GB

They believe that their cause is so just and right that it trumps the law. And they will do whatever it takes, no matter what other people think, to see the law defied. That’s exactly what is going on with this “health care” bill, among many other programs of the left.

Which means (to me) that no authorities exist for the government to strip 80 (+) % of existing health care programs from we who have them; also,

No authorities exist to compel us to pay for such a program.

Why aren’t these arguments being made? (Or, are they & I missed the Memo?).

Where are our lawyers? If this mess is passed into law is it possible to overturn it in the SC?

Where Are Our Lawyers? Who will argue this case?

“Strict constructionists” would be laughed at as hopelessly out of touch with the necessities of the modern age.

This is why we must also fear MAObama appointing anyone to the Supreme Court in the next 3 years. You know they will be using a fantasy, Humpty-Dumpty interpretation of the Constitution, instead of a rational, historical approach.

I think modern politicians run away from such debates precisely because, in our “sound-bite” short-attention span society, they fear people will turn them off, or that people will believe that the wool is being pulled over the brains.

As a teacher for nearly 4 decades, I can tell you that the high school teachers who can delineate the Jeffersonian argument printed above (thanks to “RBDWiggins”) - in general - d o N O T e x i s t in our schools.

And from what I can tell through my work on national examinations, which has brought me into contact with thousands of teachers throughout the years, for the few teachers who do know about Jefferson’s idea, too many will NOT pass it on to their students, but will instead pass on the idea of stretching the Constitution to make it fit modern ideas on creating a socialist welfare state.

The Executive no longer follows the rules.

The Fourth Estate no longer follows the rules.

The Supreme Court no longer follows the rules.

The only ones left who believe in the rules are a narrow percentage of the population who are both intelligent enough to understand “rule of law” and who have a good enough education to encounter the idea.

This will not end well.

Mew

Federalist number 42 James Madison

The defect of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience. To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought to view on this subject, it may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs that it would nourish increasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility. To those who do not view the question through the medium of passion or interest, the desire of the commercial States to collect, in any form, an indirect revenue from their uncommercial neighbors must appear not less impolitic than it is unfair; since it would stimulate the injured party by resentment as well as interest to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade. But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain.

Federalist number 41 pages 262-263 James Madison

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.”

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? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? 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, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing had its origin with the latter.

You have a constitutional right to own guns. but you have to pay for your own guns and ammo.

Now there’s an idea - everybody support Pelosi-care AFTER Nancy gives all Americans all the free guns and free ammunition they want.

Jefferson preemptively deflated their argument in his letter to Albert Gallatin.

…Whereas, our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.

…For in the phrase, “to lay taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare,” it is a mere question of syntax, whether the two last infinitives are governed by the first or are distinct and co-ordinate powers; a question unequivocally decided by the exact definition of powers immediately following.

Thomas Jefferson - 16 June 1817 - Works 12:71–73

The phrase “general welfare” is a modifier of the “to” clause, and thus serves to limit that clause. The phrase “general welfare” is not an independent grant of authority.

Second, text should be interpretted to be consistent with other portions of the text. Article I Section 8 provides a list of ennumerated powers. To interpret one clause so broadly as to render the rest of the Constitution redundant at best and contradictory at worst means that some other interpretion is correct, and that your interprettion is incorrect.

In other words, under your view of the Constitution, Article I could be reduced to “Congress can provide for the general welfare” and leave it at that.

The phrase “general welfare” is unfortunate, but not for the reasons that you state.

Fwiw, I really, really, disagree with the scope of those powers, but them’s the laws of the land.

My understanding is that the original meaning of “general Welfare of the United States” was addressing the needs of the United States as a government. I don’t think the Constitution ever refers to the citizens of the US as “the United States.” Therefore, the general welfare clause does not give Congress the power to provide health care for the people of the United States. If it did, then why not a National Food Provision? Everyone is entitled to free food.

Now, I realize that this is not the current opinion, and hasn’t been for quite some time. There are plenty of unconstitutional laws passed under the guise of general welfare. I would submit that these are wrong, too, and that just because we have accepted those laws doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stand up to this one.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution.

Under this provision Congress has the power “[t]o 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.”

“General Welfare” is the phrase the Left is using.