Congress still denying health care
 

On 4-Sep-2009, "Lu Powell" wrote:

Congress still denying health care

Congress has no authority to grant "health care."

Congress still denying health care
 

"Steve" wrote in message
...

On 4-Sep-2009, "Lu Powell" wrote:

Congress still denying health care

Congress has no authority to grant "health care."

Agreed, though that hasn't stopped it from doing a lot of crap.

Congress still denying health care
 

Steve wrote:
On 4-Sep-2009, "Lu Powell" wrote:

Congress still denying health care

Congress has no authority to grant "health care."


Sure it does, ****-for-brains. The "tenthers" are just as crazy as the
birthers, teabaggers, and deathers.


As written by Henry Porter and recently reprinted in KOS:

The tenthers claim they are strict constitutional constructionists.
Based on their reading of the 10th Amendment, they contend this
administration in general, and health reform in particular, are
unconstitutional. Since strict constructionists approach the
constitution like fundamentalist Christians approach the Bible, I figure
the best way to bury this argument is to fight fire with fire. It's
time to get literal.

If you read the actual document handed down to us by the Framers, you
don't have to speculate about the original intent of the Founding
Fathers. All you have to focus on is the constitution's literal design.
When you do that the only conclusion you can draw is that universal
health insurance is an inevitable constitutional mandate.

Let me show you where it is written...


A lot of people at tea parties and town halls are busy screaming "We the
People!" They are like religious fundamentalists who scream "an eye for
an eye!" Neither is speaking in complete sentences, so they don't make
sense to anyone else but themselves. To make sense, you need to speak
in complete sentences. Fortunately for us, the framers of the
constitution knew that. Let's start at the beginning and review the
preamble to the constitution:

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.

The preamble is more than pretty prose tacked on to a complex legal
tool. The preamble to the constitution explains who is doing what and
why they are doing it.

Who: We the people.
What: ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
America.
Why: seven reasons are given

1. in Order to form a more perfect Union,
2. establish Justice,
3. insure domestic Tranquility,
4. provide for the common defence,
5. promote the general Welfare,
6. and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
7. and our Posterity

To deal with the tenthers you only need to focus on reasons 4 and 5.

provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,

The meaning of that section is clear if you look up the definitions of
the words "common","defense", and "welfare":

Common
adjective

1. belonging equally to, or shared alike by, two or more or all in
question.

2. pertaining or belonging equally to an entire community, nation,
or culture; public.

[Source: American Heritage Dictionary]

Defense
noun

1. resistance against attack; protection.

2. something that defends, as a fortification, physical or mental
quality, or medication.

[Source: Random House Dictionary]

Welfare
noun

1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.

[Source: American Heritage Dictionary]



That explains who, what and why, but the preamble says nothing about
how. For that you have to read the enumerated powers of the various
branches of Government. These are, appropriately, enumerated in
Articles 1 (legislative), 2 (executive), 3 (judicial) and 4 (states).
Note the first branch of government to be granted power is the
legislature. Article 1, Section 8 enumerates the powers of the Congress.

Article 1, section 8 begins:

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 section then proceeds to list several specific tasks Congress can
claim as its legitimate function. This section gives the Congress its
powers, but it is only at the end of this section that it explains how
Congress gets to exercise that authority:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.

Article 1, Section 8 is where it is written that congress has the
constitutional authority to make the laws our government needs to carry
out its obligations. While that power is necessary, it is not
sufficient for congress to carry out its obligations. That is why this
same section grants congress constitutional authority to raise and
collect taxes. Together, these powers are necessary and proper for
congress to meet its obligations and exercise its power. That is
sufficient justification for congress to exert these powers in the
course of executing its duties.

Given the clarity of this authorization it is hard to understand why the
tenthers even exist. Here's the 10th Amendment:

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.

When you look at the 10th amendment, it is obvious that Article 1,
Section 8 renders the tenthers argument moot. Now that we know congress
has the constitutional authority as well as the necessary and proper
means to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare,
the question becomes historical. Has congress exercised this power before?

Of course it has.

It is no coincidence the United States Public Health Service is as old
as the United States Marine Corps. Both were created by Acts of
Congress in 1798 and signed into law within days of each other by
President John Adams, a Founding Father. This close connection between
public health and national defense was not something Adams cooked up by
himself. Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson recognized the
importance of public health interventions as critical components of
national defense.

General George Washington protected his army from the scourge of
smallpox (a threat he perceived to be potentially greater "than...the
Sword of the Enemy") by requiring then-controversial smallpox
inoculations for new recruits of the Continental Army.

President Thomas Jefferson promoted vaccination throughout the country
and even instructed Meriwether Lewis to bring immunizations on his
pioneering westward journey to share with people in new settlements of
America.

Defending public health has been accepted as a central responsibility of
the nation's government on par with national defense since the dawn of
the republic.

It's ironic we have to look backwards through time to understand the
constitution because it was written for the future. Return to the
preamble and review all the reasons listed for why it was written. The
7th and last reason encompasses all of the previous six and secures them
for our Posterity.

Posterity
noun

1. succeeding or future generations collectively

2. all descendants of one person

[Source: American Heritage Dictionary]

Once you consider this seventh element, it becomes clear why this
instrument contains within its design the revolutionary concept of
amendment. The tenthers can cling to their notions and
misinterpretations as much as they like. It doesn't change the fact
that rights and protections granted to one group tend to expand over
time to include everyone else and their descendents. That's a logical
and inevitable consequence of the constitution's design. We saw that
for voting rights, property rights and civil rights. The right to basic
health care will be no different.

- - -


Now, Steve, you can head out to your next
birther-deather-tenther-teabagger meeting
and raise hell because you are really ****ed
a black guy is living in your white house.

Congress still denying health care
 

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:05:22 +0000, Steve wrote:


Congress has no authority to grant "health care."

The hell it doesn't. It's in the Preamble, right after "provide for the
common defence". It's "promote the general Welfare".

