Concordia res Parvae Crescunt
by Rob Natelson
During the Bush administration, many within the dominant culture expressed concern about the constitutionality of detaining several hundred alleged enemy combatants in Guantanamo.
Whenever legal restrictions on abortion are proposed, many express doubt about the constitutionality of interjecting government between patients and their doctors.
But those voices have been mostly silent about the constitutionality of empowering the federal government with decisions over the life, death, and health of three hundred million Americans.
In fact, the constitutional difficulties are profound. This is certainly so for those who believe the Constitution means what our Founders understood it to mean. But it is even true for those interested only in modern Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Following are some of the ways in which current health care proposals potentially clash with our nation’s Basic Law:
Enumerated powers. The Constitution grants the federal government about thirty-five specific powers – eighteen in Article I, Section 8, and the rest scattered throughout the document. (The exact number depends on how you count.) None of those powers seems to authorize control of the health care system outside the District of Columbia and the federal territories.
To be sure, since the late 1930s, the Supreme Court has been tolerant of the federal welfare state, usually justifying federal ad hoc programs under specious interpretations of the congressional Commerce Power. But, except in wartime, the Court has never authorized an expansion of the federal scope quite as large as what is being proposed now. And in recent years, both the Court and individual justices – even “liberal†justices – have said repeatedly that there are boundaries beyond which Congress may not go.
The greatest Chief Justice, John Marshall, once wrote that if Congress were to use its legitimate powers as a “pretext†for assuming an unauthorized power, “it would become the painful duty†of the Court “to say that such an act was not the law of the land.â€
But health care bills such as the Obama-favored HB 3200 do not even offer a pretext. The only reference to the Constitution in HB 3200 is a severability clause that purports to save the remainder of the bill if part is declared unconstitutional. HB 3200 contains no reference to the Commerce Power or to any other enumerated power.
Excessive Delegation. The Constitution “vests†legislative authority in Congress. Congress is not permitted to delegate that authority to the executive branch. This is another realm in which the modern Supreme Court has been lenient, while affirming that there are limits.
Thus, in Schecter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935), a unanimous court struck down a delegation of authority that looked much like the delegations in some current health care proposals.
Substantive Due Process. The Substantive Due Process doctrine was not contemplated by the Founders, but the courts have engrafted onto constitutional jurisprudence. The courts employ this doctrine to invalidate laws they think are unacceptably intrusive of personal liberty or privacy.
The most famous modern Substantive Due Process case is Roe v. Wade, which struck down state abortion laws that intruded into the doctor-patient relationship. But the intrusion invalidated in Roe was insignificant compared to the massive intervention contemplated by schemes such as HB 3200. “Global budgeting†and “single-payer†plans go even further, and seem clearly to violate the Supreme Court’s Substantive Due Process rules.
Tenth Amendment. Technically, the Tenth Amendment is merely a declaration that the federal government has no powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. However, the modern Supreme Court has cited the Tenth Amendment in holding that Congress may not “commandeer†state decision making in the service of federal goals.
It is permissible for Congress to condition grants of funds to the states, if the conditions are related to the funding program and are not “coercive.â€Â Thus, in 1986 the Court ruled that Congress may, because of highway safety issues, reduce highway grants by five percent to states refusing to raise their drinking ages to 21.
But the mandates that some health care plans would impose on states certainly could be found “coercive,†both because they are excessive (HB 3200, for instance, would withdraw all Public Health Service Act money from non-cooperating states) and because they are unrelated to the program.
A major goal of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is to limit government power, especially federal power. National health care proposals would increase that power greatly, so it is not surprising that those proposals have constitutional difficulties.
Whatever the merits of federal control of health care, moving in that direction is (as former Justice David Souter might say) a change of “constitutional dimension.â€Â The proper way to make such a change is not through an ordinary congressional bill. The proper way is by constitutional amendment.
Rob Natelson is Professor of Law at The University of Montana, and a leading constitutional scholar. (See www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm.) His opinions are his own, and should not be attributed to any other person or institution.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
I want to say I am sick of watching our government. Republicans if you are thinking I am only going to trash Democrats you would be wrong. I guess I would sum myself up as a conservative but I hate labels I think they just cause problems.
I am sick of how our government just passes laws with out thought to them being legal. I am sick of bills being overloaded with pet projects. And I am sick of our government being power hungry. But I am not one of these people that just sit back and complains I have some very common sense solutions to these problems.
Example the constitution it is roughly 4 pages long with all amendments. The Healthcare bill. *Note I picked the healthcare bill because most people have heard about this bill. This bill is around 1100 pages. Well this document is 4 pages and explains how The government of the united states will be built organized governed and managed. And the average person could pick this up read it and understand it in about 30 minutes. Here is a bill that is 1100 pages and explains how to save money on health care. A team of lawyers and about 2 weeks of reading and rereading can not understand. What document do you think should be 1100 pages. If you did not know anything about the constitution or the health care bill or other bills for that matter I guaranty you would say the constitution would be the document that is 1100 pages.
Here is a thought what if we had a law saying no bill can be longer then the constitution. This seems practical and it has to be written so it can be understood by the common person. Here is a law I would support but I bet would never get out of a committee or even see the floor to be voted on. You know what tack onto this law any additions to a bill you have have to have a direct effect on the bill itself no more of this well I would vote for that if you throw in a public park from this community in my home state. This needs to end. I am tired of all the pork in these bills. Why not pass a law that makes it stop? (If some of you can help me right this bill maybe we could alert the news outlets and see if congress has the nerve to not vote yes to it.)
Another issue the government seems to talk about is Campaign contributions. They keep telling us that this is a very difficult thing to fix same with lobbyist. Wrong this is a simple fix one law would fix this. Any person who accepts money from any person, business, or organization may not sit on any committee or vote on any bill that would directly or indirectly affects this person business or organization. Any elected official found guilty of violating this shall be warned once and have to publicly admit to the wrong doing. 2nd offence is immediate removal from there place of power. After all even the constitution says elected officials may not accept bribes what else can we call a campaign contribution? Well if they passed a law like this we could be sure that these were not bribes. I don’t even know how you could argue with this bill. (If some of you can help me right this bill maybe we could alert the news outlets and see if congress has the nerve to not vote yes to it.)
My biggest gripe has to be the swings in policies from one party to the next. This 4 page document uuchhumm the constitution is suppose to protect us from this type of thing. I want to see someone run that just wants to make it legal. Take all of these government programs. I know I will get someone telling me that the constitution is a living breathing document. I always answer this questions the same way. YES IT IS. Our founding fathers were smart enough to know that changes need made from time to time. Hence amendments! You can amend this great document at anytime. Problem the government has with this is they need 2/3 of the states to agree on it. The reason for this was so our government would always be put in check and we would not have to worry about crazy things like the patriot act, Bailouts, healthcare, and other areas of our lives the government seems to be after. Look I want to see someone brave enough to put all parts of the government up against the constitution. The government needed an amendment just to collect taxes. Look at your paycheck I bet the government withholds more then just income tax. So every government project gets put up against this document. If the states don’t vote on the amendment the power goes back to the states to run. JUST THE WAY THE CONSTITUTION SAYS.
If you lived in a cave all of your life and I had you study the constitution before I let you out of the cave. I then let you look at our government but did not tell you it was the United States of America you would not know what country you were in. Think about it.
There is no "National" Health Care System, and cannot be — only individual State Systems
By: Wayne J. Barbarek;
08/18/2009
Although there may be problems, as in any industry, I cannot keep from wondering to what, or which, "system" everyone is referring.
There is all this talk of the "Nation's" health care system; however, I fail to find where health care is a "national" object. There is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution suggesting that it is among the certain enumerated objects of the "Federal" government. So, how can there be a "national" system for something that is not among the certain enumerated objects that are delegated to the "Federal" government?
