Thread: President Trump, ObamaCare is not “dead” as you claim

Yes, I understand, Johnwk. There's no conflict between the meaning of general welfare in the Preamble at the time of the Constitution and the decision by the Congress to establish a retirement system for American Workers under the authority of the commerce clause during the Depression that they pay for through payroll taxes enabled by the 16th Amendment. Where is the conflict?

Are you familiar with the actual history of general welfare actions extracting from worker payrolls for themselves as beneficiaries in the United States? It started as early as 1798 with the US Marine Hospital Service for merchant seamen. The employers extracted 20 cents from their payroll to fund hospitals for sick and disabled seamen.

July 16, 1798 — “An Act for the relief of sick and disabled Seamen” established the Marine Hospital Service for merchant seamen. The Marine Hospital Service — forerunner of the present-day PHS — became a component of the Treasury Department. A monthly hospital tax of 20 cents was deducted from the pay of merchant seamen in the first prepaid medical care plan in the United States. (1 Stat. L. 605. PDF)

March 2, 1799 — An amending act to the legislation of 1798 extended Marine Hospital Service benefits to officers and men of the U.S. Navy. This arrangement continued until 1818 after which the Navy built its own hospitals. However, the deduction of 20 cents per month from the pay of Navy and Marine Corps personnel continued until June 15, 1943. (1 Stat. L. 729.)

https://history.nih.gov/research/sou...hronology.html

Do you have reason to believe that the meaning of the words "general welfare" were not understood by our Congress and President who signed this law in 1798 and amended it in 1799 to extend it to include our Navy sailors? The President in 1798 and 1799 was John Adams, who authored the US Constitution. I think he knew what the words meant and how they applied.

Originally Posted by Judy

Yes, I understand, Johnwk. There's no conflict between the meaning of general welfare in the Preamble at the time of the Constitution and the decision by the Congress to establish a retirement system for American Workers under the authority of the commerce clause during the Depression that they pay for through payroll taxes enabled by the 16th Amendment. Where is the conflict?

Are you familiar with the actual history of general welfare actions extracting from worker payrolls for themselves as beneficiaries in the United States? It started as early as 1798 with the US Marine Hospital Service for merchant seamen. The employers extracted 20 cents from their payroll to fund hospitals for sick and disabled seamen.


https://history.nih.gov/research/sou...hronology.html

Do you have reason to believe that the meaning of the words "general welfare" were not understood by our Congress and President who signed this law in 1798 and amended it in 1799 to extend it to include our Navy sailors? The President in 1798 and 1799 was John Adams, who authored the US Constitution. I think he knew what the words meant and how they applied.

I can see you have no intention to engaging in a productive discussion concerning the meaning of "general welfare" as it was understood during our Constitution's framing and ratification process. Additionally, you ignore the rules of constitutional construction and keep switching the subject while neglecting to comment on what I post. Why? What is your objective? What are you trying to accomplish?


JWK

LOL!! Oh my goodness. What are you trying to accomplish? You're the one who asked the question about where does it say in the US Constitution that the government could establish Social Security. I answered it, general welfare clause of Preamble, commerce clause of the US Constitution and the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution. I've given you an example of laws passed by Congress and signed by a President of the United States who also happened to author the US Constitution as well as sign it who I'm sure understood the words of the Preamble and the Commerce Clause he wrote as they apply to labor and extracting payroll funds for benefits in return.

If my responses to your question don't satisfy you, perhaps someone else can address your question better than I have.

Originally Posted by Judy

LOL!! Oh my goodness. What are you trying to accomplish? You're the one who asked the question about where does it say in the US Constitution that the government could establish Social Security.I answered it, general welfare clause of Preamble . . .

And I have documented that your above opinion is not in harmony with the Founder’s meaning of “general welfare” as expressed during our Constitution’s framing and ratification debates. Additionally, I laid out some of the rules of constitutional construction which you ignore in posting your opinion. Why do you ignore the rules of constitutional construction in arriving at your opinion with regard to the meaning of “general welfare” as it was understood by our Founders during our Constitution's framing and ratification process? Is it you aim to make "general welfare" mean whatever you wish it to mean within our Constitution's text?


JWK


Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And I've demonstrated far beyond any discussion here requires that the term general welfare as intended by the Founders applies to Social Security and Medicare as constitutional programs under the commerce clause. You're free to disagree, of course.

Originally Posted by Judy

And I've demonstrated far beyond any discussion here requires that the term general welfare as intended by the Founders applies to Social Security and Medicare as constitutional programs under the commerce clause. You're free to disagree, of course.