Congress still denying health care
 

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:05:22 +0000, Steve wrote:


Congress has no authority to grant "health care."

The hell it doesn't. It's in the Preamble, right after "provide for the
common defence". It's "promote the general Welfare".


Steve and others think that phrase means "...promote the general welfare
of the rich at the expense of the middle and lower income classes..."

Congress still denying health care
 

Steve wrote:
On 4-Sep-2009, "Lu Powell" wrote:

Congress still denying health care

Congress has no authority to grant "health care."

I wish these people that think that the government should provide health
care would show me the section in the US Constitution or the amendments
that says that is a responsibility of the Federal government to provide
that health care.

Congress still denying health care
 

H the K wrote:
Steve wrote:
On 4-Sep-2009, "Lu Powell" wrote:

Congress still denying health care

Congress has no authority to grant "health care."

[Source: American Heritage Dictionary]

Once you consider this seventh element, it becomes clear why this
instrument contains within its design the revolutionary concept of
amendment. The tenthers can cling to their notions and
misinterpretations as much as they like. It doesn't change the fact
that rights and protections granted to one group tend to expand over
time to include everyone else and their descendents. That's a logical
and inevitable consequence of the constitution's design. We saw that
for voting rights, property rights and civil rights. The right to basic
health care will be no different.


By the same argument, you could ask why is the government promoting the
muslim religion and stamping out the Christian religion.

Congress still denying health care
 

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:05:22 +0000, Steve wrote:


Congress has no authority to grant "health care."

The hell it doesn't. It's in the Preamble, right after "provide for the
common defence". It's "promote the general Welfare".
Promote does not mean provide.

PROMOTE:
1. To contribute to the growth, enlargement, or prosperity of (any
process or thing that is in course); to forward; to further; to
encourage; to advance; to excite; as, to promote learning; to promote
disorder; to promote a business venture. "Born to promote all truth."
--Milton. [1913 Webster]


PROVIDE.
1. To look out for in advance; to procure beforehand; to get, collect,
or make ready for future use; to prepare. "Provide us all things
necessary." --Shak. [1913 Webster]

2. To supply; to afford; to contribute. [1913 Webster]

Bring me berries, or such cooling fruit As the kind, hospitable woods
provide. --Milton. [1913 Webster]

3. To furnish; to supply; -- formerly followed by of, now by with. "And
yet provided him of but one." --Jer. Taylor. "Rome . . . was well
provided with corn." --Arbuthnot. [1913 Webster]

4. To establish as a previous condition; to stipulate; as, the contract
provides that the work be well done. [1913 Webster]

Congress still denying health care
 

Keith Nuttle wrote:
H the K wrote:
Steve wrote:
On 4-Sep-2009, "Lu Powell" wrote:

Congress still denying health care

Congress has no authority to grant "health care."

[Source: American Heritage Dictionary]

Once you consider this seventh element, it becomes clear why this
instrument contains within its design the revolutionary concept of
amendment. The tenthers can cling to their notions and
misinterpretations as much as they like. It doesn't change the fact
that rights and protections granted to one group tend to expand over
time to include everyone else and their descendents. That's a logical
and inevitable consequence of the constitution's design. We saw that
for voting rights, property rights and civil rights. The right to
basic health care will be no different.


By the same argument, you could ask why is the government promoting the
muslim religion and stamping out the Christian religion.



snerk

That's a funny one, keith.

Congress still denying health care
 

Keith Nuttle wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:05:22 +0000, Steve wrote:


Congress has no authority to grant "health care."

The hell it doesn't. It's in the Preamble, right after "provide for
the common defence". It's "promote the general Welfare".
Promote does not mean provide.

PROMOTE:
1. To contribute to the growth, enlargement, or prosperity of (any
process or thing that is in course); to forward; to further; to
encourage; to advance; to excite; as, to promote learning; to promote
disorder; to promote a business venture. "Born to promote all truth."
--Milton. [1913 Webster]


PROVIDE.
1. To look out for in advance; to procure beforehand; to get, collect,
or make ready for future use; to prepare. "Provide us all things
necessary." --Shak. [1913 Webster]

2. To supply; to afford; to contribute. [1913 Webster]

Bring me berries, or such cooling fruit As the kind, hospitable woods
provide. --Milton. [1913 Webster]

3. To furnish; to supply; -- formerly followed by of, now by with. "And
yet provided him of but one." --Jer. Taylor. "Rome . . . was well
provided with corn." --Arbuthnot. [1913 Webster]

4. To establish as a previous condition; to stipulate; as, the contract
provides that the work be well done. [1913 Webster]

Get a better dictionary:

promote, v.

(prəʊˈməʊt)

[f. L. pr�m�t-, ppl. stem of pr�mov-ēre to move forward, advance: see
pro-1 and move v. So obs. F. promoter to instigate (14th c. in Godef.).]

I. 1.I.1 a.I.1.a trans. To advance (a person) to a position of honour,
dignity, or emolument; esp. to raise to a higher grade or office; to
prefer.

1387 Trevisa Higden (Rolls) VII. 145 Þe emperour i-smyten a�en
promoted hym sone into a bisshop [L. promovit in episcopum]. 1401
Pol. Poems (Rolls) II. 94 Preestes, wich to fatte benefices wolde be
promotid. 1535 Coverdale Ps. xxxvi[i]. 34 He shal so promote the,
that thou shalt haue the londe by enheritaunce. 1685 Stillingfl.
Orig. Brit. iv. 167 Leontius his way was, to promote onely those in the
Church, he was beforehand sure of. 1874 Green Short Hist. iii. §5.
140 Boniface‥was promoted to‥ the Archbishopric of Canterbury.

b.I.1.b Chess. To raise (a pawn) to the rank of a piece. (Cf. to queen.)