What is plain, though, rather than there being any kind of "national" system, there are certainly individual separate systems belonging exclusively to the several States — individual systems that the States have a constitutionally guaranteed right to establish or not establish, and to regulate or not regulate, as they, as independent separate sovereign societies, see fit or decide is appropriate for their individual and separate circumstances and interests.
What is also plain is that, no matter the alleged good intentions, good faith or urgency for a needed plan, and no matter the degree of passion or how great the numbers in its favor, until which time the necessary additional powers are constitutionally granted to the Federal Government, this remains their guaranteed right, individually and collectively within their separate societies made plain by the 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution of these united states.
Specifically, the Federal government has utterly NO direct authority or jurisdiction whatsoever extending to those objects belonging exclusively to this Union's member States any more than it has authority extending into any State in Europe; — and, whether or not anyone agrees, is irrelevant, for the plain truth is that Health Care, its industries, institutions, businesses, professions, education, licensing, wages, et cetera; are all among those objects belonging exclusively to the several States.
Not only does the authority of the Federal government NOT extend to such objects plainly belonging exclusively with the States, the undeniable fact still remains that the fundamental purpose of UNION and its Federal government — created by the States and ratified on their behalf by the People — is NOT to be the source and facilitator of interferences and aggressions against them, but for the purpose of preserving them as separate independent sovereign societies; and, in so doing, meant to protect and preserve their Rights as the true sovereigns to decide separately and independently for themselves how the considerable remaining powers meant to be left with them shall be, or shall not be, exercised.
In other words, it is the absolute Right of each State, independently of one another, to freely choose how they want to govern their separate society — to wit, how liberal and generous or how conservative and frugal it wants to be, as long as they follow the Republican form — without interferences and impositions from other member States or the Federal government. And, in exercising those Rights of Freedom and Liberty, NO State has a right, above all the Federal government, to judge and impose their will upon another just because that smaller society is, in their meager opinion, making inappropriate laws, not making desired laws or because it has customs, morals, habits or interests that are contrary to what they "think" or "believe" is appropriate and conducive to being an American State, even though its laws, customs, morals, habits and interests are not contrary to the Constitution.
So, what does this mean and how does it all add up as it pertains to the President and the controlling faction with which he is aligned?
As a Union meant to be of Laws derived from 'true" construction and not of Men derived from forced construction, and as servants that are obligated by their required oaths to support the constitution of these united states, they have utterly no authority whatsoever to judge that which plainly belongs exclusively with the individual States; — nor do they have any authority whatsoever discussing, above all, proposing or promising to establish a National system, reform the several State systems made under their individual authorities or make health care a fundamental right using ordinary acts of legislation.
And, by arrogantly pursuing their current course, they make plain their intent to pervert the Constitution (according to the framers, an act tantamount to treason against these united states) and commit lawless aggressions against the States in utter defiance of their oaths and the Constitution — lawlessly encroaching upon and committing direct interferences into jurisdictions, authorities and objects belonging exclusively with the States by exploiting a temporary exigency to better excite the emotions and passions of the People so as to facilitate and hatch there repugnant schemes, perfectly timed so that on the spot, none can be, nor are they permitted to be, immediately refuted.
"But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies [States], will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such." (Hamilton, fp. 33)
The content of this paper is derive from plain meaning of the Journals of the Convention at Philadelphia, the several State conventions, The Federalist Papers and Congressional Records. Learn more about "true" meaning and construction. Go to http://www.documentsillustrative.com and download Documents Illustrative™ V1.0c — a searchable database product containing the Journals of the Convention at Philadelphia and the Federalist Papers.
My concern is that this federal government is going to get its claws in on our (private healthcare) come hook or crook.
I understand that this public option plan is not competition, because no private plan can compete with those unlimited federal funds, that these feds can pull out of their own ass, or my ass, if they please, it’s a government take over, one way or the other.
But what is this crap about a results based alternative, really mean.
Will my (PRIVATE) doctors be punished now, by these feds, for trying to save my life?
This sounds to me, not to be much of a lesser, of two evils for those of us who are still self reliant Americans.
20 years from now, God willing, I will have to accept those healthcare programs that my fellow Americans can afford to extend to me in Medicare, and Medicaid, but until then.
Stay the hell off my independent, and self reliant ass please.
Re Nick's comment: "I’m not sure why he said that John Marshall was the greatest chief justice. . . Marshall took a very broad view of Constitutional construction. Marbury v. Madison claims — quite wrongly — that the judiciary gets to decide what the law is."
Nick: Here are your answers:
1. The position that the Supreme Court would review laws for state or federal constitutionality was not a creation of Marshall. It already had been exercised at the state level before the Constitution was ever adopted, and was discussed favorably by both sides during the debate over the ratification of the Constitution. One scholar has identified over 30 reported state and federal cases after 1776 and before Marbury (1803) in which judicial review was applied, assumed, or favorably mentioned. Same for the Constitution's ratifying process: Marshall himself was a delegate to the Virginia ratifying convention and mentioned judicial review there. No one contradicated him, except to say that they hoped the courts would be firm enough to exercise the power!
The myth that Marshall invented judicial review or that that the Founders opposed it is just that -- a myth. (It is partly the result of confusing judicial review with a quite different idea -- a federal revisionary council.)
2. While it is true that Marshall took a broader view of congressional power than some of his contemporaries, the spin that he was an advocate of unbridled federal power is another re-writing of history -- in this case, by those who wish to hijack Marshall in support of the current "anything goes" version of federal powers. Unfortunately, a few on our side have bought into this spin. The fact is that all of Marshall's major decisions were within the mainstream understanding of federal powers. But there is little doubt that if Marshall were confronted with Obama's national health care proposals he would say they are unconstitutional.
3. Marshall is generally considered the greatest chief justice because he brought to the Supreme Court a stability, fixed role, and quality of decision making it previously had lacked -- at a time when the new government was still very shaky and badly needed those things. He was not only a fine lawyer (on this score, too, modern commentators often downplay his legal ability and try to turn him into a modern political-activist judge), but as Chief Justice, he was an outstanding leader for the Court for 34 years.
The following clarification should not be necessary, but I'm make it anyway: OF COURSE, I don't always agree with his reasoning or results.
Jeff wrote:
As to one of the bigger problems as to why 300 million people ignore the Constitutional principles of a republican form of government, just think “media.â€
Well, ahem, bad as I hate to admit it, I think Jeff is right to an extent; to the extent that you have a people prone to be conditioned by the media. Otherwise, I'll say that when you take on (according to the liberal rules of absolute equality and non-discriminationism) a growing group of people disposed to be subservient to totalitarian centralized government, then you get what you pay for.
The whole concept of republican government, as explicated in our founding documents, requires (like it or not!) that there is a very high level of cohesiveness in the host society. That was pretty much maintained until the beginning of the last century in America. Then things began to fall apart per absolute equality and non-discriminationism. End of story.
Mr. Matthews, let me respond to your post. Everything that calls itself “Christian†is not “Christian"
Then, how do we know you are? How do we know the author you recommend is? How are we supposed to judge who is a real Christian and who is not?
How do we know it is Unchristian to provide universal health care? How do we know it is Unchristian to NOT provide universal health care?
How do we know that Christianity really dictates one way or the other in that regard?
For one thing, Christ died for your sins. I am sure you'd agree with that. To ask you to put up with some inconvenience and a bit of sacrifice in order to provide health care for everyone is less of a sacrifice than Christ made, isn't it?
To tax your income and give it to the less fortunate is rather inconvenient, but pales in comparison to a complete sacrifice.
The way Christ is charcaterized in the Bible, I am inclined to think that those who claim he was closer to a communist are probably right. I never heard stories about his pursuit of capitalism, except for a brief stint in carpentry. :-)
Other than that, he seemed to pretty much give up his convenience for everyone else.
