Thread: Individual mandate is unconstitutional...

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

"Providing for the general welfare" is the means of exercising the enumerated powers listed in 20 explicit clauses. "Providing for the general welfare" is not an end, a power onto itself with no limit. Such a supposition makes the 20 clauses superfluous and the 10th Amendment pointless. I mean, why have an Amendment that refers to enumerated powers when the powers are assumed to be not enumerated but unlimited?

Why do you believe that those twenty specifically enumerated, specific examples of the general welfare are not what our Founding Fathers intended them to be?

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Paying the debts does not necessarily require borrowing.

Having debt requires borrowing, yes.

Originally Posted by EricOKC

Um - no.

The phrase has a very specific legal definition. Nothing you say will change that, and were you to actually use that argument in court, I'm betting you'd have an even chance of having the case thrown out, and getting cited for contempt - possibly both.

I am starting to think you are clinically insane.

Can you cite that definition, for clarification?

I dont know why were still doing this. You either accept the interpretation or you dont. There is no point in arguing it. Sentence one of Sec 8 is pretty clear.

1. power - The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
2. purpose of the power - to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

The second part is a limiter on the first part.

Originally Posted by EricOKC

Think REAL hard about how that could affect people's purchase of an insurance policy if they know that a pre-existing condition cannot be excluded....

If you have a compound fracture, you're not going to wait to get insurance before dealing with it.

If you have cancer, you might. So what? We already pay for people like that through ER treatment when their cancer progresses and the hospital has to charge higher rates to everyone else to cover for their ER treatment of the uninsured.

We wouldn't allow insurance companies to discriminate against black people would we? So why is it ok to discriminate against someone based upon their disease? Why doesn't a person's health -- especially health beyond their control -- meet the definitions of the 14th amendment?

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Why do you believe that those twenty specifically enumerated, specific examples of the general welfare are not what our Founding Fathers intended them to be?

Because I read the Federalist Papers. Did you even read Federalist 41? Because I read the Constitution. Did you even read the Constitution? Because the powers of the Executive and Judiciary, namely, the power of veto and the power to void acts of Congress for Constitutionality, put this clause in its proper perspective. The 20 subsequent clauses are NOT "specific examples of the general welfare." There is a difference between WHAT and HOW. What powers Congress has is enumerated. How those powers are to be implemented is given in the first clause - for the general welfare.

One way we know the powers of Congress is enumerated is the much cited Interstate Commerce Clause. There would be no reason to refer to any other clause other than the general welfare clause IF it originally meant what Leftists want it to meant. Another mischaracterization of the Left is to suppose Welfare meant in the Constitution what Leftists want it to meant - all manner of transfer of wealth schemes. It did not and it does not.

Another way we know the powers of Congress is enumerated is the fact that acts of Congress have been vetoed and determined by both the President and the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. IF the general welfare clause meant whatever Congress wanted it to mean then there would be no point in a veto power and no act of Congress would ever be declared unconstitutional. Indeed, the Supreme Court would not have the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.

You did not answer my question. I noticed you often ask question but don't answer questions posed to you. So, I'd appreciate an answer to my question.

why have an Amendment that refers to enumerated powers when the powers are assumed to be not enumerated but unlimited?

Originally Posted by jviehe

Having debt requires borrowing, yes.

Why would that necessarily be the case with different sovereigns? A State is distinct from the general government of the Union. Why could State debt not be repaid from massive surpluses instead of massive deficits appropriated by the general government?

Originally Posted by jviehe

I dont know why were still doing this. You either accept the interpretation or you dont. There is no point in arguing it. Sentence one of Sec 8 is pretty clear.

1. power - The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
2. purpose of the power - to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

The second part is a limiter on the first part.

I subscribe to the Federalist doctrine and that interpretation.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

I subscribe to the Federalist doctrine and that interpretation.

Based on your arguments, I sincerely doubt that.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Paying the debts does not necessarily require borrowing.

Originally Posted by jviehe

Having debt requires borrowing, yes.

jv, daniel does not understand the historical reason this clause is in here. Allow me to shed some light on the subject.

In America's 1st Revolutionary War, the colonies individually borrowed money to finance the war effort. There was a major flaw in how the world perceived the US under the Articles of Confederation as no authority was given the national government to assume the debts of the now several sovereign States.

In fact, this was one of the major reasons there even was an assembly, what we now call a Constitutional Convention. It did not start that way but merely an assembly to determine how to change the Articles of Confederation. This explains why the debt clause was put as the first use of Congress' power to collect taxes - to assume the debts of all the Colonies in the late war. Virginia was so opposed to this assumption of debt that the seat of power was offered to them in exchange for accepting this provision.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Another way we know the powers of Congress is enumerated is the fact that acts of Congress have been vetoed and determined by both the President and the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional.

IF the general welfare clause meant whatever Congress wanted it to mean then there would be no point in a veto power and no act of Congress would ever be declared unconstitutional. Indeed, the Supreme Court would not have the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.

You did not answer my question. I noticed you often ask question but don't answer questions posed to you. So, I'd appreciate an answer to my question.

In my opinion, our Founding Fathers did an excellent job at the convention, with our Constitution. They even crafted a federal doctrine on its behalf, simply for the sake of their posterity.

Where did you get the impression that the federal doctrine was designed to do what you suggest?

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

Originally Posted by EricOKC

Based on your arguments, I sincerely doubt that.

How would you know if you keep ceding the point with all of your fallacies?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

jv, daniel does not understand the historical reason this clause is in here. Allow me to shed some light on the subject.

In America's 1st Revolutionary War, the colonies individually borrowed money to finance the war effort. There was a major flaw in how the world perceived the US under the Articles of Confederation as no authority was given the national government to assume the debts of the now several sovereign States.

In fact, this was one of the major reasons there even was an assembly, what we now call a Constitutional Convention. It did not start that way but merely an assembly to determine how to change the Articles of Confederation. This explains why the debt clause was put as the first use of Congress' power to collect taxes - to assume the debts of all the Colonies in the late war. Virginia was so opposed to this assumption of debt that the seat of power was offered to them in exchange for accepting this provision.

Here is some evidence from modernity.

Why would that necessarily be the case with different sovereigns? A State is distinct from the general government of the Union. Why could State debt not be repaid from massive surpluses instead of massive deficits appropriated by the general government?