1803 [see promotion 1 b]. 1900 Westm. Gaz. 12 May 3/3 Compelled to
promote a Pawn to a piece. 1904 H. J. R. Murray in Brit. Chess Mag.
Dec. 466 [In Malay chess] a pawn may be promoted to the rank of any
superior piece, but promotion takes place, not when the Pawn reaches the
eighth line, but only after a further diagonal move.

c.I.1.c Sport (chiefly Assoc. Football). To transfer (a team) to a
higher division of a league (see promotion 1 d).

1924 Times 5 May 6/6 Bristol City,‥promoted a year ago, return to a
lower division. 1949 Times 25 Apr. 6/2 (heading) Swansea Town promoted.

d.I.1.d Curling. To move (another stone) forward by striking.

1937 T. Henderson Lockerbie 58 He left the stone alone‥deeming it
safer play to promote the Minister's stone.

e.I.1.e Bridge. To establish (a relatively low card) as a winner; to
secure (a trick) by this action.

1959 Listener 31 Dec. 1178/3 A further spade lead will promote the
nine of diamonds. Ibid., The fifth heart will promote one of North's
trumps. 1962 Ibid. 12 Apr. 662/2 The defence would take two rounds of
clubs and play a third club, promoting a trick for West's nine of hearts.

2. a.I.2.a To further the growth, development, progress, or
establishment of (anything); to help forward (a process or result); to
further, advance, encourage. (Formerly also with on.) spec. to further
the sale of (an article) by advertising or other modes of publicity; to
publicize (a venture, person, etc.). Also absol.

1515 Barclay Egloges iv. (1570) C vj/1 Such rascolde drames promoted
by Thais,‥Or by suche other newe forged Muses nine. 1526 Pilgr. Perf.
(W. de W. 1531) 12 b, This gyfte expelleth all vyce, and promoteth all
vertue. 1577 Hanmer Anc. Eccl. Hist. (1619) 236 The Emperour‥went
about to promote christian religion. 1644 Digby Nat. Soul iv. §5. 390
All the causes and helpes that promote on its impotent desires.
1698–9 (Mar. 8) Minute Bk. S.P.C.K., The Journal of the Honble
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. 1703 J. Tipper in Lett.
Lit. Men (Camden) 305 You will promote the Sale of it as much as
possibly you can. 1765 A. Dickson Treat. Agric. (ed. 2) 79 Vegetation
is promoted‥by communicating to the earth the food of plants, and
enlarging their pasture. 1849 Macaulay Hist. Eng. ii. I. 191 It could
in no way promote the national interest. 1874 Green Short Hist. ii.
§1. 60 Commerce and trade were promoted by the justice and policy of the
Kings. 1930 Publisher's Weekly 31 May 2732/2 The books all to be
individualized in appearance and fully promoted. 1965 Melody Maker 3
Apr. 7/3 With the group over here to promote their latest
recording,‥they could well make the chart. 1971 D. Potter Brit. Eliz.
Stamps x. 117 These packs are heavily promoted, with full-page colour
advertisements in the national press. 1976 National Observer (U.S.)
30 Oct. 9/3, I love chocolate-chip cookies, and I love to promote.

***b.I.2.b To support actively the passing of (a law or measure); now
spec. to take the necessary steps for obtaining the passing of (a local
or private act of parliament). ***

1721 Col. Rec. Pennsylv. III. 138 The parties concerned in promoting
this Bill. 1863 H. Cox Instit. 170 Many bills promoted as private
bills, largely affect public as well as private interests.

c.I.2.c Chem. To increase the activity or effectiveness of (a catalyst)
by addition of another substance; to act as a promoter of (a catalyst)
or in (a catalytic reaction). Loosely (passing into 2 a), to initiate,
catalyse.

[1920 Jrnl. Physical Chem. XXIV. 243 When more than one of the
components are themselves catalysts a difficulty presents itself in
choosing between ‘promoter’ and ‘promoted’.] 1930 N. K. Adam Physics
& Chem. of Surfaces viii. 280 Many reactions go on at the surface of
charcoal. It is a good catalyst for promoting halogenations. 1936 R.
H. Griffith Mechanism of Contact Catalysis iii. 82 The fact that a
substance may act as a poison to a catalyst, and yet itself be promoted
by that catalyst, is obviously quite possible. 1940 Glasstone Textbk.
Physical Chem. xiii. 1128 On an ordinary iron catalyst one atom only in
2,000 appears to be able to catalyze the reaction between nitrogen and
hydrogen, but when suitably promoted the proportion of active points is
increased ten-fold. 1946 Chem. Abstr. XL. 4876 The catalytic action
is promoted by a smaller quantity of BF3. 1947 Jrnl. Polymer Sci. II.
41 The presence of small amounts of relatively high molecular weight
mercaptans greatly promotes the copolymerization reaction. 1967 R. W.
Lenz Org. Chem. Synthetic High Polymers x. 270 N,N-Dimethylaniline
promotes the spontaneous decomposition of benzoyl peroxide, and this
combination can be used to initiate polymerization reactions at low
temperatures. 1975 P. H. Emmett in Drauglis & Jaffee Physical Basis
for Heterogeneous Catalysis 21 Why then is a K2O-Al2O3 promoter better
than Al2O3 alone in promoting an iron synthetic ammonia catalyst?

****II.II â€*3.II.3 To put forth or forward into notice or attention; to
publish, promulgate; to assert, advance (a claim). Obs. ****

1480 Caxton Chron. Eng. ccxxv. 230 The kynges nedes were put forth
and promoted as touchyng the kyngdom of Fraunce. 1555 in Strype Eccl.
Mem. (1721) III. App. xlvi. 139 The false surmised articles promoted by
Hugh Raulins, priest. 1563 Bonner in Strype Ann. Ref. (1709) I.
xxxiv. 342 That the oath shall be promoted in open place, where there
shall be a convenient assembly of people to witness the same. 1662
Stanley Hist. Chaldaick Philos. (1701) 18/1 An Intellectual
incorruptible pattern, the Print of whose Form He promoted through the
World. 1683 Moxon Mech. Exerc., Printing i, Gutenberg‥promoted His
claim to the first Invention of this Art.