Most of the people who are in this forum seem to be “well-readâ€. The facts of Our Beloved American History are undeniably “Christianâ€. A Supreme Court decision in 1892 stated that “This is a Christian Nation.†Our Founders gave Glory to God for this Beloved Nation continually.
They understood that the “religion of a Country†was the basis of the laws. We were established on the Ten Commandments of Almighty God. The Fear of God was the “salt and light†in this Beloved Land.
It is why, when public education was discussed by the Founders, the purpose was to “enlighten†the children to the “fear of God.†I didn’t say they became “Christiansâ€, but they had “an enlightened conscience†to know right and fear God. Since the 1963 Supreme Court ruling at request of the Atheist O’Hare, public school children do not have the Ten Commandments in their school rooms, prayer, and Bible reading have been removed and they are lost. Hence now the police have to patrol the halls of public schools because the “salt and light†has been removed from the educational process. Hosea 4:6, “…seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy Children.†It has come to pass.
Now, we see in the Congress, “ a reaping of this rotten Supreme Court decision that has destroyed the fabric of our Nation.†God is serious. Ps. 9:17, “The wicked shall be turned into Hell, and all the nations that forget God.†Men do not “Fear God†anymore. They fear being “found out by the media or some other human agency.†They had better “Fear Godâ€, Luke 12:4,5, “…Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into Hell: yea, I say unto you, Fear Him.†The Lord declares God Almighty’s prerogative in this Scripture. He has the “ultimate authority and power.†“Fear God.â€
Someone has said , “What you would do in the dark, if you would never be found out is the character of a man.†When the “fear of God†rules, people understand they will give an account to God for “words and deeds done in the bodyâ€, that knowledge keeps “Society†clean and right. No, not everyone is a Christian, but the works of “darkness†hide because of “the salt and light - the fear of God.†Our Founders understood this “working of God†in the heart of man and thus they proceeded to write our Magnificent Constitution with the Bill of Rights.
God espoused America to be HIS. God loves to show His majesty in the earth. Has He not done that in this marvelous Constitutional Republic that has been bequeath to us, the posterity of these Wonderful Founders. This is God’s Country and we’d better keep it that way.
Why do the Nations of the earth look to America???? Because of Liberty, the Preachers used to Preach Liberty, Our Liberties are secured to us because of the Holy Bible. In America, we must have God, our Foundations are Christian, our Foundational laws are Christian, to sustain all of this we must have God with us.
Ps. 2 declares, “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little, Blessed are all they what put their trust in Him.†His yoke is easy and His burdens are light, so I recommend the God of our Fathers to all. Our Beloved Founders trusted Him and O, “What God hath wrought.â€
To God Be the Glory
For God & Country
Ruth Ann Wilson
Michael wrote:
I don’t get why people like to turn a discussion of some tyrants controlling our life and death decisions into a profession of religious faith anyway.
I'm going to guess that that's probably because you're not a particularly religious person, therefore you don't understand what motivates and inspires religious people. But I think your wording is wrong to begin with. Religious people don't "like" to turn these discussions into professions of religious faith, as if to say that that is their entire motivation from the git-go. No; they profess their faith in such discussions because it is their faith that is their inner strength; their entire world and life view is derived from their faith, as is the case with anyone else (yes, everyone has a faith in ... something). I wouldn't knock it too much in any event. You will find on a deeper investigation, I'm quite sure, that more Christians than Muslims (or Hindus) agree with your perspective on the constitution. Take it to the bank and deposit it, because it is quite true. No offense intended, just fact.
MARIE VASILIOU said, in part, ".. due to my work…for which I’ve worked very hard and spent too many years in schools TO BE WHERE I AM TODAY!!!!" Are you complaining or boasting here? I TRULY do not understand; you had to spend too much valuable time in school to get to where you are or you spent a long time getting a great education "TO BE WHERE YOU ARE TODAY!!!!" ??
You also said, "Many of you talk abt the Constitution….a Constitution that was put together by our forefathers many many many years ago…" and "our Constitution needs and must be updated and brought to our times and beyond…our needs are different and still be different for our kids and grandkids in the future…which does make our Constitution out of date ….."
Marie, exactly what school taught you that the constitution was created as a compact for the people? The constitution is a charter for a federal government. It is a set of rules that controls the federal government; the people in the states did not throw off the yoke of King George in order to tie themselves to a new master. The constitution is not a set of rules for the people! It was never intended to meet "our needs". Not only is the constitution NOT out of date, it has, since its ratification, almost never been adhered to properly. We ought to try having government according to the Constitution BEFORE we go messing around with trying to "fix" what isn't broken. It is obvious that you haven't read the most important charters of governments, The Federalist Papers, the convention notes, the Magna Charta, the Articles of Confederation, etc., etc., etc. which set the stage for the creation of the greatest government to be devised by man. Your disdain for the constitution tells me that you despise it and the country that created it. Your ancestors, if they were Mayflowerers (who cares really?) would be ashamed of your ignorance. You have spent WAY too much time out of the U.S. You don't get it and I suspect that you never will.
You also said, "So, my advise to all…STOP TO LISTEN…HEAR… THEN TALK…..PUT YOUR MONEY AND YOUR ENERGY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS !!!!!" Marie, you are one of the last people I would listen to. BTW, it's adviCe and not advise.
You rambled on, "As for Mr. Obama’s impeachment probabilities…well would love to see that happen….he used the color of his skin to get elected….hence the “THEY “." OK--- how does this demonstrate "THEY"? Who are "THEY"?
Honestly Marie--- you are either drunk, stoned, or from another planet. Have you ever heard the saying about "removing all doubt"? I don't play footsies with people on forums; I make a point of trying to attack an argument rather than the person giving it however, you make it so darned hard. Your writing is unintelligible and your ideas are so poorly constructed that I am unsure what you are thinking. You need not respond as I won't to you...
Forgotten Man wrote:
Do you think a religion to be the only criteria by which we judge someone’s ideas?
Do you? Kinda seems like it, given that of all the commentors in this thread you chose to pick at Ruth Ann. Why? Because she's a bible-believing Christian. Besides, the question isn't whether this group is open to this, that, or the other worldview. No; the real question is whether this, that, or the other worldview is open to the ideas expressed at this site.
I can think of a few things the Professor did not mention-
1-The Constitution established a separation of power between the
States and their federal government. James Madison explained this
principle in Federalist Essay No. 45:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal
government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the
State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be
exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace,
negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of
taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved
to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the
ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and
properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and
prosperity of the State.
The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and
important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments
in times of peace and security.â€
The federal government was empowered to deal with foreign affairs and
relations between the States while the States would concern
themselves with domestic affairs. The last time I checked health care
did not fall in the class of powers granted to the federal government
as stated by Madison.
The health care bill any way you cut it violates this principle and
is fatally defective. No law passed by Congress...no provision in the
Constitution....can change this principle or be used to circumvent
this principle. This is the key. Everything after this is simply a
debate over another attempt to usurp power.
Found a reference to these cases but they need to be checked out.
In Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S. Ct. 446 (1925), The
(US Supreme)Court ruled: "Obviously, direct control of medical
practice in the of states is beyond the power the federal government."
In U.S. v. Anthony, 15 Supp. 553, 555, (S.D. Ca., 1936) and U.S. v.
Evers, 453 F. Supp. 1141, 1150 (M.D. Ala., 1978), these federal
courts ruled: "...The direct control of medical practice has been
left to the states."
If you are into case law, and these cases check out, then it is easy to see why these courts ruled as they did. Health care falls in the class of
powers reserved to the States so the feds have no constitutional
authority to invoke their delegated powers to legislate concerning health care.
