Sunday, July 01, 2012

Law Makers Don’t Know The Law

 Law Makers Don’t Know The Law,
Or do they?
House ‘Judiciary Committee Chairman’ Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) said that support for nationalized healthcare is’ constitutional under the ‘Good and Welfare Clause.’  OH YEAH?  And just what “Good and Welfare Clause” is that John? asked Rep. Conyers, “What part of the Constitution do you think gives Congress the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance?”  Here was Conyers’ response:  “Under

several clauses, the ‘good and welfare clause’ and a couple others.  All the scholars, the constitutional scholars that I know — I’m chairman of the Judiciary committee, you know — they all say that there’s nothing unconstitutional in this bill and if there were, I would have tried to correct it if I thought there were.”  Apparently none of the so-called “scholars that ‘he knows’” knows anything about the Constitution either.  But he’ my friend, is “…chairman of the Judiciary committee, you know.”

I hope that you noted that Conyers is Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.  ‘Chairman’ of what… you say!  Conyers isn’t qualified to Chair a steering committee of the ladies aid society.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, recently told a CNSNews reporter that the so-called “good and welfare clause” gives Congress the authority to force individuals to buy health insurance which is required in the health care bill.  But guess what folks?  There is no such clause as the “good and welfare clause”, not in my U.S. Constitution:.

To give Mr. Conyers the benefit of any doubt, that he thinks he actually knows what he is talking about, he may have been referring to either the U.S. Constitution's preamble’, or Article 1 Section 8.  The Preamble of the United States Constitution, 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."
Article 1 Section 8 “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and [general Welfare] of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”  No “Good’ and Welfare clause” here, is it just possible he misspoke?  I don’t think so…I think it’s misapplied, and just maybe, it’s purposely.

Sadly, these parts of the Constitution are usually referenced and twisted, or otherwise misquoted by those on the liberal left when they are desperately seeking an out of context Constitutional phrase that could deceive the people and support huge entitlement programs like the recent health care legislation.  Don’t be deceived…

However, James Madison, a founding father and considered to be a major architect to the U.S. Constitution was alive long enough after the Constitution became the law of the land to witness how those who had an agenda similarly to Mr. Conyers twisted logic, would warp this part of the Constitution as we will soon see. 

Anyone who has done even the slightest research or has had even the most basic education on the US Constitution will note that “general welfare” which may be what Conyers was trying to imply, did not mean “Marxism”, (aid to some, at the forced expense of others), as James Madison was quick to point out in Federalist 41:  It reads…“But what color can the objection have [that the phrase ‘general welfare’ is not specified by particulars], when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? . . .  Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars . . . .”

In the entire list that follows the semicolon, there is nothing that even remotely resembles the social welfare programs now promoted by liberals. 
Following modern-day proponent’s and misinterpretation of the term “General Welfare”, the national government would have unlimited authority to do anything it defines as General Welfare.  This is impossible!  Madison points out that the phrase is found in the Articles of Confederation and it has a particular meaning:  Article III.  “The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever”.  It brings to mind the Invasion of Islam and the security of the boarder States like Arizona doesn’t it.

You can see by how “general welfare” is used to mean what applies to everyone generally and has nothing to do with Marxists wealth redistribution or social communism which the new national healthcare care program in fact does.  You can find similar uses of “general welfare” in Articles VIII and IX.  Madison continues:  “Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.  But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare?  I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention.  How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!”

The modem concept of general welfare is most often defined in terms of ‘wealth redistribution’ or socialism where some members of society (“the rich”) are taxed heavily in order to benefit the “welfare” of others (“the poor”) a purely Marxist philosophy totally in opposition to any and all parts of the Constitution.  General welfare, according to the Constitution, means welfare that benefits everybody equally, that is a constitutional concept.  This can be clearly seen in providing “for the common Defense.”  Taxes collected to defend the nation benefit everybody generally.  Taxing some people so other people can have equal housing, equal education, or healthcare is not general welfare; it is ‘particular’ and ‘specific’ welfare.  And that my friend is not in the Constitution.

THE BOTTOM LINE:  It becomes apparent that “House Judiciary Committee Chairman” as Rep. John Conyers likes to boast that he is, could not have ever read this information or’ at least he doesn’t think you did.  And believe it or not, it is not just you and I - that are privy to this historical documentation. 

Over the years I couldn’t help but notice the obvious ignorance of the law among the legislators in general, and ignorance of the purpose and philosophy of law in particular, but specifically the most basic law in America, the fundamental law that all other laws are built on, the US Constitution.  Shucks I knew more about the Constitution than these stumble bums do – before’ I took the Hillsdale University course on Constitutional Law.

When the Constitution was read for the first time in history before the entire body of Congress about a year or so ago, I believe that I can safely say that it was likely the first time many of the legislators had even heard the Constitution much less studied it.  And these are the people making the laws my friend. 

Now, there is’ another possible explanation other than ignorance, which I hope is not true, but is beginning to look that way.  And that is, that they fully understand the Constitution but they just have another agenda completely, and are doing exactly what they are taught in law school and that is to twist, spin, manipulate, misapply, misinterpret, and otherwise circumvent the law.  Either way it is certainly unacceptable, and un-American.

So, if you no longer want to be ignorant like our government bureaucrats, and blindly watch your freedom surreptitiously disappear, you can take a course like I did, ‘on line’ from Hillsdale University in Hillsdale Michigan, on the U.S. Constitution and yes, it’s free, all free, and no prerequisites.  Just CLICK ON THIS and check it out.  The people at Hillsdale are doing everything they can to educate an ignorant and brainwashed America.  But hurry, this free opportunity won’t last long. 

Do you think before one should be allowed to run for legislative office; they should have to pass at least a basic proficiency test on the US Constitution – before’ they are elected to make unconstitutional laws?  I mean…would you want someone to do major surgery on you who knew next to nothing about anatomy?

It might be a good Idea…

de Andréa

No comments: