Guzman, president of the Hispanic civil rights group Somos America
Apparently it doesn’t matter to this group that all of the people that this brave sheriff are here illegally. This groups is equating Sheriff Arpaio to the KKK for his attemp to administer the law.
Order equals K-K-K — here’s what Arpaio has to say.”
Such is life in the United States under this administration’s version of Homeland Security.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s policies have been highly effective– that is what these groups and Homeland Security don’t like. This administration is extremely soft on illegal immigration and the fact that Sheriff Arpaio’s policies have returned positive results is what is at issue here. They don’t care that he has been effective, they want him to stop arresting illegal aliens because they want illegals to come to America.
Here is hoping that Sheriff Arpaio remains defiant in front of withering criticism and continues to do the job that the people af Arizona elected him to do. The vast majority of the American people support Sheriff Arpaio and his efforts to stem the tide of illegal immigrants. The federal government may not be behind this man’s effort but the American people are.
The Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development is in the process of trying to amend the United Nations’ international law that deals with exiles from countries for political, racial, or religious reasons to include the 200 million people that the United Nations has estimated will become “environmental exiles.”
International refugee law focuses on those who are persecuted for political, racial or religious reasons,” the organization’s director, Joy Hyvarinen, said in a statement Thursday. “It was not designed for those who are left homeless by environmental pressures
The United Nations has estimated that climate change will lead to the displacement of around 200 million people, the one problem with this estimate is that they are using Al Gore’s fictional documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, to push this false notion.
In his Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore argued that sea levels could rise by seven meters (20 feet) “in the near future” as a result of melting ice, triggering the displacement of millions of people.
The claim was one of nine inaccuracies in the film identified by a British high court judge in 2007
Al Gore’s claim that there will be millions of climate refugees has been diproved yet the United Nations and the Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development are still using his falsehoods to push their radical agenda.
The international legal framework needs to be adjusted to help climate exiles and deal with statelessness and compensation
The key word in that statement is “compensation.” In addition to the real climate change agenda of American politicians on a national level to tax and regulate the behaviors of American citizens there is also a second, worldwide agenda to redistribute the wealth from rich nations to poor nations. That is what this push by the Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development is really all about. The global redistribution of wealth. There is no doubt that rich nations, such as the United States, will be required to send money to the poor nations.
The United Nations is pushing the climate change issue, they are using the politics of fear to pesuade people that man-made climate change is a real problem that requires immediate action. That action always involves people giving more of their hard earned money to the fear-mongers.
It doesn’t matter to them that none of the climate change prophesies have come true, it doesn’t matter to them that meteorologists cannot predict the weather one week in advance but yet claim they can predict the weather thirty years in advance– all that matters to them is getting their corrupt, greedy, little hands on our money so they can give it to the people that they deem the most worthy.