2-The engage in a contract with an insurance company or else provision violates contract law because a contract MUST BE VOLUNTARY...the government cannot put a gun to your head and say engage in a contract or suffer the consequences...and no Social Security is not a contract....the Supreme Court made that ruling in 1960.
See: Flemming v. Nestor (363 US 603) 1960.
The Supreme Court, in the Nestor case, ruled that individuals paying Social Security taxes do not acquire any property or contractual rights, as they would in an insurance or annuity plan.
3-This bill is based on the concept that you MUST have insurance to operate a motor vehicle so why not health insurance...big problem with this assertion....operating a motor vehicle requires a government issued license and it comes from the States NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT...no ownership of a motor vehicle equals no license requirement equals no insurance requirement....the legal definition of a license is permission from government to do something that would otherwise be illegal...licenses are privileges issued by government...by basing this health care scheme on a drivers license and vehicle insurance, are they are asserting that our life is a government created privilege and they want insurance to protect the health of their taxing paying slaves?
4-The taxing and spending clause provision of the Constitution PROHIBITS the taxing clause from being used as a penal provision for something
unrelated to taxes....this bill imposes a special tax of some kind as a penalty for not engaging in the forced contract mentioned above based on
their bogus car insurance scheme.
5-It appears the proposed heath care plan will based in part or in whole on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution...even under their
perversion of the interstate provision of this Clause...you cannot be
compelled to engage in interstate commerce. When you secure the
forced insurance policy through an insurance company you just entered into the world of commerce and are now engaged in interstate commerce as defined by the Supreme Court. Great trick to bring the American people under federal control.
See Attorney General Janet Reno's opinion from October 29, 1993 concerning health care and the Commerce Clause-
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/1stlady.htm
THE BOTTOM LINE IS: THEY CANNOT GET PASSED THE PRINCIPLE IN NUMBER 1 ABOVE
SO EVERYTHING ELSE IS MEANINGLESS FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE!
Ladies and Gents,
In response to ....
Merry Colin Says:
August 19th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
MARIE VASILIOU
That’s a French name, is it not? Are you a Canadian citizen? If so, no one cares what you think about what is good for the U.S. Not being nasty here; just stating the obvious. You seem to know the OHIP as one with personal experience. To speak otherwise would be spouting a sound bite— which is it Marie?
Yes Merry, I AM AN AMERICAN CITIZEN...most likely long BEFORE YOU AND YOUR ANCESTORS DID, no offence... mine came on the "Mayflower"....
As for my name it isn't French but Greek...also, spend abt 4 mos a year in Canada, 4 in the USA and the other 4 in Europe.. due to my work...for which I've worked very hard and spent too many years in schools TO BE WHERE I AM TODAY!!!!
My health care plan is excellent and yes costly, I do pay the price for it.. personally would mind managed or Universal health care....even basic...
Many of you talk abt the Constitution....a Constitution that was put together by our forefathers many many many years ago...when people paid their doctor, midwife (if they existed) with ...an egg, flower,animal...depending on their situation....our Constitution needs and must be updated and brought to our times and beyond...our needs are different and still be different for our kids and grandkids in the future...which does make our Constitution out of date .....
So, my advise to all...STOP TO LISTEN...HEAR... THEN TALK.....PUT YOUR MONEY AND YOUR ENERGY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS !!!!!
As for Mr. Obama's impeachment probabilities...well would love to see that happen....he used the color of his skin to get elected....hence the "THEY ".
Thanks for givinme this opportunity,
Marie
Here's an outline of what will happen after Obamacare is passed: Health Care Reform, Gang-Run Totalitarian Gov’t Quickly Approaching - http://sandboxreport.com/?p=218
And here is the Republican version of health care reform (mostly centered around yelling.) - http://sandboxreport.com/?p=189
Ray Acosta wrote:
Not to worry. As soon as Obama’s popularity gets low enough, he and all his cronies will be impeached.
Okie dokie. When hell freezes over I'll be looking for an Obama (and all his cronies) impeachment. It just so happens that Obama's cronies hold a large majority in the body invested with the impeachment responsibility, not to mention the body invested with the trial for impeachments; not to mention that they all agree with his unconstitutional policies. So who exactly is going to impeach who again?
Michael wrote:
Terry, that’s exactly the line of thinking that has led to a complete distortion of the constitution and the form of government we’re supposed to have.
Mine or Marie's?
Marie wrote:
…but if they want to do something for the people…well ..am all for it !!!!!
Well now, there's a dependent mentality for ya! Yes, Marie, everything they're doing can be, and is, said to be "for the people." You know what a "demagogue" is, don't ya Marie?
Kelvin Nine Says: August 19th, 2009 at 3:47 am
Yeah, that’s just what the right wants to do, make things up and say that it isn’t even constitutional. Where were you people the last 8 years anyways?
We generally know that that the Bush administration was doing totally unconstitutional things as well. Regardless, we now have an openly socialist president with a suspect background, who will radically change the very foundations of this republic. So you as well as your Bolsheviks friends think that we will not redress this grievance without a fight?
The Constitution is basically a contract between the Federal Government, the States and people. It is not legal for the government to breach contracts, the Supreme Court saying, “United States v. Winstar Corp. et al. (95-865), 518 U.S. 839 (1996), “the government is governed by the same rules as private parties in breach-of-contract disputes.â€. Contract law in the United States from the Uniform Commercial Code and other applicable legistation says, "That greviously breached contracts may not be enforceable". Legislation which would replace that of the states, would by Amendment 10, mean that the contract between the United States and the States and people would be technically dissolved!
An open letter to the people of the Sovereign state of Florida and the United States of America.
I keep reading about the health care plan HR.3200 currently going through the US House of Representatives and we keep seeing many different answers for and against the Health care bill. The only problem is we have NOT seen the main reason this bill should be scrapped and that is that the bill is in violation of the US Constitution that was ratified September 17, 1787. Specifically Article 1, Section 8 and Amendments 9 and 10.
The US Constitution has stood the test of time and has served this country magnificently; it was the product of the most brilliant men that have ever existed in the birth of a nation. The Constitution is as relevant today as the day it was written. All of our problems have been induced by an out of control federal bureaucracy that needs to be brought under control. The people are the control that can stop this monster in its tracks.
The next election cycle is in 2010 and the entire house of representative is up for reelection, we suggest that the people elect citizen representatives instead of career politicians or lawyers to be our elected representatives. If we do this we can then put in place term limits of possibly 8 years for the House of Representatives and 12 for the Senate. If term limits are enacted we would no longer require a retirement system for our representatives of government. Being elected to serve the people of your state and district should be an honor to those selected.
To do this you need to educate yourselves again what this country is all about. We do recommend that you read “The Making of America†and “The Five Thousand Year Leap†both by W. Cleon Skousen. They also have a pocket guide of our Constitution. They are available from the National Center for Constitutional Studies at www.nccs.net or possibly your local library. These books are the best at explaining our Constitution and what our founding fathers were thinking when they wrote it. You have to know why they did what they did to understand why they did it. Just think that since 1776 we have gone from a dirt poor country to the most powerful on this planet and we did it in just over 200 years. No other system of government has ever advanced so far in so little time and it was because of our system of government and the freedoms it gave us.
All of our problems are being brought upon us because we have strayed from the path that our founders had plotted for us. We are extremely fortunate that what our founders said has been preserved so we know what happened and why.
Another example is the “Federalist Papers†that were authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. These were a series of 85 newspaper articles on the construction of our Constitution.
We have been warned by our founders that liberty is precious but the people must keep a watchful eye on government to keep them in check, they do in fact work for us, we do not work for them.
