Constitutional scholars only! (death, speech, vs, elect)

[jetgraphics]

If you really want to know, really and truly, know why the government is saying what it says, then you must realize this: They are fond of misdirection.
If you want to really, really know why government acts "outside of the constitution", I can direct you to the facts.

You will have to look them up for yourself. You won't believe me if I tell you.

Look up the following terms in a legal dictionary or reference book (cross reference as many as you can stomach) :

1. Pauper
2. Vagrant
3. Vagabond
4. Status criminal
5. Pauper's oath
6. In forma pauperis
7. Entitlement
8. Contribution

Then read Article IV of Confederation, and pay attention to the excepted classes.

I may be wrong, and can't quite comprehend basic legalese, despite double checking all terms in Black's Law Dictionary, published by Westlaw, but to the best of my ability, the definitions basically expose the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

spoiler
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
You DO want to know, but don't want to look it up yourself...
Okay, here's the soundbite version:

You did it to yourself.
You squandered your Creator's birthright and the Founders' heritage.
You surrendered your endowment to be sovereign, free and independent, in exchange for entitlements (charity) from the public treasury.
You devolved into a pauper and vagabond, a status criminal.
And you granted full authority to the "servant" government to rule you, and bind you, and regulate you, "for your own good".
And in apathy and ignorance, you failed to read the very laws that you consented to obey, as evidenced by your signature upon the many government forms.
(Where do you think software LULA agreements came from? "You agree to the terms...")

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

I know very few people with such a limited grasps of the word welfare.



I agree with you regarding the education folks get because to not know that the meaning of the Tax and Spend Clause (that is where the general welfare clause resides) has been one of the longest running and hotly debated concepts in the Constitution.

But it is nice to read that you have been able to discern its true meaning when Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Benjamin Cardoza, or Harlan Stone could not.

"With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. 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." – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83


Of the five you listed, the three that actaully drafted, wrote and signed the Constitution assign no general power to the general wefare clause that exceeds the power granted by the enumerated powers.


Benjamin Cardozo and Harlan Stone did not draft, write or sign the Constitution because they weren't born until the nineteenth century. How could their opinions of the Founder's intent be any more relevant than those who twist the meaning of it today?







[SIZE=4][/SIZE]

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

Well said.

But never the less wrong.


"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

[harborlady]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

It is far more sinister, in modern application.
If you examine pre-1933 law and court decisions, regarding pauperization, you will discover why no one in the founding generation would equate "General Welfare" with charity from the public treasury (i.e., entitlements).

If I've paid for something, it is an entitlement. It is not charity. The insurance policy on my car and home are not charity and I am entitled to payment the day catastrophe hits. I'm also entitled to SS because I've paid into it my whole life. That anyone was permitted to dabble with those funds is the culprit, not the insurance policy, and not the citizens paying into the funds. Your logic is stretched so thin it snaps.

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by harborlady

If I've paid for something, it is an entitlement. It is not charity. The insurance policy on my car and home are not charity and I am entitled to payment the day catastrophe hits. I'm also entitled to SS because I've paid into it my whole life. That anyone was permitted to dabble with those funds is the culprit, not the insurance policy, and not the citizens paying into the funds. Your logic is stretched so thin it snaps.

This thread is about the Constitution. Maybe you posted in the wrong thread?

[harborlady]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

Great post. The general welfare statement has been the most abused and purposely misconstrued language in the constitution ... the veritable wild card for federal abuse of powers ... powers never granted nor intended to be granted.

And it is the scoundrels and the cheats who would "innocently" cite the general welfare language as supporting the multitude of power grabs. The very structure of the constitution, and how the federal powers were specifically enumerated, while reserving all other powers to the states and to the people clearly identifies the intent of the framers to strictly limit federal powers.

The very idea that the constitution would provide an open door for federal power grabs under the auspices of the general welfare language is a blatant fraud.

But, that is what the federal government and the courts have become ... one gigantic fraud.

It would be far more helpful to a general audience naming what you consider to be abuse and spelling out the multitude of power grabs.

[harborlady]

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

That would be what a liberal might think. However, it isn't that complicated. It is really very simple. Think of it this way: Government should do no harm.

Government should not be a stumbling block to prosperity. I think it is that simple. You have to remember what these people were up against with the King. It is in the context of their former experience that these things were written.

Your government is your personal stumbling block? That's interesting. Did they make you fail your math test? Did they ruin your marriage?

[harborlady]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Your problem is most of us studied this not only in high school but in college as well.

Yes I'm getting the sneaking suspicion they read ONE book and passed it around.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by harborlady

If I've paid for something, it is an entitlement. It is not charity. The insurance policy on my car and home are not charity and I am entitled to payment the day catastrophe hits. I'm also entitled to SS because I've paid into it my whole life. That anyone was permitted to dabble with those funds is the culprit, not the insurance policy, and not the citizens paying into the funds. Your logic is stretched so thin it snaps.

If you've paid for something, you own it.

So where is you property?

SS is neither an entitlement nor charity since it is fast approaching insolvency. The fact that everyone who earns income is forced to pay for something they will not receive means we are, to the degree to which our labor is taken without compensation, slaves of the federal government.

[GuyNTexas]

Originally Posted by harborlady

It would be far more helpful to a general audience naming what you consider to be abuse and spelling out the multitude of power grabs.

Well at the the risk of steering this train off track, I could point to a lot of issues. I'll restrain myself to just a couple of examples which are exemplary as well as equally disastrous.

1) Education - Federal involvement in public education could certainly be fitted to the "general welfare" arena if it is applied so literally and broadly as it is currently and fraudulently done so today.

Historically, education was a community based system which evolved into a state based approach. It wasn't until the early 20th century that the federal government began to encroach, and this federal involvement escalated after WW II by legislative acts by congress. Today the federal government virtually runs education on a national scale with funding and standards mandates for which the states and the people are compelled to comply with, and like all other laws ... under threat of fines and imprisonment.

What is most interesting is the fact that even if you do agree that the general welfare language justifies federal involvement in education, the results of federal involvement have proven to be contrary to the general welfare insofar as education is concerned. Private schools, and much properly administered home based education has proven far superior to the public school system ... if education rather than indoctrination is truly the goal.

2) Healthcare - Federal involvement in healthcare has been a complete disaster .. leading to astronomical increases in cost of delivery, with a simultaneous decline in quality and general public health. We're sicker and fatter and less healthy than ever, all the while spending more than any other country on earth.

This two headed snake ... the Food & Drug Administration is the epitome of federal government failure to protect the "general welfare" of the people, when the reality is that the FDA has done more harm than good (aside it's lack of constitutional authority to do what it does).

Given that aside from defending the United States of America from foreign threats ... which would obviously apply as a priority to the issue of promoting the "general welfare" ... health and education could certainly be considered important matters for the general welfare of the public too. Yet it is only the former which is clearly enumerated as not just a power, but a responsibility and obligation of the federal government. Nowhere does the constitution grant power or obligate the federal government to involve itself in medicine or education.

These are two glaring examples of the usurpation of power by the federal government in matters it has no business or authority to meddle with, all under the guise of "general welfare".

There are COUNTLESS additional examples.