Please read the Constitution

[RoyalOrleans]

[attach=full]2640[/attach]

 

We are just adding to the list of people in Washington who see our Constitution as nothing but a limit to what they can do with the power of government. First it was Nancy Pelosi scoffing at a question from reporters about healthcare and how it is constitutional. Then we had Robert Gibbs who wasn't concerned in the least about the Constitution and didn't believe White House lawyers needed to look into the Constitutionality of Obamacare.

 

Now we have Illinois Senator Roland Burris. There's a waste of a Senate seat. He'll be gone soon, so maybe there will be an improvement. Burris was asked to specify which part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to implement an individual mandate on individuals to buy health insurance. Burris' answer? It is the responsibility of the federal government "to provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country."

 

"Well, that's under certainly the laws of the--protect the health, welfare of the country ... That's under the Constitution. We're not even dealing with any constitutionality here. Should we move in that direction? What does the Constitution say? To provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country."

 

Well guess what? The word "health" does not appear in the Constitution. The guy is wrong. Rather than worrying about reading 2,000 page healthcare bills, Roland Burris and his Democrat buddies should try and refresh themselves on our Constitution - the foundations of this country and what make this country great.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvKOQA6qrhE&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - GOP Rep. John Boehner "U.S. Constitution Quote" FAIL[/ame]

 

Somewhere in Washington D.C., a former Boehner speech writer is doing the walk of shame with his box of personal belongings.

 

Jackasses! All of them! On both sides of the aisle!

[hugo]

Also read Federalist Paper #41

 

The Federalist #41

[Ahhlee]

Who is electing these morons???????

 

Oh yeah.

 

Honestly, I don't think any kind of "change" is going to happen until the American people put down their iPods, gossip magazines and celebrity worshipping ways and become educated on the principles this country was founded on.

 

We need someone to bring us back to basics. To help us remember what America stands for....life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! FREEDOM!!!!

 

We need a TEACHER, not another media starlett courting the ignorant voters with a dazzling smile and empty promises of hope.

 

God help us all.

[RoyalOrleans]

Who is electing these morons???????

 

Oh yeah.

 

Honestly, I don't think any kind of "change" is going to happen until the American people put down their iPods, gossip magazines and celebrity worshipping ways and become educated on the principles this country was founded on.

 

We need someone to bring us back to basics. To help us remember what America stands for....life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! FREEDOM!!!!

 

We need a TEACHER, not another media starlett courting the ignorant voters with a dazzling smile and empty promises of hope.

 

God help us all.

 

Morons elect morons.

 

We are in dire straits as a country as this dangerous media figure wipes his ass with the Constitution.

[RoyalOrleans]

It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.

 

This rightfully negates all entitlement programs, the welfare state, and related miscellany.

[RoyalOrleans]

Democrats hate the Constitution because it gives individuals freedom and they can't control or pander to them.

 

Below is what our Progressive Democrat Statists want...

 

The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto

 

1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose. (kelo vs new London, supreme court ruled ?common good? rather than ?public use?)

 

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (check? we have it)

 

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (partially there, death tax)

 

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (reverse, illegal?s get handouts at the cost of the taxpayers... really just vote buying)

 

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. (gee.. what?s happening now, control of banks)

 

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state. (FCC expansion , Cap and Trade)

 

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (let?s just start with GM and Chrysler, plus all the mandates, regulations and laws that inhibit production? oh yeah, cap and trade)

 

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (is this the civilian force as strong as the military Obama was talking about?)

 

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country. (farmer subsidies come with government control.)

 

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc. (check? got it, well almost.. home school and private are still being targeted)

[hugo]

Our founding fathers went to war over a lot less.

 

Why are we a nation of morons? Might have something to do with our kids being educated by a left wing teachers union.

[hugo]

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this

ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by

the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are

reserved to the States or to the people." [10th Amendment]

To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn

around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless

field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." --Thomas

Jefferson: National Bank Opinion, 1791.

 

 

"Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers,

its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." --Thomas

Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

 

Sadly, if I refuse to pay SS and Medicaid taxes a man with a gun will eventually show up at my door.

[hugo]

Of course, there are those who argue the Hamiltonian, as opposed to Madison/ Jefferson, view of the Constitution allows for greater expansion of federal powers:

 

Quotes from Hammy:

 

In the general course of human nature, A power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will.