We have strayed far off course and we need to get back to our roots. Every ethnic group in this country was once a minority at one time or another and that is also what has made this country so great. We have at least one representative of every country on this planet as citizens and they came here because of the freedoms that we have and they didn’t have in the countries they left. We fought for our independence from England and now they want to emigrate here. Years ago when I had the opportunity to visit England I had a very friendly conversation with an Englishman and he called us the colonies. I told him he was a couple of centuries late and he laughed and agreed and bought me a pint. I enjoyed his enlightening conversation that evening and remember it to this day even though I do not remember his name.
Our economic house is in disarray, our national debt is so high that is almost incomprehensible but we feel that we can fix what’s wrong and get back on track. It will not be easy and it will probably be very painful but the alternative is worse.
1) Our Constitution MUST guide us back to prosperity. No more bail outs of private corporations, yes it is painful when a major company goes under but its fast and it’s done, there is no prolonging the agony.
2) Our tax system is broke and needs to be scrapped completely. Again read Article 1, Section 8. Taxes must be the same for ALL, the Constitution says it. I believe that the Fair Tax bill would solve that problem. A higher percentage than that required to run the federal government should be dedicated to paying off our debt and then that percent would be taken off. I also do not believe any one should be excused from paying a national sales tax as the Fair Tax is. You live here you pay. The poor are as much of a burden on society as any other. This bill also addresses taxes on businesses. Right now our nation has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, the Fair Tax would give us one of the lowest. Maybe then our country would encourage the companies that have gone outside our borders to come back. When they came back then our unemployment rate would decline.
3) Our Federal government has taken over responsibilities that are the duties of the states and the states have not given up those responsibilities, the Federal government just took them. Again look at Article 1, Section 8 to see what the Federal government is responsible for and force them to do just what they are responsible for. Numerous departments of the Federal government are infringing on the responsibilities of the states and local governments. Who knows best what is good for your community than the people that live in that community. One size does not fit all.
This is not a complete list as we do not have all the answers but our founders did. I am asking all Americans to stand up and let’s take our country back from the scoundrels that want to destroy it. We are Americans and we can do it.
William and Yong Wood
I want to say I am sick of watching our government. Republicans if you are thinking I am only going to trash Democrats you would be wrong. I guess I would sum myself up as a conservative but I hate labels I think they just cause problems.
I am sick of how our government just passes laws with out thought to them being legal. I am sick of bills being overloaded with pet projects. And I am sick of our government being power hungry. But I am not one of these people that just sit back and complains I have some very common sense solutions to these problems.
Example the constitution it is roughly 4 pages long with all amendments. The Healthcare bill. *Note I picked the healthcare bill because most people have heard about this bill. This bill is around 1100 pages. Well this document is 4 pages and explains how The government of the united states will be built organized governed and managed. And the average person could pick this up read it and understand it in about 30 minutes. Here is a bill that is 1100 pages and explains how to save money on health care. A team of lawyers and about 2 weeks of reading and rereading can not understand. What document do you think should be 1100 pages. If you did not know anything about the constitution or the health care bill or other bills for that matter I guaranty you would say the constitution would be the document that is 1100 pages.
Here is a thought what if we had a law saying no bill can be longer then the constitution. This seems practical and it has to be written so it can be understood by the common person. Here is a law I would support but I bet would never get out of a committee or even see the floor to be voted on. You know what tack onto this law any additions to a bill you have have to have a direct effect on the bill itself no more of this well I would vote for that if you throw in a public park from this community in my home state. This needs to end. I am tired of all the pork in these bills. Why not pass a law that makes it stop? (If some of you can help me right this bill maybe we could alert the news outlets and see if congress has the nerve to not vote yes to it.)
Another issue the government seems to talk about is Campaign contributions. They keep telling us that this is a very difficult thing to fix same with lobbyist. Wrong this is a simple fix one law would fix this. Any person who accepts money from any person, business, or organization may not sit on any committee or vote on any bill that would directly or indirectly affects this person business or organization. Any elected official found guilty of violating this shall be warned once and have to publicly admit to the wrong doing. 2nd offence is immediate removal from there place of power. After all even the constitution says elected officials may not accept bribes what else can we call a campaign contribution? Well if they passed a law like this we could be sure that these were not bribes. I don’t even know how you could argue with this bill. (If some of you can help me right this bill maybe we could alert the news outlets and see if congress has the nerve to not vote yes to it.)
My biggest gripe has to be the swings in policies from one party to the next. This 4 page document uuchhumm the constitution is suppose to protect us from this type of thing. I want to see someone run that just wants to make it legal. Take all of these government programs. I know I will get someone telling me that the constitution is a living breathing document. I always answer this questions the same way. YES IT IS. Our founding fathers were smart enough to know that changes need made from time to time. Hence amendments! You can amend this great document at anytime. Problem the government has with this is they need 2/3 of the states to agree on it. The reason for this was so our government would always be put in check and we would not have to worry about crazy things like the patriot act, Bailouts, healthcare, and other areas of our lives the government seems to be after. Look I want to see someone brave enough to put all parts of the government up against the constitution. The government needed an amendment just to collect taxes. Look at your paycheck I bet the government withholds more then just income tax. So every government project gets put up against this document. If the states don’t vote on the amendment the power goes back to the states to run. JUST THE WAY THE CONSTITUTION SAYS.
If you lived in a cave all of your life and I had you study the constitution before I let you out of the cave. I then let you look at our government but did not tell you it was the United States of America you would not know what country you were in. Think about it.
Mr. Barbarak, the "vehicle of destruction" came in 1965 with "Revenue Sharing" now, in the common tongue known as "GRANTS" which renders a "compliant mind" in the midst of legislators, which is "breath-taking to behold." It seems they have no resistance to the "grant scheme". They ask few questions, fill out the multitude of papers, hire people "educated in filling out these forms", and "enslave their people" with rules, regulations, and mandates without much "deliberation."
I have begged them to STOP, draw the line, and live with "LOCALLY collect revenue, to no avail. Once "REVENUE SHARING" is destroyed, we will have "broken the tie that binds."
May God give us men who will have "BACK BONE" to withstand this "evil Revenue Sharing".
For God & Country
Ruth Ann Wilson
Wayne Barbarak
WELL SAID SIR!
Mr. JMB, I proudly salute your WWII Father. My Father was WWII, went to work everyday for 40 years and shut-up and paid the "FORCED" taxes.
My Father believed in "Representative government", they were not worthy of his trust. So, now, these "bitter waters" BUT GOD. The Bible says the Lord makes the "bitter waters sweet" Look for it.
For God & Country
Ruth Ann Wilson
No Ruth I am not a Veteran, just your average victim of current anti American skullduggery is all, but I will relay your thank you to my 87 year old dad, who is doing very well, he will appreciate your thoughts.
I just want the constitution enforced. All these legislators swore an oath to uphold it. If they violate their oath they are guilty of a crime. The need to get HR 450 out on the floor and vote on it. Any who vote against it need to be removed from office. HR 450 simply stated says all bills will show the article in the constitution that supports what the bill proposes.
Mr. JMB, your concerns are "on point". I live in Tennessee, the State with "Tenn Care". We were to be the "show case" for "indigent, free, medical care".
Both "parties" Republicans and Democrats embraced this "scheme" to provide for the "poor". Now, the "Monster" has about bankrupt the State, the system is full of fraud and corruption. State legislators have held "hearings" about the "abuses" and the "benefits". The conclusion - in this "lavish scheme" on the backs of the State taxpayers (with the help of the Feds giving us a "waiver") is this - people paying the "bills" for this Health Care for the "poor", can't even buy a private policy that compares to this "benefit". No deductible, the best of everything (otherwise, we'd be "charged with discrimination", O, horrors), no shame to those who participate, no incentive to do better because the "government" at our expense gives the "poor" better than the private taxpayers can buy for themselves!!!!!!
Government Health Care at any level is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It doesn't work and won't work. It is evil.
