Thread: State Attorney Generals to investigate Dirty Harry’s deal!

Sorry that you view it in that light Johnwk, as that was not the intention. While you maybe driving a sports car, others maybe walking.

I thought there was much light shed on the bill in the article, more for some than others perhaps.

There have been many posters that have brought up the constitutionality of this bill for weeks now, myself included. I merely like to run off and explore the hows and the whys we find ourselves at this point. A little off topic perhaps, but I like to think that we can chew gum and walk at the same time.

I look forward to the thread exploring more of the constitutional questions, and should there be a pause, I might just post a little off topic to BTTT again.

SEE: GOP attorneys general line up to challenge health care bill

December 31, 2009
Richard Moore
Investigative Reporter


[b][i]“Led by S.C. attorney general Henry McMaster, at least 13 Republican attorneys general are studying a constitutional challenge to the Senate version of the health care bill, saying it violates tax uniformity and commerce guarantees by treating one state and its citizens differently than the 49 others.â€

Johnwk wrote,

But the bottom line is, the Nelson deal, if carried out as proposed under Harry’s criminally offered bribe, would violate the very intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted.

Playing somewhat of a devil's advocate here, perhaps you could help shed some light.

Understanding the intent regarding apportionment, how do earmarks fit into this scenario concerning other bills that are passed by Congress? The reason I ask is to try and understand just how far are we from intent? Are earmarks proportioned according to the rules? Or is this Nebraska deal a violation due to its sheer size coupled to the fact that Nebraska stands alone to gain so much?

Originally Posted by roundabout

Johnwk wrote,

But the bottom line is, the Nelson deal, if carried out as proposed under Harry’s criminally offered bribe, would violate the very intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted.

Playing somewhat of a devil's advocate here, perhaps you could help shed some light.

Understanding the intent regarding apportionment, how do earmarks fit into this scenario concerning other bills that are passed by Congress? The reason I ask is to try and understand just how far are we from intent? Are earmarks proportioned according to the rules? Or is this Nebraska deal a violation due to its sheer size coupled to the fact that Nebraska stands alone to gain so much?

No need to play devil’s advocate. Your questions are legitimate. As to “earmarksâ€

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

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.

This is also referred to as the general welfare clause, yes?

Concerning the rules of apportionment, this bill is clearly in direct violation of those rules. Not just with Nebraska but on other fronts as well? With that having been said, this is troubling in the sense, how in the heck did the Representatives think they were going to pull this portion off?

The general welfare part of the clause seems a bit more perplexing. A shrewd lawyer and a willing press could dress this up to look legitimate. I have always ran towards the historical perspective of the time in order to bring up a defense for the real intent. Is there something more to cut the head off of this beast, meaning the decoupling of so many social services, from the argument of legitimacy being found in the general welfare clause?

And Thanks for your response concerning the "earmarks" question. The "simple truth" is what I would like to arrive at. After all the Constitution was written for the common man to be able to understand.

Originally Posted by roundabout

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

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.

This is also referred to as the general welfare clause, yes?

Concerning the rules of apportionment, this bill is clearly in direct violation of those rules. Not just with Nebraska but on other fronts as well? With that having been said, this is troubling in the sense, how in the heck did the Representatives think they were going to pull this portion off?

The general welfare part of the clause seems a bit more perplexing. A shrewd lawyer and a willing press could dress this up to look legitimate. I have always ran towards the historical perspective of the time in order to bring up a defense for the real intent. Is there something more to cut the head off of this beast, meaning the decoupling of so many social services, from the argument of legitimacy being found in the general welfare clause?

And Thanks for your response concerning the "earmarks" question. The "simple truth" is what I would like to arrive at. After all the Constitution was written for the common man to be able to understand.

I asked a few old friends what their view of the general welfare clause was. Here are the responses

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.
- James Madison

They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.
Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
--James Madison

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
-- President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875 [1877]

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
-- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.

I think that they understood the constitution and what the General Welfare clause meant, some of them even wrote it.

Originally Posted by roundabout

The general welfare part of the clause seems a bit more perplexing. A shrewd lawyer and a willing press could dress this up to look legitimate. .

Not when they are confronted with the historical documentation. See:
Steny Hoyer perpetuates lie about ``general welfare`` and health care reform!

[quote="johnwk"]Steny Hoyer perpetuates lie about ``general welfare`` and health care reform!


See:
Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance

CNSNews.com
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

[b][i]
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.â€

cayla99 wrote,

Quote:
They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.
Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791

Thanks cayla99. I find Jefferson's approach at this issue very humbling. It reeks of common sense. Lawyers might find my use of the word common sense beneath their educational vocabulary, but I maintain that I have little desire to run around in their perpetual circles. (No offense intended toward a good lawyer that may possess some common sense.)

Johnwk wrote,

Steny Hoyer’s lie, suggesting that Congress has power to adopt and enforce the Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 under Congress’s power to “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“ dates back to a United States Supreme Court decision, Steward Machine Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548 (1937) which upheld the Social Security Act. This is where the big lie begins and it must be exposed for what it is! A LIE!

In the Steward decision the court indicated the problem of unemployment was national as well as local, and in promotion of the "general welfare", moneys of the Nation may be used to relieve the unemployed and their dependents in economic depressions and to guard against such disasters.

This I find interesting. Not to go off in another tangent, but, this seems not to hard to draw lines from the Federal Reserve (central banking) and the progressive's tactics (the Federal Reserves marching orders?) and the whole concept of central planning which Roosevelt diligently advanced. FDR also before this date threatened the Court with a re-shuffling of the deck chairs, yes? The separation of powers failed big time.

It seems a shame that this travesty was allowed to continue on for so many years even after the economy was brought back up with a great influx of dollars.

A most excellent post Johnwk, Thanks.

Hey Johnwk, Question for you. Perhaps you can help.

If this bill was to pass, we could assume eventually the Supreme Court would have to look at this bill concerning its constitutionality. This would bring up the Steward Machine case again, yes?

If that were to be re-visited, and the Court went along with it, or ignored it and did not re-visit that particular case, then what? Any options short of chaos?