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

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.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”


Steny Hoyer’s lie, as stated by Matt Cover, 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, Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (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 Helvering 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.

The Court stated:


"Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare.' Constitution, art. 1, 8; United States v. Butler, … There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents"


What is significant is, the court cites the Butler decision decided the previous year and goes on to assert Hamilton’s view concerning the phrase “general welfare” prevails over that of Madison, and, the Court will not “resurrect the contest”. In other words, the Court is not interested in reviewing the historical record during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution and is satisfied with Hamilton’s point of view.


But what is not pointed out by the Court is the Hamilton view relied upon by the Court was not made during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution, but rather, it was made after the Constitution had been ratified when Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury and was made in a report on Manufactures dated December 5th, 1791. In fact, Hamilton made the claim with the specific intention to gain support for appropriating revenue from the federal treasury to be used to encourage specific manufactures. Gee, that sounds familiar. Does current banking bailouts ring a bell?

In his report on Manufactures, Hamilton writes with reference to the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, SEE Page 136

“These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are no less comprehensive than the payment of the public debts, and the providing for the common defense and general welfare. The terms “general welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded: otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the “general welfare;” and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.”

Now that’s amazing because in Federalist No. 83, which was written to explain the meaning of the Constitution to gain ratification, Hamilton, in crystal clear language, refers to a “specification of particulars” 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..."

Of course 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 general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.

And so, as it turns out, the Court did not rely upon the expressed intentions of the founding fathers regarding the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” which were expressed during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution. The Court in Helvering, to advance FDR’s progressive agenda, decided to create the big lie and relied upon an opinion expressed after the Constitution was adopted which conflicted with the undisputed documented intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted and.

In any event, the following question remains unanswered by our Supreme Court and old boy Steny Hoyer. If the Anti Federalist feared the wording “provide for … the general welfare” could be construed to be an unlimited grant of power and it was objectionable to them, and, the Federalists assured such an interpretation was not within the intended meaning of the Clause in question, who can be pointed to during the framing and ratification of our Constitution as wanting such a meaning to be attached to the wording in question? Without this question being answered, the most fundamental rule of constitutional law is subverted!

The most fundamental rule of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling___ multiple citations omitted.

Fact is, even Congress understands this fundamental principle of constitutional law, even though they now act in rebellion to it.:

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution."_____ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Bottom line is, Congress is without constitutional power to tax for, spend on and regulate the personal health care choices and decisions of the people within the various united States!

Regards,
JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

Nancy Pelosi press release: health care reform is “regulating commerce”!

Well, isn’t this peachy? When Nancy Pelosi was questioned on the constitutionality of the House version of health care reform, her first response was “are you serious ?”. Now, Nancy offers a PRESS RELEASE titled “Health Insurance Reform Daily Mythbuster:” asserting “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act” is constitutionally authorized under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of our federal Constitution ___ “The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

As it turns out the press release is filled with assertions stated as fact, and there is nothing to substantiate the delegation of power to Congress to “regulate commerce among the several States” was intended to allow Congress to enter the various states to regulate the personal health care needs of the people therein. Nor is there any references in the press release which documents the meaning of “commerce” as our founding fathers used the word during our Constitution’s framing and ratification debates. Why is Nancy’s missing information important? Because “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. “___ South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)


In fact, documenting the meaning of “commerce” as used during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution is essential to a true understanding of what our Constitution means. Likewise, documenting the intentions for which a power was granted to Congress is also essential in establishing what our Constitution means. In other words, the meaning of words as they appear in our Constitution and how they were understood by those who framed and ratified our Constitution is essential when expounding upon our Constitution, and works in conjunction with the rule of being obedient to the documented intentions under which the Constitution was adopted. This rule precludes new and unintended meanings to be attach to the words and phrases in our Constitution which, if permitted, would allow the constitution to be subverted by intentional misconstructions.

To put this another way, as stated by Thomas Jefferson, he writes: "On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

As a matter of fact, this just happens to be the most fundamental rule of constitutional law, see:

Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”--- numerous citations omitted.

So, now that we understand the most fundamental rule of constitutional law, let us do some myth busting of Nancy’s press release and begin by documenting the meaning of “commerce” as used by our founding fathers during the time our Constitution was being framed and ratified, for it is their use of the word “commerce” which is required to be observed by Nancy when construing the Constitution. Likewise, let us also document the intentions for which the power to regulate “commerce” was granted, because the most fundamental rule of constitutional law is to be obedient to the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

The historical record establishes that the word “commerce”, as our founding fathers used the word during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution was limited to and meant, the exchange of goods between the states. ___ the transportation and exchange of goods between point A and point B, and/or, between the people of point A and point B. In effect Congress was given the power in question to insure free trade among the States --- an uninhibited transportation of goods among the states, and to prevent one state from obstructing the movement of goods of another state or one State taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders.

As to the documented meaning of the word “commerce” as used by our founding fathers, our Supreme Court in U.S. vs. Lopez provided a very detailed and well researched answer, part of which states:

“… See The Federalist No. 4, p. 22 (J. Jay) (asserting that countries will cultivate our friendship when our trade is prudently regulated by Federal Government); id., No. 7, at 39-40 (A. Hamilton) (discussing competitions of commercebetween States resulting from state regulations of trade); id., No. 40, at 262 (J. Madison) (asserting that it was an acknowledged object of the Convention . . . that the regulation of trade should be submitted to the general government) …Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles. “

Indeed, the word “commerce” as used by our founding fathers had absolutely nothing to do with a regulatory power over the manufacturing or production of goods within the various State borders, a power which has been usurped by our existing federal government which acts in rebellion to our written Constitution and the documented intentions under which it was adopted!

In reference to the documented intentions for which the power to regulate commerce among the States was granted to Congress, a clue to those intentions is quickly pointed out in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of our Constitution.

“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

We now begin to learn the intentions for which the power to “regulate commerce” was granted . . . one reason being, to prohibit preferences being made by Regulations of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another, and to prevent Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

As pointed out in Federalist Paper No. 42 concerning the intention of the power to regulate commerce, Madison states the following:


“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”

The power to regulate commerce among the states was in fact intended to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders, and that is the fundamental purposes for granting such power to Congress as established by the historical record!

Additionally, the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress was to also allow Congress to have oversight in a specific and clearly identified area__ a state‘s inspection laws:



“No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”


It is sheer insanity to even suggest the State Delegates to the Convention of 1787 which framed our Constitution, or the State Legislatures when ratifying the Constitution intended by the power in question, to be delegating a power to Congress to enter the various States to regulate the health care choices and needs of the people therein and interfere with the people’s personal decision making over such a personal matter as their health care needs.

The fact is, Congress has not been granted power to tax for, spend on and regulate the personal health care choices and needs of the people within the various united States and the debates during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution establishes this as fact! For example, the clear intentions of the founding fathers regarding “defined and limited” powers granted to Congress were summarized in Federalist No. 45 as follows:


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

It is also important to note the above intentions were given force and effect by the adoption of the Tenth Amendment which states:

“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.”

The truth is, contrary to Nancy’s make believe myth buster press release, that Congress's powers are “essentially unlimited“, our Supreme Court, less than twenty years after our Constitution was adopted, articulated the unavoidable truth concerning the “defined and limited” powers of Congress as follows:



“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.”___ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)


Bottom line is, Nancy Pelosi and her control freak crowd on Capitol Hill [Henry Waxman, Barney Frank, Steny Hoyer, 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 regulate the personal health care choices and needs of the people, and are proposing, with their version of health care reform, to act in rebellion to our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted ___ PERIOD!


JWK

Those who reject 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.