8 Facts That Prove the Tea Party Is Ignorant of the U.S. Constitution

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You wrote, "According to the man who wrote the "general welfare clause" it means what is articulated specifically in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, and can't possibly or logically mean anything else." I counter that the framers couldn't possibly or logically have meant the Federal Government was prohibited from attempting to stop the needless deaths of tens of thousands of citizens each year even though such a scenario may have been beyond their current understanding.

Sorry, it's not in Article 1 Section 8, that the government is responsible for stopping needless (or needed) deaths.

Again, we go back to the Preamble. "It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."

Only a goofball LIBERAL would dare to argue with James Madison over founding intent, citing the SCOTUS cases through the years! LMMFAO!

What we have is "reliable evidence" the SCOTUS gets it wrong often, with regard to the meaning of the Constitution. Like when the SCTOUS determined black slaves were property and not people. Like when they determined it was okay to deny women the right to vote or get equal pay.

So, what did they hope the constitution would achieve? "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

And as Madison so brilliantly stated, these "general clauses" found throughout the Constitution, are all specified in meaning under the few enumerated powers of government. There is no purpose or reason to have a Constitution, if these phrases are to be taken literally to mean the generalities they establish, without regard for the specificity to which they were intended. Madison said, if THAT is what it means, this thing should be cast into the fire!

Can that be accomplished when one group of citizens sit idly by while another group needlessly suffer and die when help is readily available? The founding fathers had no idea how mass food production coupled with medicine/medical care would almost double the general life span. To propose the founding fathers' intention to form a more perfect country with domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare and desiring that citizens secure the blessings of liberty encompassed watching tens of thousands of citizens needlessly die is beyond absurd.

Wait... so in your mind, there are two groups of people, and one group is healthy and never gets sick or needs doctors, while the other group suffers from chronic illness and requires constant medical attention so as not to die? And the well group is opposed to paying for the sick group? Is that how you see this in your fucked up little world? We all get sick and need doctors from time to time in our lives, that's why we developed a capitalistic venture called INSURANCE! You pay them a small amount each month, and they cover the cost if you ever need medical care.

The Founding Fathers laid out a system of government where the central government authority had very little power, it was specifically enumerated, in Article 1 Section 8. They also had the brilliance to develop a system by which the citizens could alter and change the Constitution at a later date, should some new technology or circumstance arise. Now, since hospitals were not prevalent back in 1776, and physician care was greatly limited to where you were, people dying from sickness and disease must have been much greater and more of an everyday concern than it is today. Yet, they didn't see fit to obligate the federal government with such a responsibility as caring for the sick. Why should we believe they would feel any differently if they were alive today?

Does the 48% represent the same citizens, year after year? Or is it a general percentage? Just as people change jobs, some unemployed for a while, they make a contribution over their lifetime. Some years more, some years less.

I'm going to say it's likely many of the same people year after year, with very few exceptions.

 

[Damocles]

To what do you think general welfare refers? The ground that makes up the country? The trees within? The rivers? Or the people?

I think it means the States. By the limitations that they put on the federal government they made it clear where their priorities should lie.

Who is mandating one has to obtain medical treatment? The purpose of the constitution was to implement rules and regulations that would form a country and offer the citizens the best life possible. Why else form a country?



With regards to government medical there is not one country where the citizens want it dismantled. Dozens of countries and not one government has corrupted or destroyed the benefits to a degree the people want to revert to the old "pay or suffer" system and every country started out with a "pay or suffer" system. Stated another way every government medical plan is superior to the previous "pay or suffer" system the citizens previously had.

Which doesn't mean that we, in the unique position we are in for experimentation, cannot come up with a better system. Nor does it mean that the government should tell you what you have to buy and from whom.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

...I'm going to say it's likely many of the same people year after year, with very few exceptions.

I'm going to say you have shown no evidence to support that contention. Got any?

 

[apple0154]

Read this article...



http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...stion-1986041/

\

The Repubs will skip right by it.

 

[apple0154]

Now, since hospitals were not prevalent back in 1776, and physician care was greatly limited to where you were, people dying from sickness and disease must have been much greater and more of an everyday concern than it is today. Yet, they didn't see fit to obligate the federal government with such a responsibility as caring for the sick. Why should we believe they would feel any differently if they were alive today?

What could have be done for the sick? If someone broke their leg what difference would it make who make a splint? If someone had pneumonia what difference would it make where they lied down and either died or recovered on their own?

There was nothing the government could do. There was no medicine of any use. An ill or injured person had a better chance staying where they were as opposed to being transported by horse resulting in further damage and hemorrhaging.


//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Sorry, it's not in Article 1 Section 8, that the government is responsible for stopping needless (or needed) deaths.



Only a goofball LIBERAL would dare to argue with James Madison over founding intent, citing the SCOTUS cases through the years! LMMFAO!

What we have is "reliable evidence" the SCOTUS gets it wrong often, with regard to the meaning of the Constitution. Like when the SCTOUS determined black slaves were property and not people. Like when they determined it was okay to deny women the right to vote or get equal pay.



