Thread: Steny Hoyer perpetuates lie about ``general welfare``

Good point Roundabout, to mention the wisdom that comes from the side of faith. I sometimes forget to mention it, as I take for granted, and shouldn't, that other folks have the same understanding as I do of the men who framed our Republic. And without that understanding, no matter how eloquently put, the words of the Declaration, and Constitution become meaningless. For if one looks at it in the proper scope, there is a very good balance of faith, law, and wisdom put into those words penned so long ago.

Hylander wrote,

For if one looks at it in the proper scope, there is a very good balance of faith, law, and wisdom put into those words penned so long ago.

"penned so long ago." Yet I still find comfort in the thought that man has not changed, only man's technologies and environments change. Therefor looking toward taking a subject that may appear distant or difficult to understand due to percieved language constraints (proper English or historical context) need not be so difficult when one understands the nature of man.

Adding to the "proper scope" I tend to believe that our founding fathers understood their faith, and thus understood the nature of man, thus gained in wisdom. Wisdom being the ultimate outcome (concerning their roles in writing the Constitution.) of the understanding of their faith, only then could such documents as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution have been written, for without that God inspired wisdom the naure of men left to themselves would have produced documents inspired by men alone and that would have been a much different animal then what was to be. And so Constitutional interpretation without reguard to the inspirational guidance of the founding fathers faith will or could lead to mis-interpretation of the true intent.

Ecclesiastes 12:12 And further, my son, be admonished by these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh.

Our founding fathers kept it simple, they wrote documents not books.

Ecclesiasties 12:13 Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man's all.

12:14 For God will bring every work into judgement, every secret thing, Whether good or evil.

Without knowledge and instruction such as this, what chances would have the founding fathers to put together such documents?

With all of that having been said,...........great post, very well summed up Highlander.

The reason I have gone on concerning faith and our founding fathers, is that I have no desire to become a lawyer, or to hire a lawyer, or to trust a lawyer, to interpret the Constitution for me. Selfish on my part, perhaps,..........but that is part of the nature of man.

Roundabout,

You should not have to hire an attourney to interpret the Constitution. It would be tantimount to hiring an attourney to interpret the "Good Book" for you. Whatever your faith may be. If you take the time to read the Constitution, it was written so that some one with a basic reading education could understand it. And as for differences in the language over the years changing, it hasn't changed that much to make it seem foreign, as if compared to the Magncarta. Not only are we an ocean removed from that document that set the standard for English Common Law, but we are almost a millenium removed. It would be like giving an original copy of the Roman Twelve Tables of Law to a modern day Italian. Are there some nuansces that seem odd in the Constitution? Yeah a few words need to be researched by the novice Constitution reader, but most of it is phrased so that it leaves no doubt as to the intent of the Framers.

Your post made me think of a statement I read in an article in Constitutional Corner in my monthly The New American some time back, and the author made this comment about the Constitution, "In 230 years we've gone from the horse and buggy to the spaceshuttle. But nomatter how enlightened or technologically advanced we become, changing times do not change timeless truthes".

So continue to be selfish about the Constitution. I am the same way about the Bible, and the morals it has to offer if one takes the time to look.

What I would like to know is, why is FOXNEWS not asking at every opportunity and of every member of Congress when they have the chance, where in our Constitution has Congress been granted a power to tax for, spend on and regulate the personal health care choices of the American People?



Bottom line is, Steny Hoyer and his control freak crowd on Capitol Hill [Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Barney Frank, Anthony Weiner, John Murtha, David Obey, Debbie Wasserman to mention a few] are without constitutional authority to enter the various united States to tax for, spend on and exercise the countless regulatory powers mentioned in the [i]“America’s Affordable Health Choices Actâ€

[quote="johnwk"]What I would like to know is, why is FOXNEWS not asking at every opportunity and of every member of Congress when they have the chance, where in our Constitution has Congress been granted a power to tax for, spend on and regulate the personal health care choices of the American People?

Constitutional Healthcare
Written by Jack Kenny
Friday, 06 November 2009 09:04

The Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives was apparently dumbfounded recently when a reporter asked about the constitutional authority for requiring people to buy health insurance, as mandated in the healthcare reform bills before Congress.

As reported on CNSNews.com, the exchange between the reporter and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was as follows:

“Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?â€

johnwk wrote,

is the 1942 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Wickard v. Filburn. The case arose from the New Deal Agricultural Adjustment Act, an effort to maintain artificially high prices of agricultural products by limiting production and supply. Under a Department of Agriculture directive establishing production quotas, Roscoe Filburn, a farmer in southern Ohio, was given a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres. When it was discovered that he planted and harvested wheat on 23 acres, nearly 12 acres over his allotment, Filburn was ordered to destroy the excess crop and pay a fine for exceeding his quota.

I was talking to a freind a while back, much older than myself, he told me a story about when the AG man came down to his families farm back when the allotments were in place. His father met the AG man with a shotgun in hand and told the AG man he wanted nothing to do with the plan and was not going to burn his wheat or destroy his few hogs that he had raised. He was also told not to come back to the farm that he was not welcomed.