â€*4.II.4 To incite, prompt, move (to something). Obs. rare.

1450–1530 Myrr. our Ladye 27 The aungels of god‥to helpe vs in time
of prayer, & to promote our prayers towarde god. 1646 H. Lawrence
Comm. Angells 80 The Angell keepers‥promote to all good, oppose all evill.

5.II.5 To cause to move forward in space or extent; to extend. Obs. exc.
dial.

1652 Needham tr. Selden's Mare Cl. 274 None of them ever attempted to
promote their Empire beyond the bounds thereof. 1660 Boyle New Exp.
Phys. Mech. i. (1682) 16 Other eminent Astronomers would promote the
Confines of the Atmosphere to exceed six or seven times that number of
Miles. 1683 Moxon Mech. Exerc., Printing i, William Caxton (‥who
first brought it to Oxford) promoted it to London also. a 1705 Ray
Creation i. (1714) 201 Francis Pirara promotes the life of the
Brazilians beyond the term we have set it. 1872 Spectator 7 Sept.
1137 ‘Sure it's I will promote her for your honour’, where the word
‘promote’ was used‥in its strict meaning of ‘cause to move forward’.

III.III â€*6.III.6 To inform against (a person); to lay an information of
(a delinquency, etc.); also intr. or absol. to act as informer. Cf.
promoter 3. Obs.

14‥ Chester Pl. (Shaks. Soc.) II. 82 Taverners, tapsters of this
cittie, Shalbe promoted heare by me, For breakinge statutes of this
****rey. 1550 Latimer Last Serm. bef. Edw. VI Serm. (1562) 130 [129]
There lacke men to promote the kinges officers when they do amisse, and
to promote al offenders. 1566 Drant Horace, Sat. iv. C j b, I am not
one that doth promote, why art thou frayde of me? 1596–1623 [see
promoting ppl. a. 1].

7.III.7 Eccl. Law. To set in motion (the office of the ordinary or
judge) in a criminal suit in an ecclesiastical court; to institute (a
suit ex officio promoto) by permission of the ordinary.

1681 H. Consett Pract. Spir. Courts i. ii. §1 (1700) 5 Its Official
[sc. of the Court of Arches] is the proper and competent Judge to take
cognizance of all Ecclesiastical Causes whatsoever not only at the
Instance of Parties, but also of his meer Office, or when 'tis promoted.
Ibid. i. ii. §3 (1700) 7 It is left to the election of the Plaintiff
to elect in which Court he will institute or promote his Cause. 1789
Sir W. Scott in Haggard Rep. Consist. Court (1822) I. 14 This is a case
of Office promoted [= ex officio promoto] against Thomas Calcott,
for‥erecting tombs in the church-yard‥without leave of the Ordinary.
1837 Lushington in Curteis Rep. Eccl. Cas. (1840) 601 Mr. Williams
[Vicar of Hendon], who promotes the office of the judge, has brought a
charge against a parishioner of chiding and brawling. 1849 Dickens
Dav. Copp. xxix, The office of the judge promoted by Tipkins against
Bullock for his soul's correction. 1889 Abp. Benson in Read v. Bp. of
Lincoln 11 May (Roscoe) 36 The archbishop's office was promoted against
him [Bp. Wood of Lichfield, 1681]. Ibid. 37 The suit [Lucy v. Bp. St.
Davids] was promoted ex officio before the archbishop. 1895 R.
Phillimore Eccl. Law (ed. 2) 837 In every ecclesiastical court there are
two modes of procedure—the civil and the criminal. In criminal
proceedings the office of the judge is promoted, [i.e.] inasmuch as all
spiritual jurisdiction is in the hands of the bishop or ordinary, his
office or function is set in motion. Ibid. 956 The Criminal Suit is
open to every one whom the ordinary allows to promote his office, and
the Civil Suit to every one showing an interest.

IV. 8.IV.8 slang (orig. U.S.). To borrow or obtain (usu. illicitly).
Also to exploit (someone) for material advantage.

1930 Amer. Mercury Dec. 457/1 Promote, to steal. ‘We got to promote a
boat to run the stuff in.’ 1934 J. M. Cain Postman always rings Twice
97 If I hadn't been there, and begun promoting him for something to
drink that afternoon, maybe he'd be here now. 1941 Argus (Melbourne)
Week-End Mag. 15 Nov. 1/4 In Army parlance to arrange something is
always to ‘tee up’; just as to borrow something is to ‘promote’ it.
1942 Z. N. Hurston in A. Dundes Mother Wit (1973) 226/1 You skillets
is trying to promote a meal on me.

Congress still denying health care
 

On 4-Sep-2009, "Lu Powell" wrote:

Congress still denying health care

Congress has no authority to grant "health care."

Agreed, though that hasn't stopped it from doing a lot of crap.

Agreed. Are you willing to flush the toilet? Literally?

Congress still denying health care
 

On 4-Sep-2009, H the K wrote:

Congress has no authority to grant "health care."


Sure it does, ****-for-brains. The "tenthers" are just as crazy as the
birthers, teabaggers, and deathers.


As written by Henry Porter and recently reprinted in KOS:

Time to up the Thorazine dosage.

Congress still denying health care
 

On 4-Sep-2009, H the K wrote:

The hell it doesn't. It's in the Preamble, right after "provide for the

common defence". It's "promote the general Welfare".


Steve and others think that phrase means "...promote the general welfare
of the rich at the expense of the middle and lower income classes..."

Steve can read, unlike most "Amerikkkans." . promote the general welfare
means letting you do what it right for you as long as it doesn't screw with
others. It doesn't mean PROVIDE welfare for those to stupid or lazy to
provide for themselves.

Congress still denying health care
 

On 4-Sep-2009, Keith Nuttle wrote:

Congress has no authority to grant "health care."