You say in your post, God willing, the Lord is not "willing" about this destruction to America. Sighs and cries to the Lord are bombarding Heaven daily for relief and perhaps, even after all of "our disregard" to the Lord in this Beloved Country, He will have mercy on us and save us.
I detect from your post you are an American and you hate the destruction of this Beloved Nation. If you are a Veteran, May I say to you, "Well Done, Sir."
For God & Country
Ruth Ann Wilson
As we have seen in Tennessee, the result is destruction.
There is no "National" Health Care System, and cannot be — only individual State Systems
By: Wayne J. Barbarek;
08/18/2009
Although there may be problems, as in any industry, I cannot keep from wondering to what, or which, "system" everyone is referring.
There is all this talk of the "Nation's" health care system; however, I fail to find where health care is a "national" object. There is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution suggesting that it is among the certain enumerated objects of the "Federal" government. So, how can there be a "national" system for something that is not among the certain enumerated objects that are delegated to the "Federal" government?
What is plain, though, rather than there being any kind of "national" system, there are certainly individual separate systems belonging exclusively to the several States — individual systems that the States have a constitutionally guaranteed right to establish or not establish, and to regulate or not regulate, as they, as independent separate sovereign societies, see fit or decide is appropriate for their individual and separate circumstances and interests.
What is also plain is that, no matter the alleged good intentions, good faith or urgency for a needed plan, and no matter the degree of passion or how great the numbers in its favor, until which time the necessary additional powers are constitutionally granted to the Federal Government, this remains their guaranteed right, individually and collectively within their separate societies made plain by the 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution of these united states.
Specifically, the Federal government has utterly NO direct authority or jurisdiction whatsoever extending to those objects belonging exclusively to this Union's member States any more than it has authority extending into any State in Europe; — and, whether or not anyone agrees, is irrelevant, for the plain truth is that Health Care, its industries, institutions, businesses, professions, education, licensing, wages, et cetera; are all among those objects belonging exclusively to the several States.
Not only does the authority of the Federal government NOT extend to such objects plainly belonging exclusively with the States, the undeniable fact still remains that the fundamental purpose of UNION and its Federal government — created by the States and ratified on their behalf by the People — is NOT to be the source and facilitator of interferences and aggressions against them, but for the purpose of preserving them as separate independent sovereign societies; and, in so doing, meant to protect and preserve their Rights as the true sovereigns to decide separately and independently for themselves how the considerable remaining powers meant to be left with them shall be, or shall not be, exercised.
In other words, it is the absolute Right of each State, independently of one another, to freely choose how they want to govern their separate society — to wit, how liberal and generous or how conservative and frugal it wants to be, as long as they follow the Republican form — without interferences and impositions from other member States or the Federal government. And, in exercising those Rights of Freedom and Liberty, NO State has a right, above all the Federal government, to judge and impose their will upon another just because that smaller society is, in their meager opinion, making inappropriate laws, not making desired laws or because it has customs, morals, habits or interests that are contrary to what they "think" or "believe" is appropriate and conducive to being an American State, even though its laws, customs, morals, habits and interests are not contrary to the Constitution.
So, what does this mean and how does it all add up as it pertains to the President and the controlling faction with which he is aligned?
As a Union meant to be of Laws derived from 'true" construction and not of Men derived from forced construction, and as servants that are obligated by their required oaths to support the constitution of these united states, they have utterly no authority whatsoever to judge that which plainly belongs exclusively with the individual States; — nor do they have any authority whatsoever discussing, above all, proposing or promising to establish a National system, reform the several State systems made under their individual authorities or make health care a fundamental right using ordinary acts of legislation.
And, by arrogantly pursuing their current course, they make plain their intent to pervert the Constitution (according to the framers, an act tantamount to treason against these united states) and commit lawless aggressions against the States in utter defiance of their oaths and the Constitution — lawlessly encroaching upon and committing direct interferences into jurisdictions, authorities and objects belonging exclusively with the States by exploiting a temporary exigency to better excite the emotions and passions of the People so as to facilitate and hatch there repugnant schemes, perfectly timed so that on the spot, none can be, nor are they permitted to be, immediately refuted.
"But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies [States], will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such." (Hamilton, fp. 33)
The content of this paper is derive from plain meaning of the Journals of the Convention at Philadelphia, the several State conventions, The Federalist Papers and Congressional Records. Learn more about "true" meaning and construction. Go to http://www.documentsillustrative.com and download Documents Illustrative™ V1.0c — a searchable database product containing the Journals of the Convention at Philadelphia and the Federalist Papers.
My concern is that this federal government is going to get its claws in on our (private healthcare) come hook or crook.
I understand that this public option plan is not competition, because no private plan can compete with those unlimited federal funds, that these feds can pull out of their own ass, or my ass, if they please, it’s a government take over, one way or the other.
But what is this crap about a results based alternative, really mean.
Will my (PRIVATE) doctors be punished now, by these feds, for trying to save my life?
This sounds to me, not to be much of a lesser, of two evils for those of us who are still self reliant Americans.
20 years from now, God willing, I will have to accept those healthcare programs that my fellow Americans can afford to extend to me in Medicare, and Medicaid, but until then.
Stay the hell off my independent, and self reliant ass please.
Dear Kelvin Nine.....We have been sitting down for the last ohh hundred years or so.....Now that we stand up....you dont like it.....well guess what....WE DONT WANT MORE GOVERNMENT..Now please report back to ACORN that you failed miserably!
Re Nick's comment: "I’m not sure why he said that John Marshall was the greatest chief justice. . . Marshall took a very broad view of Constitutional construction. Marbury v. Madison claims — quite wrongly — that the judiciary gets to decide what the law is."
Nick: Here are your answers:
1. The position that the Supreme Court would review laws for state or federal constitutionality was not a creation of Marshall. It already had been exercised at the state level before the Constitution was ever adopted, and was discussed favorably by both sides during the debate over the ratification of the Constitution. One scholar has identified over 30 reported state and federal cases after 1776 and before Marbury (1803) in which judicial review was applied, assumed, or favorably mentioned. Same for the Constitution's ratifying process: Marshall himself was a delegate to the Virginia ratifying convention and mentioned judicial review there. No one contradicated him, except to say that they hoped the courts would be firm enough to exercise the power!
The myth that Marshall invented judicial review or that that the Founders opposed it is just that -- a myth. (It is partly the result of confusing judicial review with a quite different idea -- a federal revisionary council.)
2. While it is true that Marshall took a broader view of congressional power than some of his contemporaries, the spin that he was an advocate of unbridled federal power is another re-writing of history -- in this case, by those who wish to hijack Marshall in support of the current "anything goes" version of federal powers. Unfortunately, a few on our side have bought into this spin. The fact is that all of Marshall's major decisions were within the mainstream understanding of federal powers. But there is little doubt that if Marshall were confronted with Obama's national health care proposals he would say they are unconstitutional.
3. Marshall is generally considered the greatest chief justice because he brought to the Supreme Court a stability, fixed role, and quality of decision making it previously had lacked -- at a time when the new government was still very shaky and badly needed those things. He was not only a fine lawyer (on this score, too, modern commentators often downplay his legal ability and try to turn him into a modern political-activist judge), but as Chief Justice, he was an outstanding leader for the Court for 34 years.
The following clarification should not be necessary, but I'm make it anyway: OF COURSE, I don't always agree with his reasoning or results.
"In the exercise of the power conferred by the guaranty clause, as in the exercise of every other constitutional power, a discretion in the choice of means is necessarily allowed. It is essential only that the means must be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the power conferred,
through the restoration of the State to its constitutional relations, under a republican form of government, and that no acts be done, and no authority exerted, which is either prohibited or unsanctioned by the Constitution." - Tex v. White
This federal government has become a revolutionary government that is being held in check only, by its own judiciaries self assurances that it alone endeavors to maintain our peoples republic.