 

No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute.

 

 

If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws.

 

It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the state governments will in all possible contingencies afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.

 

If the Constitution is adopted the Union will be in fact and in theory an association of States of a Confederacy

[hugo]

Why we need a constitution:

 

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

Winston Churchill

 

“In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority” Edmund Burke

 

“The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.”

John Fitzgerald Kennedy

 

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” Thomas Jefferson

 

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

Thomas Jefferson

[hugo]

I don't think the Constitution is studied almost anywhere, including law schools. In law schools, what they study is what the court said about the Constitution. They study the opinions. They don't study the Constitution itself.

Robert Bork

[Ahhlee]

Excellent quotes and points, RO and hugo.

[timesjoke]

But do the people really care?

 

I think not most of the time. If they can shove their heads in the sand on a subject most of the time they will. They just can't be bothered with something larger than their own immediate concerns.

 

 

This goes back to my constant point about responsibility and how people want to get away from it as often as possible. I was raised with a sense of taking responsibility for my Family, my community, and Country.

[hugo]

The problem with the responsibility argument is the left argues we (the taxpayers)are responxible to insure the less fortunate receive healthcare. It is individual reponsibility that should be the backside of individual liberty. If I am responsible for your healthvare costs I do not want you riding a motorcycle or eating a greasy cheeseburger.

 

The notion we have a collective responsibility is leading us down the road to serfdom.

[timesjoke]

The problem with the responsibility argument is the left argues we (the taxpayers)are responxible to insure the less fortunate receive healthcare. It is individual reponsibility that should be the backside of individual liberty. If I am responsible for your healthvare costs I do not want you riding a motorcycle or eating a greasy cheeseburger.

 

Your right of course, I was talking about individual responsibility, I should have added that.

 

 

As far as your last part, don't you think when the Government does take control of healthcare that certain things will be more strict? We are already involved in sin taxes where the Government is punnishing certain activities and foods that the Government has decided are not good for the people so they severely tax these things to punnish those who buy them.

 

 

I believe you were the first guy on this board to bring up the point that a Government run healthcare "must" impose rationing, well if there is a decision to make about what to ration, why not the things they believe are based on these kinds of behaviors?

 

 

 

 

 

You know, one thing I have wondered.....if the Government wanted to really help reduce medical costs, instead of selling health insurance, why not malpractice insurance? That is the single largest expense in the medical world and is driving up the cost of medical care more than any other single elelent.

 

I bet we could get tort reform once the Government is paying out the claims, lol.

[hugo]

The fact is healthcare sources are limited and "free" healthcare must be rationed; as it is in every country with socialized medicine. The reason we have had healthcare costs rising much higher than the rate of inflation is partially due to the aging population, but mainly due to government subsidizing healthcare at a faster rate than it is rationing it. This can not go on forever. A simple look at the mounting unfunded liabilities of existing government healthcare programs will tell you that. Right now I see the most likely way government will ration is by taxing unhealthy items (sodas, red meat, etc) and by lowering the payments to medical facilities to the point that many will stop providing the procedure. This will cause the same waiting lists you find in nations that practice socialized medicine. Thus reducing costs when people either die or seek a private option.

 

Tort reform will eventually become a neccessity, but it will come, only after, a more conservative government is elected to reign back the huge healthcare deficits which make our SS and national deficit look mild in comparison. The Dems won't leave their trial lawyers hurting.

 

High taxes on alcohol is almost a given.

[hugo]

Quote:

I don't think the Constitution is studied almost anywhere, including law schools. In law schools, what they study is what the court said about the Constitution. They study the opinions. They don't study the Constitution itself.

 

Robert Bork

 

I would like to come back to this. If you study the arguments during the Constitutional convention and the ratifying process. If you read the federalist and anti-federalist papers it is impossible not to conclude that the federal welfare state is grossly unconstitutional and that judicial opinions have perverted the Constitution into a document the authors would not recognize.

 

Sadly, the anti-federalists ended up being right,

 

From article by "Brutus", most likely Robert Yates, during the ratification process:

 

Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way. This disposition, which is implanted in human nature, will operate in the federal legislature to lessen and ultimately to subvert the state authority, and having such advantages, will most certainly succeed, if the federal government succeeds at all. It must be very evident then, that what this constitution wants of being a complete consolidation of the several parts of the union into one complete government, possessed of perfect legislative, judicial, and executive powers, to all intents and purposes, it will necessarily acquire in its exercise and operation.