Judy,

You have offered your unsubstantiated opinion regarding the Founder's meaning of general welfare. On the other hand, I have offered our founders very own words, and they are far different from your opinion. Here is the evidence I provided to you:

Originally Posted by johnwk

Judy,

I’m not sure if you actually read what I posted above, especially what I wrote regarding our failure to learn the fundamental rules of constitutional construction which is absolutely essential to preserving and defending our system of government. Instead of responding to the specific points I made, you have once again offered a number of opinions while neglecting to substantiate those opinions are in harmony with the text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent as expressed during our Constitution’s framing and ratification process, which gives context to its text!

Now, with regard to the meaning of the phrase “general welfare”, which you mention above, as it was understood by our Founders during our Constitution’s framing a ratification process, let us recall our Founders own words!

General Welfare, our founders meaning.

In No. 83 Federalist and in explaining the meaning of the Constitution, Hamilton, in crystal clear language, refers to a “specification of particulars” [the 17 items listed beneath the phrase] which he goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“.

Hamilton writes:

"...the power of Congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended..."


This view expressed by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers during the framing and ratification debates is also in harmony with what Madison states during the framing and ratification debates:

Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:



"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti-federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction...But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power...But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning...is an absurdity."


Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution: "the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."[3 Elliots 95]
Also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out "was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."

Similarly, George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention

"The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.". [3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the meaning of the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.


JWK

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

Originally Posted by Judy

Are you familiar with the actual history of general welfare actions extracting from worker payrolls for themselves as beneficiaries in the United States? It started as early as 1798 with the US Marine Hospital Service for merchant seamen. The employers extracted 20 cents from their payroll to fund hospitals for sick and disabled seamen.

Is your memory failing you Judy? Have you forgotten our previous conversation regarding the Seamen's Act?



See: https://www.alipac.us/f9/media%60s-new-big-lie-founders-mandate-health-insurance-in1798-215569/




The fact is, I wrote extensively on this subject, e.g.,



Rick Ungar’s big lie:Founders mandated health insurance in1798



See:Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In1798


Just for the record, I addressed this very issue back in 2009 when a progressive tried to pretend our Founders MANDATED health insurance in 1798. But like a vampire which can't be killed, the same big lie returns over and over again and is panhandled by our big progressive loving media.


To begin with, AnAct for the relief of sick and disable seamen which Rick Ungar refers to was directed at licensed American flag ships engaged in commerce among the States and/or with foreign nations, and also directed at our Navy and its personnel. It had nothing to do with the kind of despotic intrusion our federal government is now attempting with regard to the American People’s decisions and choices regarding their health care needs.


In spite of the actual limitations of the act, the crackpot at forbes, Rick Ungar, writes: ” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.”


What Rick Ungar fails to tell his readers is, the sailors he refers to are not merely privately employed sailors, but are employed on ships licensed by the United States and engaged in commerce among the States and/or with foreign nations. Last time I read our Constitution it declares that Congress has power to regulate commerce among the states and with foreign nations.


The legislation reads:



1 § 1. Be it enacted ……. That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of everyship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any portof the United States, shall …..


§ 2. That from and after the first day of September next, no collector shall grant to any ship or vessel whose enrollment or license for carrying on the coasting trade has expired, a new enrollment or license, before the master of such ship or vessel shall first render a true account to the collector, of the number of seamen, and the time they have severally been employed on board such ship or vessel, during the continuance of the license which has so expired, and pay to such collector twenty cents per month for every month such seamen have been severally employed as aforesaid ; which sum the said master is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen. And if any such master shall render a false account of the number of men, and the length of time they have severally been employed, as is herein required, he shall forfeit and pay one hundred dollars.


It is also to be noted that our beloved Washington Post jumps on Rick Ungar’s bandwagon with an article titled Newsflash:Founders favored "government run health care" by Greg Sargent, , 01/20/2011


And this propagandist, similar to Rick Ungar, likewise fails to note the act was not directed at “government run health care“,but rather, how to deal with the health care needs of sailors employed on ships licensed by the United States engaged in commerce among the States and with foreign nations . . . a specific subject matter which Congress was granted authority over.


And instead of consulting “a professor of history who specializes in the early republic” Greg Sargent ought to have consulted our founding fathers to determine their intentions as documented in the debates creating the act. But heck, why quote the documented intentions and beliefs under whichthe Act was adopted when one can get a “professor” to weave a tale by association to give credibility to a fraud now being perpetrated upon the American People? The fraud being, that Congress has been granted power to regulate the American People’s decisions and choices regarding their health care needs.


JWK