I wish these people that think that the government should provide health
care would show me the section in the US Constitution or the amendments
that says that is a responsibility of the Federal government to provide
that health care.

Or Asian auto discounts, or federal "education" etc. etc. etc.

Flush the toilette NOW, not in the enxt election.

Damm good time to split the country into several segments. The states have
NO purpose any longer except to be sub level asset collection divisions of
individuals' productivity so some scum can get elected.

The "gimmee everything for free" crowd needs to read some Solzhenitsyn, but
then if they could read, they wouldn't be so completely stupid.

Ohhhhhh ... forgot, they went to gubment skoolz..

Congress still denying health care
 

Steve wrote:
On 4-Sep-2009, H the K wrote:

The hell it doesn't. It's in the Preamble, right after "provide for the

common defence". It's "promote the general Welfare".

Steve and others think that phrase means "...promote the general welfare
of the rich at the expense of the middle and lower income classes..."

Steve can read, unlike most "Amerikkkans." . promote the general welfare
means letting you do what it right for you as long as it doesn't screw with
others. It doesn't mean PROVIDE welfare for those to stupid or lazy to
provide for themselves.


Sorry, Steve-o, but your interpretation of that clause is entirely
wrong. You're just "to" stupid.

Congress still denying health care
 

On Sep 4, 11:13*am, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:05:22 +0000, Steve wrote:
Congress has no authority to grant "health care."

The hell it doesn't. *It's in the Preamble, right after "provide for the
common defence". *It's "promote the general Welfare".

While you guys would love to spin it that way, you damn well know the
founding fathers didn't intend that statement to mean that the gov is
supposed to provide health care or heath insurance to its people.
Health insurance didn't even exist in the US when this was written.

You're fooling no one. You're either being disingenuous, or you're a
socialist idiot.

Congress still denying health care
 

Jack wrote:
On Sep 4, 11:13 am, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:05:22 +0000, Steve wrote:
Congress has no authority to grant "health care."
The hell it doesn't. It's in the Preamble, right after "provide for the
common defence". It's "promote the general Welfare".

While you guys would love to spin it that way, you damn well know the
founding fathers didn't intend that statement to mean that the gov is
supposed to provide health care or heath insurance to its people.
Health insurance didn't even exist in the US when this was written.

You're fooling no one. You're either being disingenuous, or you're a
socialist idiot.


"...promote the general welfare..." means Congress may initiate and pass
legislation that is in the general best interests of the nation.

That would include Social Security, Medicare, a public health plan, et
cetera.

Congress still denying health care
 

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:06:16 -0700, Jack wrote:


The hell it doesn't. Â*It's in the Preamble, right after "provide for
the common defence". Â*It's "promote the general Welfare".

While you guys would love to spin it that way, you damn well know the
founding fathers didn't intend that statement to mean that the gov is
supposed to provide health care or heath insurance to its people. Health
insurance didn't even exist in the US when this was written.

You're fooling no one. You're either being disingenuous, or you're a
socialist idiot.

Man couldn't fly, either, when the Constitution was written, but we have
an Air Force? So, are you saying health care doesn't "promote the
general Welfare", or are you saying the Founding Fathers expected this
country to stay exactly as it was in 1787?

Congress still denying health care
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:06:16 -0700, Jack wrote:


The hell it doesn't. It's in the Preamble, right after "provide for
the common defence". It's "promote the general Welfare".

While you guys would love to spin it that way, you damn well know the
founding fathers didn't intend that statement to mean that the gov is
supposed to provide health care or heath insurance to its people. Health
insurance didn't even exist in the US when this was written.

You're fooling no one. You're either being disingenuous, or you're a
socialist idiot.

Man couldn't fly, either, when the Constitution was written, but we have
an Air Force? So, are you saying health care doesn't "promote the
general Welfare", or are you saying the Founding Fathers expected this
country to stay exactly as it was in 1787?

So why not lobby for a constitutional amendment that would clarify the
issue? Barring that, sue for the elimination of the air force.

Congress still denying health care
 

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:50:18 -0400, Lu Powell wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:06:16 -0700, Jack wrote:


The hell it doesn't. It's in the Preamble, right after "provide for
the common defence". It's "promote the general Welfare".

While you guys would love to spin it that way, you damn well know the
founding fathers didn't intend that statement to mean that the gov is
supposed to provide health care or heath insurance to its people.
Health insurance didn't even exist in the US when this was written.

You're fooling no one. You're either being disingenuous, or you're a
socialist idiot.

Man couldn't fly, either, when the Constitution was written, but we
have an Air Force? So, are you saying health care doesn't "promote the
general Welfare", or are you saying the Founding Fathers expected this
country to stay exactly as it was in 1787?

So why not lobby for a constitutional amendment that would clarify the
issue? Barring that, sue for the elimination of the air force.

Because denying an Air Force provides for the common defence, is as silly
as saying health care doesn't promote the general Welfare.

Congress still denying health care
 

On Sep 4, 2:30*pm, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:06:16 -0700, Jack wrote:
The hell it doesn't. *It's in the Preamble, right after "provide for
the common defence". *It's "promote the general Welfare".

While you guys would love to spin it that way, you damn well know the
founding fathers didn't intend that statement to mean that the gov is
supposed to provide health care or heath insurance to its people. Health
insurance didn't even exist in the US when this was written.

You're fooling no one. *You're either being disingenuous, or you're a
socialist idiot.

Man couldn't fly, either, when the Constitution was written, but we have
an Air Force? *So, are you saying health care doesn't "promote the
general Welfare", or are you saying the Founding Fathers expected this
country to stay exactly as it was in 1787?

The Air Force would fall directly under the part about providing for
the common defense. It's just a modern weapon.