[timesjoke]

I agree that the founding fathers did not want the Government to live our lives for us, but unfortunately people on both sides of the asile have figured out how to gain massive amounts of personal power/money through the Government.

 

They hide their actions in things like "social programs" and "environmental justice", but looking behind these things we see a huge trail of money/power that does not help the people, it only help the few in possition to take advantage.

 

 

 

A common arguement I hear from people for this new role of Government is that times are different now and we cannot expect the founding father's to create a system that is good considering modern needs........

 

 

I usually ask why? They rarely have a reasonable answer, it is like the promise of "change". They have the catch phrases but no specifics. I honestly believe we are doomed to be socialist, we already are in many ways but it will get better/worse back and forth but each cycle freedom looses a little more ground to socialism.

[hugo]

 

A common arguement I hear from people for this new role of Government is that times are different now and we cannot expect the founding father's to create a system that is good considering modern needs........

 

 

 

What I tell them is that is what amendments are for. The founding fathers put in a process to legally change the Constitution when a large majority wanted it changed.

[RoyalOrleans]

What I tell them is that is what amendments are for. The founding fathers put in a process to legally change the Constitution when a large majority wanted it changed.

 

A common arguement I hear from people for this new role of Government is that times are different now and we cannot expect the founding father's to create a system that is good considering modern needs........

 

Despite the year of its ratification, the Constitution is timeless and does not need to be rewritten. The problem is that the Constitution does not fit the needs of its opponents, so they find ambiguous statements and pervert them. The most disgusting part of the perversion of the Constitution is that the many social programs that have been implemented under the "promote general welfare" line in the preamble.

 

The preamble of the Constitution is just that: a preamble. It is not operative. Just as the preamble to the second amendment, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...", is not operative. It is, like other parts of the Constitution, an introduction to the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

The preamble of the Constitution, merely served as an explanation as to why the document was being written. It proceeded to, in Article 1, Section 1, to say, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.."

 

In all subsequent sections, a preamble was again used to explain the purpose of the section. In Article 1, Section 8, the preamble states, "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;” It's not operative. It’s nothing more than an explanation for the purpose of the section, followed by the operative. The powers listed after the preamble are ALL that Congress has purview over.

 

The ‘United States’ does not mean ‘people’, it means the country- the government. When the founders wrote the Constitution, they were very specific with the rights of the people. How would one know this? Well, they mentioned it specifically: “..the right of the people to peacefully assemble” (I Amendment); “the right of the people to be secure…” (IV Amendment); “….are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (X Amendment); “the right of the people to keep and bear arms…” (II Amendment)

 

Healthcare is not a right, and it never has been. It is also not a federal power, it never has been. It is a state power, delegated to the states under the10th Amendment. If people want socialized healthcare, I’m fine with that. Massachusetts has it, and NO one has heard a peep from me. It is a disaster, but not one soul has heard me condemn it-- it is their right to institute it, no matter how much I hate the idea.

 

It was no accident that the constitution was written the way it was, as they knew full well that local government is more efficient and less oppressive than a centralized government, and took measures to ensure it. And they were right: the states of California and Michigan, as terribly screwed as they are, are FAR more efficient than the federal government. It’s why Chicago, as corrupt as that city is, is far less corrupt than the federal government. If the states want socialized healthcare, they should pursue it. Where it should not be pursued is in Congress, as they’ve absolutely zero authority to do so.

[timesjoke]

What I tell them is that is what amendments are for. The founding fathers put in a process to legally change the Constitution when a large majority wanted it changed.

 

True, but that process is difficult to follow (as it should be) and it is just easier to twist the rules to fit the desired outcome instead of actually changing them.

 

 

I believe we can all agree that all laws and guidelines are worthless without enforcement. The speed limit sign does not stop speeding, it is the cop on the side of the road that has to enforce the rules or they become almost non-existent. The same is true with our constitution, we have everyone from the Whitehouse to the congress ignoring their role of enforcement of the Constitution and the many courts all twisting the meanings until they have no comparison to original intent.

 

 

Why?

 

 

Because as you said Hugo, the Constitution is nothing more to them than an impeedment to where they want to go and what they want to do so why would they play enforcement against themselves?