The basis for this statement lies in the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson, who believed “That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish (and here the Constitution spells out the crimes that Congress has power over) treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever;”
Of course the Congress (and Courts) have cobbled together so many exceptions to the Constitution, with many state based challenges being deemed frivolous and counter productive to the common good. The latest venture down this path will be the challenge to forcing people to buy insurance....
These were the sentiments of Thomas Jefferson, which a year ago I posted in another blog, some of
· The national government is a dangerous necessity to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; it should be watched closely and circumscribed in its powers.
· The separation between church and state is the best method to keep religion free from intervention by the federal government, government free of religious disputes, and religion free from corruption by government.
· The federal government must not violate the rights of the individual.
· The federal government must not violate the rights of the states
Love those founders!
ReplyDeleteHere's an interesting one from Madison:
---
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
With respect to the two 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. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.
---
I swiped that from Walter Williams' home page (he is an economist).
When asked about where the government gets authorization from the constitution to run health care, the usual response, if any at all, refers to the words "general welfare." Not sure exactly where they appear but will have to remember to dig it up later.
A sickening news story today or yesterday evening was about the opposition to the new bill. The story glazed over the unconstitutionality of the bill stating casually that it is highly unlikely at this stage that anything will be done concerning constitutionality of the law.
ReplyDeletePeople are just plain rolling over! The Supreme Court only mentions constitutionality when a law is clearly not to its members' liking. The states are now finding out that as this federal government gets ready to concede all sovereignty in light of globalist concerns that their sovereignty mean nothing at all.