Of course health care promotes one definition of "general welfare".
What's a giant leap is asserting that the founding fathers meant for
the federal government to be directly *providing* this health care by
*taxing* the "rich" and then *transferring* that money into health
care for the poor. We do know that health care did exist back then,
but they didn't address it. They didn't write *anywhere* that the gov
was going to be able to take money from a segment of the population
to, in essence, give it to another segment. That's because they were
most definitely NOT in favor of any such mechanism!! There was no
power to tax, remember? That was added by others almost 100 years
later!

What we do know is that the founding fathers were running away from a
system and goverment that was way too "active" in meddling with
personal choices and freedoms. They set many limits on the federal
gov's reach, which of course has been overstepped now in lots of
ways. Bottom line... you're trying really hard to read something into
a statement that you know was never meant to be there.

Be honest and just say you're for government provided health care.
Don't try to push this bull**** on us that the founding fathers meant
it to be. BO may be able to convince your 10 year old of that next
Tuesday, but it won't fly here.

Congress still denying health care
 

Steve wrote:
On 4-Sep-2009, Keith Nuttle wrote:

Congress has no authority to grant "health care."
I wish these people that think that the government should provide health
care would show me the section in the US Constitution or the amendments
that says that is a responsibility of the Federal government to provide
that health care.

Or Asian auto discounts, or federal "education" etc. etc. etc.

Flush the toilette NOW, not in the enxt election.

Damm good time to split the country into several segments. The states have
NO purpose any longer except to be sub level asset collection divisions of
individuals' productivity so some scum can get elected.

The "gimmee everything for free" crowd needs to read some Solzhenitsyn, but
then if they could read, they wouldn't be so completely stupid.

Ohhhhhh ... forgot, they went to gubment skoolz..

I believe there was a small discussion of states rights about a 150
years ago. However parts are still being debated. An example is New
Orleans. Because of States Rights the Federal government could not go
into New Orleans until requested in witting by the local authorities.
People who did not understand the States Rights issues involved blamed
the federal government for not responding. When in reality the local
authorities decided they did not need help until it was to late.

This States Right Issue is why in some events the area are designated
disaster areas before the disaster occurs. The local authorities know
what is about to happen request the Federal Government in witting before
the disaster so the Federal government can start moving troops,
equipment, and supplies into the area.

Congress still denying health care
 

Jack wrote:
On Sep 4, 11:13 am, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:05:22 +0000, Steve wrote:
Congress has no authority to grant "health care."
The hell it doesn't. It's in the Preamble, right after "provide for the
common defence". It's "promote the general Welfare".

While you guys would love to spin it that way, you damn well know the
founding fathers didn't intend that statement to mean that the gov is
supposed to provide health care or heath insurance to its people.
Health insurance didn't even exist in the US when this was written.

You're fooling no one. You're either being disingenuous, or you're a
socialist idiot.
I agree! That was a silly argument to begin with.

Congress still denying health care
 

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:06:16 -0700, Jack wrote:


The hell it doesn't. It's in the Preamble, right after "provide for
the common defence". It's "promote the general Welfare".
While you guys would love to spin it that way, you damn well know the
founding fathers didn't intend that statement to mean that the gov is
supposed to provide health care or heath insurance to its people. Health
insurance didn't even exist in the US when this was written.

You're fooling no one. You're either being disingenuous, or you're a
socialist idiot.

Man couldn't fly, either, when the Constitution was written, but we have
an Air Force? So, are you saying health care doesn't "promote the
general Welfare", or are you saying the Founding Fathers expected this
country to stay exactly as it was in 1787?

General does not mean individual. One of the primary principals of the
US used to be (until obama) that the individual was free to do what he
what he wanted, as long as it did not infringe upon his fellow citizen.
Health insurance is an individual choice.

Congress still denying health care
 

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:50:18 -0400, Lu Powell wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:06:16 -0700, Jack wrote:


The hell it doesn't. It's in the Preamble, right after "provide for
the common defence". It's "promote the general Welfare".
While you guys would love to spin it that way, you damn well know the
founding fathers didn't intend that statement to mean that the gov is
supposed to provide health care or heath insurance to its people.
Health insurance didn't even exist in the US when this was written.

You're fooling no one. You're either being disingenuous, or you're a
socialist idiot.
Man couldn't fly, either, when the Constitution was written, but we
have an Air Force? So, are you saying health care doesn't "promote the
general Welfare", or are you saying the Founding Fathers expected this
country to stay exactly as it was in 1787?
So why not lobby for a constitutional amendment that would clarify the
issue? Barring that, sue for the elimination of the air force.

Because denying an Air Force provides for the common defence, is as silly
as saying health care doesn't promote the general Welfare.

The air force falls under a different constitutional provision. The
federal government must provide for the common defense which today mean
an air force, in addition to the army and navy.

Congress still denying health care
 

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:19:31 -0700, Jack wrote:


Be honest and just say you're for government provided health care. Don't
try to push this bull**** on us that the founding fathers meant it to
be. BO may be able to convince your 10 year old of that next Tuesday,
but it won't fly here.

You seem to be jumping to a few conclusions. First, I never said
anything about the founding fathers providing health care. I responded
to a post stating "Congress had no authority to grant 'health care'". I
posted that would come under "promote the general welfare", and
apparently, you agree.

Secondly, as I understand this health care reform, as it now stands,
health insurance will be mandatory. If that is the case, a government
option will be necessary, IMO, to promote competition. As it now stands,
the health insurance industry is not very competitive. I have no strong
desire for a government option to be the only option. I do know,
however, something has to be done on health reform. We are rapidly
approaching 20% GDP on health care expenditures. That is not
sustainable, and, as it is on the backs of businesses, it is anti-
competitive in the global marketplace.

A correction to your post, there most definitely was power to "lay and
collect Taxes" in the Constitution, Sec. 8 - Powers of Congress.

Congress still denying health care
 

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:40:37 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:19:31 -0700, Jack wrote:


Be honest and just say you're for government provided health care. Don't
try to push this bull**** on us that the founding fathers meant it to
be. BO may be able to convince your 10 year old of that next Tuesday,
but it won't fly here.

