JoeUser Forums
Can anyone find in the Constitution of the United States where it permits government to takeover and provide health care for the country? While you are at it, also tell me how it’s legal for the government to fine an American for not opting into the government system?
Cosidering there is no specific wording in the Constitution about Healthcare in specific, if I may add ID, if this idea can be found in the Constitution, what is to stop the Gov't from forcing the citizens of this Nation to do anything they deem necessary to improve this country?
I would like to point out, because some people are just too stupid to get it, that this is not about not wanting to help fellow citizens to me. This is about keeping the Gov't from taking control of everything.
You can't be serious, can you? Pelosi says you can't be, so I guess you're not.
We the People of the United States, 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.
.......
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;
While I don't agree that's what it means this is probably where they interpret it.
"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
Great flick.
Indeed it is used to that end. The "general welfare" clause does not cover ensuring *individual welfare*, IMO, rather it would include things such as infrastructure and security which are shared by all and allow people to see to their own individual welfare more effectively.
It certainly doesn't authorize the government to fine people for not regularly paying a significant amount of money to a for-profit third party, with the only alternatives being death or emigration (it is not valid to compare with auto insurance as some try to do--you can choose to not own a car and thus be absolved of any insurance requirement there). That part of this "reform" is outright absurd on its face.
It's also a state, not Federal, requirement for the privilege of using public roads, though wouldn't be surprised if the Feds had claimed it as a condition of states sucking at the Federal tit. Even so, I seriously doubt Dwight D. intended for the intestate highway system to be the justification for nationalizing healthcare and forcing citizens to buy a product. Give these effers an inch and they try to take not just a mile, but all the ground under it and the sky over it.
"promote the general Welfare" did not mean what it does today when the constitution was written.
If a mass murderer calls killing homeless people "volunteering at the homeless shelter"; that doesn't mean you should too, or that real volunteering should be stopped, or that volunteering means killing people. Or that killing is legal.
To put it more plainly, some asshole politician naming wealth redistribution "welfare" more than a hundred years after the constitution was written, does not make it constitutional.
Plus, the preamble is not technically a part of the LAWS set by the constitution, only the explanation of the founder's principles and beliefs.
Why does it seem that healthcare and Cap and trade are just a premise for a global warming redistribution wealth tax?
Because it is.
AD I couldn't have said it any more plain than Tal.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
PolMach Forums
Stardock Forums