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?
CNSNews.com 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."
‘Or’…
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:
Post a Comment