You seem to be jumping to a few conclusions. First, I never said
anything about the founding fathers providing health care. I responded
to a post stating "Congress had no authority to grant 'health care'". I
posted that would come under "promote the general welfare", and
apparently, you agree.

Secondly, as I understand this health care reform, as it now stands,
health insurance will be mandatory. If that is the case, a government
option will be necessary, IMO, to promote competition. As it now stands,
the health insurance industry is not very competitive. I have no strong
desire for a government option to be the only option. I do know,
however, something has to be done on health reform. We are rapidly
approaching 20% GDP on health care expenditures. That is not
sustainable, and, as it is on the backs of businesses, it is anti-
competitive in the global marketplace.

Here's what will happening, in a nutshell. IMO.
The gov, in order to keep the health welfare of the U.S. people
only three steps behind that of Europe/Canada/Austrailia/Japan,
will take action.
Aside from all high-falutin arguments about the Constitution and the
Founding Fathers, there is general agreement among Dems and Reps that
this will be done, as bitter a pill as the Reps find it.
Reality and the 21st Century dictate that.
Given the internet and other means of communications the word has
leaked out that U.S. health care is lagging behind the countries
mentioned above in health care delivery and costs.
There are only quibbles about selected details, details selected
according to whose political ass is being kissed.
The path to accomplish insuring the uninsured, and making insurance
affordable for the lower incomes - without a public option - is to do
it purely through the private insurance companies.
We taxpayers will be taxed or sent deeper into debt by massive gov
payment to insurance companies, and health providers will also suck
harder on gov tit with no oversight or control of cost except that
dictated by insurance company execs.
Gov subsidies to lower income families to pay for private health
insurance is going to happen even without a public option, and even
the Reps have acceded to that reality.
And I'm talking up to 4x poverty level, or about $80k for a family of
4, on a sliding scale.
Good luck voting insurance and health company execs out of office for
stealing your money.
A continuation of the same corporate welfare that has led to the
continual widening of economic classes.
In other words, corporate welfare as usual.
Debt will increase, or taxes will increase either way.
But without the public option, absolute "free enterprise" in the
health care industry will be maintained.
But you WILL be taxed for it. Without representation.
Wonder what the founders would say about that.
To sum up, and this is only my take from observing the fracas, and
with my usual optimism:
Health care reform is here.
Everybody will be provided roughly equivalent health care, like it or
not.
It will be paid for by higher taxation or increased national debt.
It will be provided by either a relatively efficient gov program
somewhat responsive to the taxpayer and cost control, ala Medicare, or
via gov titty milk subsidies to Wall Street health insurance and
health care companies.
Wall street will skim the cream and pass the milk out.
The typical mafia-like casino skimming operation.
Remember AIG, BOA, Goldman Sachs?
Same ****.
Cast your lot with either one. There are no other choices.

--Vic

Congress still denying health care
 

On Sep 4, 3:40*pm, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:19:31 -0700, Jack wrote:
Be honest and just say you're for government provided health care. Don't
try to push this bull**** on us that the founding fathers meant it to
be. *BO may be able to convince your 10 year old of that next Tuesday,
but it won't fly here.

You seem to be jumping to a few *conclusions. *First, I never said
anything about the founding fathers providing health care. *I responded
to a post stating "Congress had no authority to grant 'health care'". *I
posted that would come under "promote the general welfare", and
apparently, you agree.

And you are jumping to your own conclusions, or are being disinginuous
again. You know, based on all the stuff you snipped, that I do NOT
agree that "promote the general welfare" includes gov. healthcare. IT
DOES NOT.


Secondly, as I understand this health care reform, as it now stands,
health insurance will be mandatory. *If that is the case, a government
option will be necessary, IMO, to promote competition. *As it now stands,
the health insurance industry is not very competitive. *I have no strong
desire for a government option to be the only option. *I do know,
however, something has to be done on health reform. *We are rapidly
approaching 20% GDP on health care expenditures. *That is not
sustainable, and, as it is on the backs of businesses, it is anti-
competitive in the global marketplace.

There are plenty of problem with health care as it now stands in the
US, but a bill that no one has had time to read, is being rammed
through, that any dissenting views are being shouted down, is not the
way to do this. Tort reform should be a part of it. The dems are
shutting out half of the country, and now they are turning on each
other. It will fail.


A correction to your post, there most definitely was power to "lay and
collect Taxes" in the Constitution, Sec. 8 - Powers of Congress. *

That initial power was not for federal income tax...

"In addition, the Constitution specifically limited Congress' ability
to impose direct taxes, by requiring Congress to distribute direct
taxes in proportion to each state's census population. It was thought
that head taxes and property taxes (slaves could be taxed as either or
both) were likely to be abused, and that they bore no relation to the
activities in which the federal government had a legitimate interest.
The fourth clause of section 9 therefore specifies that, "No
Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion
to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Taxation was also the subject of Federalist No. 33 penned secretly by
the Federalist Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Publius. In it,
he explains that the wording of the "Necessary and Proper" clause
should serve as guidelines for the legislation of laws regarding
taxation. The legislative branch is to be the judge, but any abuse of
those powers of judging can be overturned by the people, whether as
states or as a larger group.

The courts have generally held that direct taxes are limited to taxes
on people (variously called "capitation", "poll tax" or "head tax")
and property.[5] All other taxes are commonly referred to as "indirect
taxes," because they tax an event, rather than a person or property
per se.[6] What seemed to be a straightforward limitation on the power
of the legislature based on the subject of the tax proved inexact and
unclear when applied to an income tax, which can be arguably viewed
either as a direct or an indirect tax."

Of course, congressional acts to pay for the civil war, and subsequent
lawsuits ending in the 16th amendment, changed all that. But one
thing is for sure... the constitution did NOT allow for progressive
taxation to provide health care for all citizens. That is a new,
socialist concept.