And as Madison so brilliantly stated, these "general clauses" found throughout the Constitution, are all specified in meaning under the few enumerated powers of government. There is no purpose or reason to have a Constitution, if these phrases are to be taken literally to mean the generalities they establish, without regard for the specificity to which they were intended. Madison said, if THAT is what it means, this thing should be cast into the fire!



Wait... so in your mind, there are two groups of people, and one group is healthy and never gets sick or needs doctors, while the other group suffers from chronic illness and requires constant medical attention so as not to die? And the well group is opposed to paying for the sick group? Is that how you see this in your fucked up little world? We all get sick and need doctors from time to time in our lives, that's why we developed a capitalistic venture called INSURANCE! You pay them a small amount each month, and they cover the cost if you ever need medical care.

The Founding Fathers laid out a system of government where the central government authority had very little power, it was specifically enumerated, in Article 1 Section 8. They also had the brilliance to develop a system by which the citizens could alter and change the Constitution at a later date, should some new technology or circumstance arise. Now, since hospitals were not prevalent back in 1776, and physician care was greatly limited to where you were, people dying from sickness and disease must have been much greater and more of an everyday concern than it is today. Yet, they didn't see fit to obligate the federal government with such a responsibility as caring for the sick. Why should we believe they would feel any differently if they were alive today?




I'm going to say it's likely many of the same people year after year, with very few exceptions.

 

[apple0154]

I think it means the States. By the limitations that they put on the federal government they made it clear where their priorities should lie.

Even if it meant the welfare of the States it's the citizens who make up the States. It's in a State's interest to have healthy citizens.

Which doesn't mean that we, in the unique position we are in for experimentation, cannot come up with a better system. Nor does it mean that the government should tell you what you have to buy and from whom.

While I agree the mandate is a half-assed approach to medical care Obama had little choice. If we look at SS the only way that got off the ground is with the promise everyone would receive something but it's absurd to send SS checks to people worth millions while others try to scrape by. If medical care was truly a government medical program no one would be buying anything from anyone and, hopefully, Obama will receive a majority and make it so.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Even if it meant the welfare of the States it's the citizens who make up the States. It's in a State's interest to have healthy citizens.

is there somewhere in US history class for liberals that teaches them that the 'state' or government created us? and that we work for them? because that's what you're making it sound like.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What could have be done for the sick? If someone broke their leg what difference would it make who make a splint? If someone had pneumonia what difference would it make where they lied down and either died or recovered on their own?

There was nothing the government could do. There was no medicine of any use. An ill or injured person had a better chance staying where they were as opposed to being transported by horse resulting in further damage and hemorrhaging.

Even more the reason the Founding Fathers would have been emotionally compelled to establish some sort of federal power to help these poor people, my goodness, apple, you said it yourself, there was little hope of survival if you didn't get immediate medical attention. What difference does it make now, who makes a splint? I don't understand half of your babbling, it's like you are on an acid trip, a real magical mystery tour. In the late 1700s, we did know some things about medicine, Ben Franklin helped to open the first public hospital. We did understand that sick or dying needed medical care to live, but the Founding Fathers did not include this in the enumerated powers of government, in Article 1 Section 8.

 

[Damocles]

Even if it meant the welfare of the States it's the citizens who make up the States. It's in a State's interest to have healthy citizens.

The Constitution makes it clear when it speaks of "The People"... In this case it does not. Health Care would be a power the government was not given. There is a specific list. Education is among those the federal government has no business in... so is Health Care. Such powers are not assumed, and the General Welfare clause is not enough to disregard the limits actually placed on the federal government.

While I agree the mandate is a half-assed approach to medical care Obama had little choice. If we look at SS the only way that got off the ground is with the promise everyone would receive something but it's absurd to send SS checks to people worth millions while others try to scrape by. If medical care was truly a government medical program no one would be buying anything from anyone and, hopefully, Obama will receive a majority and make it so.

I would prefer an actual leader to get elected and for them to take advantage of the unique capacity of the US to allow states to make programs where we can find the best program that does not involve the government as the provider, an improvement rather than a copy of a failing model in Europe causing "austerity".

The idea that no government will ever go overboard when we give them cradle to grave power over our lives is absolutely absurd.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

How do you figure, if 48% don't pay taxes?

don't ask him hard questions, he's a liberal.....

 

[apple0154]

The Constitution makes it clear when it speaks of "The People"... In this case it does not. Health Care would be a power the government was not given. There is a specific list. Education is among those the federal government has no business in... so is Health Care. Such powers are not assumed, and the General Welfare clause is not enough to disregard the limits actually placed on the federal government.

I would prefer an actual leader to get elected and for them to take advantage of the unique capacity of the US to allow states to make programs where we can find the best program that does not involve the government as the provider, an improvement rather than a copy of a failing model in Europe causing "austerity".

The idea that no government will ever go overboard when we give them cradle to grave power over our lives is absolutely absurd.

Let's take a closer look at that cradle to grave argument. It goes something like if the government ensured people had food to eat and a roof over their head they'd all be happy as larks. If that was the case people would be rushing to go to jail. At the very least they wouldn't be trying to secure their job. How many people do you know who deliberately screw up at work hoping the boss will lay them off so they can collect unemployment, then welfare?