Jeff wrote:
As to one of the bigger problems as to why 300 million people ignore the Constitutional principles of a republican form of government, just think “media.”
Well, ahem, bad as I hate to admit it, I think Jeff is right to an extent; to the extent that you have a people prone to be conditioned by the media. Otherwise, I'll say that when you take on (according to the liberal rules of absolute equality and non-discriminationism) a growing group of people disposed to be subservient to totalitarian centralized government, then you get what you pay for.
The whole concept of republican government, as explicated in our founding documents, requires (like it or not!) that there is a very high level of cohesiveness in the host society. That was pretty much maintained until the beginning of the last century in America. Then things began to fall apart per absolute equality and non-discriminationism. End of story.
As to one of the bigger problems as to why 300 million people ignore the Constitutional principles of a republican form of government, just think "media."
The national news media cover national issues. That is the biggest seller, by far. Locally, the news covers some issues, but seem most to cover crimes, weather and sports.
The people have been "trained" and "molded" into discussing issues on a national level.
The legal reason why any lawsuit against federal officials will not work is because there is official immunity, a legal doctrine that holds that federal officials have legal immunity when shaping public policy. There is supposed to be wide discretion to exercise judgment.
It seems to me that the Federal government is in the business of trying to take over church functions of charity for them poor.
Federal tax and borrow is just not the same as voluntary chruch donations and membership.
A Constitutional Convention for states' rights to prevent a Soviet Union, anarchy type, break up of Federal USAmerica would now be appropriate.
In good order.
Preceded by a Nelson Mandela style truth commission as a Decleration of Independence for to enumerate why a Constitutional Convention for states' rights is neccessary.
Jose,
Many people have suggested a SCOTUS case against gubmint however it cannot work. In that case the federal government would be the judge in case where it is an interested party. The constitution is a charter for the federal government approved by the states. At best it's a unilateral contract as,
the fed didin't exist in order to enter into the contract. However, one
can argue that it is a contract between the states and fed. How would one be able to rule in one's own case? The SCOTUS is a federal entity.
I think states might just learn to, on behalf of their citizens, tell the
fed NO. The fact is that states have allowed this federal encroachment on
the rights of the citizens without a peep. They have fallen down on the
job. If the fed will not guarantee a republican form of government, then the states ought to. Those in the states do not understand, or they simply do not care, that a democratic republic can only thrive from the bottom up. Today it's the other way around; instead of 300 million people making their voices heard locally and in their states, which the states then should take to Congress, we have 535 nitwits in DC making decisions for all of us! It's beyond nuts....
Jeff:
Then, how do we know you are? How do we know the author you recommend is? How are we supposed to judge who is a real Christian and who is not? [...]
It kinda sorta seems like she told you already. But if I were you and I were truly seeking answers to these questions rather than asking them of Ruth Ann whom you've already deemed a person of no authority, then I'd go about trying to learn something about systematic theology, I'd read the (whole) Bible as Ruth Ann suggested. As the scripture teaches, work out your own salvation. Or not.
I really enjoy your website. It seems to me that causing the change back to the Constitutionally authorized federal government will never be through elections. The government has checks and balances. One of those balances is the judicial branch. Why not file a class action civil lawsuit against the Republican and Democratic parties for 10th amendment violations? Maybe also include all living politicians and the Joint Chiefs of staff (for dereliction of duty). Fight it all the way to the Supreme court. It will bring national attention to the problem. All awards could go to the deficit or financing the restructuring the states will require after getting the federal government downsized. The worst case scenario would be a ruling against. If we fear that then all is already lost.
Forgotten man,
your post to Ruth Ann Wilson seems to suggest you are unwilling to surf the site and make the determination if this is something you support?, there are plenty of posts and issues to sift through so you can draw your own conclusion, rather then needing to be convinced.
sw,sw,sw- ( some will, some won't, so what.)
I'm not sure why he said that John Marshall was the greatest chief justice; he was probably the worst. Marshall took a very broad view of Constitutional construction. Marbury v. Madison claims --- quite wrongly --- that the judiciary gets to decide what the law is.
Nick - interesting question. My initial thought - greatest is not always the same as best.
The Lord was not a Communist. He never did and never will "FORCE" people to be "converted". You have a "free will" and you have a Bible.
Communism is the "humanistic interpretation of book of Acts." In the Christian religion "If there first be a willing mind, that is what is accepted."
In America, we are dealing with the "FORCE" - we either surrender our God-given rights, Our Beloved Constitution, yes, our Christianity to pacify the wicked.
As Our Fathers made their plea in the Declaration of Independence, So we agree. It is a matchless document. I am sure you have read it.
The Battle Hymn of the Republic says it all, "He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat, O, be swift my soul to answer Him, be jubilant my feet. Our God is marching on" Who is on the Lord's side????
For God & Country
Ruth Ann Wilson
Whether someone takes a religious position or not is none of my concern. The point of using force is quite important to me, though. I know plenty of people of various beliefs who hold this principle of liberty higher than any other - the use of aggressive force to solve problems in society is not a morally sound choice.
But, this whole thing has really drifted from the intent of the article.
the issue at hand, of course, is how Obamacare is on very dubious grounds constitutionally. I'd take the position that it's wholly unconstitutional and shouldn't even be considered.
But sadly, the issue of constitutionality is never brought up when congress considers new laws.
Mr. Matthews, let me respond to your post. Everything that calls itself “Christian” is not “Christian"
Then, how do we know you are? How do we know the author you recommend is? How are we supposed to judge who is a real Christian and who is not?
How do we know it is Unchristian to provide universal health care? How do we know it is Unchristian to NOT provide universal health care?
How do we know that Christianity really dictates one way or the other in that regard?
For one thing, Christ died for your sins. I am sure you'd agree with that. To ask you to put up with some inconvenience and a bit of sacrifice in order to provide health care for everyone is less of a sacrifice than Christ made, isn't it?
To tax your income and give it to the less fortunate is rather inconvenient, but pales in comparison to a complete sacrifice.
The way Christ is charcaterized in the Bible, I am inclined to think that those who claim he was closer to a communist are probably right. I never heard stories about his pursuit of capitalism, except for a brief stint in carpentry. :-)
Other than that, he seemed to pretty much give up his convenience for everyone else.
Mr. Matthews, let me respond to your post. Everything that calls itself "Christian" is not "Christian.
Most people do not read their Bibles. I guess they fancy that they would rather be called a "Christian" than associate themselves with another religion, when in fact they are not "Christian" and they do not profess God.
I will make a suggestion to you. Go and find a copy of a book called, "They Preached Liberty". The Preaching in the Pulpits of America was much different then what is out there today.
The fear of the 501C-3 seems to trouble the Church today. But what nonsense. We'd better have more stamina than that. Jeremiah 12:5, "If thous hast run with footmen, and they have wearied thee, Then how canst thou contend with the horses???"
God Save the United States of America
For God & Country
Ruth Ann Wilson
I don't know about that, Terry. I have seen many Christians say that universal health care is the Christian thing to do. Christ, they say, was closer to a communist than he was a capitalist.
No offense in the comparison. I am just pointing out that Christians do not think homogenously just because they believe in God.
Most of the people who are in this forum seem to be “well-read”. The facts of Our Beloved American History are undeniably “Christian”. A Supreme Court decision in 1892 stated that “This is a Christian Nation.” Our Founders gave Glory to God for this Beloved Nation continually.
They understood that the “religion of a Country” was the basis of the laws. We were established on the Ten Commandments of Almighty God. The Fear of God was the “salt and light” in this Beloved Land.
