Congress can take over healthcare by their authority to "promote the general welfare" as long as such a program is paid for by uniformly "laying and collecting taxes".
Do you believe in allowing your government to steal wealth from your grandchildren? It may, or may not, surprise you to find out that your Constitution contains a license for Congress to do exactly that. It is the 2nd clause, Section 8, Article I, the power of Congress to borrow money on the credit of the United States. This is where all of the peoples problems lie, and this power must be abolished if we are to really be a free people in this country. It must be done by Article V.
The repeal of the 17th amendment would go a long way to eliminate or reduce the federal government from enacting unconstitutional legislation (e.g. Obamacare).
About 20% of the budget is spent on defense. Allowing for another 10% that might be legitimate, that means that 70% of our federal government is unconstitutional and illegal.
Hey, don't talk bad about the ACLJ or other defenders of the Constitution. I planned on interning for both the ACLJ & Cato Institute in law school.
I don't know where you got that impression of the ACLJ as "fascist" either.
If protecting Americans against "the Fairness Doctrine" "protecting civil & religious liberties" "freedom of speech" and promoting an understanding of Constitutional Law (like Jay Sekulow does) is FASCISM, then I want some MORE of it!
"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. "
To some, "Promote the General Welfare" means anything from banning drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, to contolling everyone's health insurance. Jesus fucking Christ, if people can spout off that healthcare is a "right", then what else can be a right? Food? Shelter? What else must the government provide for everyone?!
I agree. Another problem I see is just how Law is done. It's not based on common sense English of the time and it seems like the role of the Lawyer is to pervert the language and the Law instead of represent it.
Thomas Jefferson said this about "general welfare":
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
Those specifically enumerated powers were the ones Judge Napolitano listed at the beginning of this clip.
That's what you say when anyone, Democrat or Republican, uses "general welfare" as an excuse. Just google "General welfare James Madison" and click the first link.
Thank you and TheZav88 for this, in a matter of moments we have shown historical context of what was intended. Now you will hear the arguements of how the Founding Fathers view are no longer valid. These quotes were from the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, were they not? What documents are these found in again?
what is the judge's name?
punkyoliciousness 1 year ago
Congress can take over healthcare by their authority to "promote the general welfare" as long as such a program is paid for by uniformly "laying and collecting taxes".
RoySC1 1 year ago
Do you believe in allowing your government to steal wealth from your grandchildren? It may, or may not, surprise you to find out that your Constitution contains a license for Congress to do exactly that. It is the 2nd clause, Section 8, Article I, the power of Congress to borrow money on the credit of the United States. This is where all of the peoples problems lie, and this power must be abolished if we are to really be a free people in this country. It must be done by Article V.
RoySC1 1 year ago
The repeal of the 17th amendment would go a long way to eliminate or reduce the federal government from enacting unconstitutional legislation (e.g. Obamacare).
polljc 2 years ago
What a GREAT video. Worth watching. Educational definitely.
mkloppel 2 years ago 2
About 20% of the budget is spent on defense. Allowing for another 10% that might be legitimate, that means that 70% of our federal government is unconstitutional and illegal.
rockhuddy 2 years ago
Unfortunately, the Constitution didn't come with a method for enforcement, aside from the Supreme Court and impeachment.
MooseOfReason 2 years ago
VOTE
VOTE
VOTE
Only method we have nowadays...
helltrackrider 2 years ago
I noticed that they didn't invite any statists into the discussion to defend a national health care system. It went very smoothly as a result.
hapspir 2 years ago
Hey, don't talk bad about the ACLJ or other defenders of the Constitution. I planned on interning for both the ACLJ & Cato Institute in law school.
I don't know where you got that impression of the ACLJ as "fascist" either.
If protecting Americans against "the Fairness Doctrine" "protecting civil & religious liberties" "freedom of speech" and promoting an understanding of Constitutional Law (like Jay Sekulow does) is FASCISM, then I want some MORE of it!
TNROLM 2 years ago 2
I think it was from listening to Jay Sekulow's radio show. He did not come across as a libertarian at all.
FlailingJunk 2 years ago
Oh yea he's not....
TNROLM 2 years ago
I thought the ACLJ was a christian fascist organization. I am not sure where i got that impression.
FlailingJunk 2 years ago
It was founded by Pat Robertson of all people.
chevydriver1123 2 years ago
We need to hang a banner with the words of the 10th Amendmen in huge letters in the house and senate!
VisitingXenoc133 2 years ago 8
I agree, its against the law for government to do all this
a4finger 2 years ago 5
I actually think Madison wrote something about the meaning of "general welfare". I don't have time to look it up, but I remember reading something.
TheZav88 2 years ago
Ah, found it.
"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. "
TheZav88 2 years ago 4
To some, "Promote the General Welfare" means anything from banning drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, to contolling everyone's health insurance. Jesus fucking Christ, if people can spout off that healthcare is a "right", then what else can be a right? Food? Shelter? What else must the government provide for everyone?!
MagnusIan 2 years ago 6
But "promote the general welfare" could mean anything to someone born after 1850 or so.
CountArtha 2 years ago
The problem is 'general welfare'.
Scoforever 2 years ago 3
I agree. Another problem I see is just how Law is done. It's not based on common sense English of the time and it seems like the role of the Lawyer is to pervert the language and the Law instead of represent it.
Theevagabond 2 years ago
Thomas Jefferson said this about "general welfare":
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
Those specifically enumerated powers were the ones Judge Napolitano listed at the beginning of this clip.
That's what you say when anyone, Democrat or Republican, uses "general welfare" as an excuse. Just google "General welfare James Madison" and click the first link.
MooseOfReason 2 years ago 2
Thank you and TheZav88 for this, in a matter of moments we have shown historical context of what was intended. Now you will hear the arguements of how the Founding Fathers view are no longer valid. These quotes were from the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, were they not? What documents are these found in again?
Theevagabond 2 years ago
Theevagabond, The Madison quote is from a letter he wrote to James Robertson. The Jefferson one is from a letter to Albert Gallatin.
MooseOfReason 2 years ago
Thanks much! :)
Theevagabond 2 years ago
Sure.
MooseOfReason 2 years ago
first one!
sgtlabar 2 years ago