As for the government having power over people's lives if they offer entitlement programs the problem rests with people who insist the government have that power over people.

Look at unemployment. I think it's North Carolina that has finally realized it's better if people enroll for courses when collecting UI. There was a time when taking courses was a big no-no. Why? Because businesses paid into unemployment and they didn't want to pay for someone's education. Greedy, selfish, miserable people. The same thing applies to other programs. Some people don't want to help others unless there are conditions attached to it. Some people want the government to have power over those who receive help but it doesn't have to be that way.

As for the States finding solutions how long has it taken just one State to finally figure out a sensible solution for those on UI? Only one State out of 50 realizes it's better to have people take refresher/upgrade courses to keep current in their profession/vocation so they have more to offer an employer. A simple, logical idea. A no-brainer.

Regarding health care there was no health care to discuss. What could have possibly been offered in 1776? As I mentioned to Dix moving people across rough terrain would have caused more damage than just leaving the person alone.

(Excerpt) The first progress in combating infection was made in 1847 by the Hungarian doctor Ignaz Semmelweis ......Lister published his work as a series of articles in The Lancet (March 1867) under the title Antiseptic Principle of the Practice of Surgery. The work was groundbreaking and laid the foundations for a rapid advance in infection control...(End) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgery

What would the government have offered? People had a much better chance of surviving by not going to a doctor. It was a non-issue. Look at the right regarding freedom of movement/travel. 200 years from now, assuming moon travel is common place, will it be argued the founding fathers meant travelling to the moon was included in the movement/travel right?

As we progress and situations arise which the founding fathers could never have contemplated all one can do is look at the purpose of the constitution, the preamble, which the courts have ruled states the founding father's intentions regarding the constitution. Was the constitution drawn up for the benefit of the people? If so, is it in the people's interest to live? Is it in the country's best interest to have healthy ciizens? If the founding father's intention was to design a plan for the best country possible, to offer the people the best life possible, how can that NOT include a longer, healthier life?

 

[Damocles]

And if you believe that there is a "right" and the federal government should have the power it doesn't currently have, there is this thing called an Amendment... those situations that "couldn't be contemplated" were foreseen and a mechanism was put in place to allow for changes.

It's there in the Constitution. The document shouldn't be ignored because you find it inconvenient to follow.

 

[apple0154]

(Originally Posted by Dixie) How do you figure, if 48% don't pay taxes?

don't ask him hard questions, he's a liberal.....

I know it's difficult for Conservatives to understand that the 48% does not mean it's the same people. Again, when it comes to comprehension, actually thinking, the Conservatives get confused. Or deliberately lie/deceive. Of course, it's understandable considering their leader did that for eight consecutive years, from lies/deception regarding taxes to wars.

 

[apple0154]

And if you believe that there is a "right" and the federal government should have the power it doesn't currently have, there is this thing called an Amendment... those situations that "couldn't be contemplated" were foreseen and a mechanism was put in place to allow for changes.

It's there in the Constitution. The document shouldn't be ignored because you find it inconvenient to follow.

When cases have been brought before the SC and ruled upon it wasn't always necessary to make an Amendment to the Constitution. Some things just made sense.

 

[Damocles]

When cases have been brought before the SC and ruled upon it wasn't always necessary to make an Amendment to the Constitution. Some things just made sense.

Which doesn't change that the founders foresaw that changes would be necessary and gave us a mechanism to do so. If you want the government to have more power there is a mechanism to add that power, or to take it.

The SC is not perfect. See the Slaughter-House case, Dred Scott, and others.

The idea that because the court has made a decision in the past it is "right" forever is absurd. The Constitution is something that we should all get behind. I know you find it inconvenient and hope that you can ignore it and base that on poor decisions by the court. There is not a power of "made sense" given to the SCOTUS any more than there is a power for Education or Health Care given to the Federal Government.

So far in this thread we've gone through what General Welfare applied to, we've understood that the powers of the federal government are limited, and your answer is: Well, past courts have ignored those limits so we should keep on doing that!

No. We shouldn't. There is a mechanism for the change you want to see. Use it or accept the limitations that are in our social (and written) contract with our government.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

... The SC is not perfect...

Newtzi says the president and Congress can ignore the SCOTUS.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

When cases have been brought before the SC and ruled upon it wasn't always necessary to make an Amendment to the Constitution. Some things just made sense.

bypassing a legally binding contract to guarantee a desired outcome would be a criminally prosecutable offense in any other venue, so why is it sensible to do the same thing in government?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

bypassing a legally binding contract to guarantee a desired outcome would be a criminally prosecutable offense in any other venue, so why is it sensible to do the same thing in government?

What about driving without a license or state-mandated insurance?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

What about driving without a license or state-mandated insurance?

what about them? until someone can show unequivocal proof that the constitution gives governments the power and authority to regulate the means that a person can freely travel, I see them as unconstitutional and can be ignored with impunity.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

what about them? until someone can show unequivocal proof that the constitution gives governments the power and authority to regulate the means that a person can freely travel, I see them as unconstitutional and can be ignored with impunity.

So there are no civil or criminal penalties for driving without a license or state-mandated insurance?