It is why, when public education was discussed by the Founders, the purpose was to “enlighten” the children to the “fear of God.” I didn’t say they became “Christians”, but they had “an enlightened conscience” to know right and fear God. Since the 1963 Supreme Court ruling at request of the Atheist O’Hare, public school children do not have the Ten Commandments in their school rooms, prayer, and Bible reading have been removed and they are lost. Hence now the police have to patrol the halls of public schools because the “salt and light” has been removed from the educational process. Hosea 4:6, “…seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy Children.” It has come to pass.
Now, we see in the Congress, “ a reaping of this rotten Supreme Court decision that has destroyed the fabric of our Nation.” God is serious. Ps. 9:17, “The wicked shall be turned into Hell, and all the nations that forget God.” Men do not “Fear God” anymore. They fear being “found out by the media or some other human agency.” They had better “Fear God”, Luke 12:4,5, “…Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into Hell: yea, I say unto you, Fear Him.” The Lord declares God Almighty’s prerogative in this Scripture. He has the “ultimate authority and power.” “Fear God.”
Someone has said , “What you would do in the dark, if you would never be found out is the character of a man.” When the “fear of God” rules, people understand they will give an account to God for “words and deeds done in the body”, that knowledge keeps “Society” clean and right. No, not everyone is a Christian, but the works of “darkness” hide because of “the salt and light - the fear of God.” Our Founders understood this “working of God” in the heart of man and thus they proceeded to write our Magnificent Constitution with the Bill of Rights.
God espoused America to be HIS. God loves to show His majesty in the earth. Has He not done that in this marvelous Constitutional Republic that has been bequeath to us, the posterity of these Wonderful Founders. This is God’s Country and we’d better keep it that way.
Why do the Nations of the earth look to America???? Because of Liberty, the Preachers used to Preach Liberty, Our Liberties are secured to us because of the Holy Bible. In America, we must have God, our Foundations are Christian, our Foundational laws are Christian, to sustain all of this we must have God with us.
Ps. 2 declares, “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little, Blessed are all they what put their trust in Him.” His yoke is easy and His burdens are light, so I recommend the God of our Fathers to all. Our Beloved Founders trusted Him and O, “What God hath wrought.”
To God Be the Glory
For God & Country
Ruth Ann Wilson
Michael wrote:
I don’t get why people like to turn a discussion of some tyrants controlling our life and death decisions into a profession of religious faith anyway.
I'm going to guess that that's probably because you're not a particularly religious person, therefore you don't understand what motivates and inspires religious people. But I think your wording is wrong to begin with. Religious people don't "like" to turn these discussions into professions of religious faith, as if to say that that is their entire motivation from the git-go. No; they profess their faith in such discussions because it is their faith that is their inner strength; their entire world and life view is derived from their faith, as is the case with anyone else (yes, everyone has a faith in ... something). I wouldn't knock it too much in any event. You will find on a deeper investigation, I'm quite sure, that more Christians than Muslims (or Hindus) agree with your perspective on the constitution. Take it to the bank and deposit it, because it is quite true. No offense intended, just fact.
MARIE VASILIOU said, in part, ".. due to my work…for which I’ve worked very hard and spent too many years in schools TO BE WHERE I AM TODAY!!!!" Are you complaining or boasting here? I TRULY do not understand; you had to spend too much valuable time in school to get to where you are or you spent a long time getting a great education "TO BE WHERE YOU ARE TODAY!!!!" ??
You also said, "Many of you talk abt the Constitution….a Constitution that was put together by our forefathers many many many years ago…" and "our Constitution needs and must be updated and brought to our times and beyond…our needs are different and still be different for our kids and grandkids in the future…which does make our Constitution out of date ….."
Marie, exactly what school taught you that the constitution was created as a compact for the people? The constitution is a charter for a federal government. It is a set of rules that controls the federal government; the people in the states did not throw off the yoke of King George in order to tie themselves to a new master. The constitution is not a set of rules for the people! It was never intended to meet "our needs". Not only is the constitution NOT out of date, it has, since its ratification, almost never been adhered to properly. We ought to try having government according to the Constitution BEFORE we go messing around with trying to "fix" what isn't broken. It is obvious that you haven't read the most important charters of governments, The Federalist Papers, the convention notes, the Magna Charta, the Articles of Confederation, etc., etc., etc. which set the stage for the creation of the greatest government to be devised by man. Your disdain for the constitution tells me that you despise it and the country that created it. Your ancestors, if they were Mayflowerers (who cares really?) would be ashamed of your ignorance. You have spent WAY too much time out of the U.S. You don't get it and I suspect that you never will.
You also said, "So, my advise to all…STOP TO LISTEN…HEAR… THEN TALK…..PUT YOUR MONEY AND YOUR ENERGY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS !!!!!" Marie, you are one of the last people I would listen to. BTW, it's adviCe and not advise.
You rambled on, "As for Mr. Obama’s impeachment probabilities…well would love to see that happen….he used the color of his skin to get elected….hence the “THEY “." OK--- how does this demonstrate "THEY"? Who are "THEY"?
Honestly Marie--- you are either drunk, stoned, or from another planet. Have you ever heard the saying about "removing all doubt"? I don't play footsies with people on forums; I make a point of trying to attack an argument rather than the person giving it however, you make it so darned hard. Your writing is unintelligible and your ideas are so poorly constructed that I am unsure what you are thinking. You need not respond as I won't to you...
Forgotten Man wrote:
Do you think a religion to be the only criteria by which we judge someone’s ideas?
Do you? Kinda seems like it, given that of all the commentors in this thread you chose to pick at Ruth Ann. Why? Because she's a bible-believing Christian. Besides, the question isn't whether this group is open to this, that, or the other worldview. No; the real question is whether this, that, or the other worldview is open to the ideas expressed at this site.
Tenther Radio!
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2012 by Tenth Amendment Center
[...] in direct conflict with the Constitution … This article from the Tenth Amendment Center, Is ObamaCare Constitutional? outlines several legal [...]
[...] federal powers. That is why we have wasteful and harmful programs such as welfare and the proposed new national health care programs. These type of programs do far more economic damage than good. We have 4th generation [...]
[...] Is ObamaCare Constitutional? [...]
[...] The Tenth Amendment Center: Is Obamacare Constitutional? [...]
[...] Many opponents of national health care say that it’s unconstitutional, and that the 10th Amendment reserves such power to the States, or the People themselves. [...]
[...] Is Obamacare Constitutional? [...]
[...] For several reasons, this is a highly misleading statement. [...]
[...] For several reasons, this is a highly misleading statement. [...]
[...] For several reasons, this is a highly misleading statement. [...]
[...] makes a fascinating argument in his essay, “Is ObamaCare Constitutional?“, using the Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973. In Roe, he writes, the court struck [...]
[...] Is ObamaCare Constitutional? [...]
[...] am no revolutionary, but if Congress is intent on passing an unconstitutional healthcare bill despite repeated requests not to, I say we should be equally intent on not obeying it. To that end [...]
[...] am no revolutionary, but if Congress is intent on passing an unconstitutional healthcare bill despite repeated requests not to, I say we should be equally intent on not obeying it. To that end [...]
[...] More Here If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! Posted in 10th Amendment, [...]
[...] Re: Medicaid and Texas Just a hobby of mine Jim. Pretty much second only to my guns and my bible! Did you catch the humor there? As far as manners, well, everyone has an opinion I guess. I'll bite though. I read the article Jeff posted and I don't agree. It might sound strange but I have a copy of the US Constitution and I love to read and understand it. I'm proud of it. Federal government size, scope, power and spending are out of control and its high time things change. A 10th Amendment fight is coming to be sure. Read this article for a different view of the topic; Is ObamaCare Constitutional? – Tenth Amendment Center [...]
[...] constitutional argument against this boondoggle leaves no room for doubt, at least in my mind. The Tenth Amendment Center lists the ways that Obamacare runs afoul of our Constitution better than I can, but here’s [...]