Congress still denying health care
 

On 4-Sep-2009, H the K wrote:

Steve can read, unlike most "Amerikkkans." . promote the general
welfare
means letting you do what it right for you as long as it doesn't screw
with
others. It doesn't mean PROVIDE welfare for those to stupid or lazy to
provide for themselves.


Sorry, Steve-o, but your interpretation of that clause is entirely
wrong. You're just "to" stupid.

It's not a "clause," (hahahahaha....idiot) article or amendment. It's in the
introduction, formally known as the preamble. It carries no weight
whatsoever, even IF you were coherent.

Government lackey or union clown "member?"

Congress still denying health care
 

On 4-Sep-2009, Jack wrote:

The hell it doesn't. *It's in the Preamble, right after "provide for the
common defence". *It's "promote the general Welfare".

While you guys would love to spin it that way, you damn well know the
founding fathers didn't intend that statement to mean that the gov is
supposed to provide health care or heath insurance to its people.
Health insurance didn't even exist in the US when this was written.

You're fooling no one. You're either being disingenuous, or you're a
socialist idiot.

The stupidity promoted by them simply shows many people are evolving in
reverse. This is reinforced by their staring at an idiot box and thinking
they are informed.

Congress still denying health care
 

Steve wrote:
On 4-Sep-2009, H the K wrote:

Steve can read, unlike most "Amerikkkans." . promote the general
welfare
means letting you do what it right for you as long as it doesn't screw
with
others. It doesn't mean PROVIDE welfare for those to stupid or lazy to
provide for themselves.

Sorry, Steve-o, but your interpretation of that clause is entirely
wrong. You're just "to" stupid.

It's not a "clause," (hahahahaha....idiot) article or amendment. It's in the
introduction, formally known as the preamble. It carries no weight
whatsoever, even IF you were coherent.

Government lackey or union clown "member?"


Moron.




clause, n.

(klɔ�z)

Also 4–6 claus, 5 clawse, clausse.

[a. OF. clause, ad. late or med.L. clausa, app. in sense of L. clausula
close of a period or formula, conclusion, clause, dim. of *clausa,
itself not recorded as n. in ancient Latin; f. L. claudĕre, claus-um to
close. Cf. Pr. clauza; It. uses clausula.]

1. a.1.a A short sentence; a single passage or member of a discourse or
writing; a distinct part or member of a sentence, esp. in Gramm.
Analysis, one containing a subject and predicate. Also attrib. and Comb.
clause, n.

Congress still denying health care
 

On 5-Sep-2009, "Lu Powell" wrote:

Man couldn't fly, either, when the Constitution was written, but we have
an Air Force? So, are you saying health care doesn't "promote the
general Welfare", or are you saying the Founding Fathers expected this
country to stay exactly as it was in 1787?

So why not lobby for a constitutional amendment that would clarify the
issue? Barring that, sue for the elimination of the air force.

Nothing needs clarification. That cute phrase is to explain the purpose of
the constitution. It has ZERO weight.

In fact, if any imbiciles think the intro to the constitution is meaningful,
they probably read the ramblings on the walls of outhouses with serious
introspection also.

Congress still denying health care
 

Steve wrote:
On 5-Sep-2009, "Lu Powell" wrote:

Man couldn't fly, either, when the Constitution was written, but we have
an Air Force? So, are you saying health care doesn't "promote the
general Welfare", or are you saying the Founding Fathers expected this
country to stay exactly as it was in 1787?
So why not lobby for a constitutional amendment that would clarify the
issue? Barring that, sue for the elimination of the air force.

Nothing needs clarification. That cute phrase is to explain the purpose of
the constitution. It has ZERO weight.

In fact, if any imbiciles think the intro to the constitution is meaningful,
they probably read the ramblings on the walls of outhouses with serious
introspection also.


Wow...dumb little Stevie got himself a right wing crib sheet. How clever.

Now all the "imbicile" (sic) needs is a dickshunairy.

Congress still denying health care
 

H the K wrote:
Steve wrote:
On 4-Sep-2009, H the K wrote:

Steve can read, unlike most "Amerikkkans." . promote the general
welfare
means letting you do what it right for you as long as it doesn't screw
with
others. It doesn't mean PROVIDE welfare for those to stupid or lazy to
provide for themselves.

Sorry, Steve-o, but your interpretation of that clause is entirely
wrong. You're just "to" stupid.

It's not a "clause," (hahahahaha....idiot) article or amendment. It's
in the
introduction, formally known as the preamble. It carries no weight
whatsoever, even IF you were coherent.

Government lackey or union clown "member?"


Moron.

Meaninig H K cannot rebut your facts.

Congress still denying health care
 

BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
Steve wrote:
On 4-Sep-2009, H the K wrote:

Steve can read, unlike most "Amerikkkans." . promote the general
welfare
means letting you do what it right for you as long as it doesn't screw
with
others. It doesn't mean PROVIDE welfare for those to stupid or lazy to
provide for themselves.

Sorry, Steve-o, but your interpretation of that clause is entirely
wrong. You're just "to" stupid.

It's not a "clause," (hahahahaha....idiot) article or amendment. It's
in the
introduction, formally known as the preamble. It carries no weight
whatsoever, even IF you were coherent.

Government lackey or union clown "member?"


Moron.

Meaninig H K cannot rebut your facts.



There's no need to "rebut" morons.

"It's not a 'clause'"

snerk

Congress still denying health care
 

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:31:36 +0000, Steve wrote:


Nothing needs clarification. That cute phrase is to explain the purpose
of the constitution. It has ZERO weight.

The Preamble is a "cute phrase"? Interesting.

In fact, if any imbiciles think the intro to the constitution is
meaningful, they probably read the ramblings on the walls of outhouses
with serious introspection also.

Seeing the Preamble has "ZERO weight", I guess that's why our Founding
Fathers specifically repeated parts of it when enumerating the Powers of
Congress.

Sec. 8
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;

There's that pesky "general Welfare" again.

Congress still denying health care
 

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:31:36 +0000, Steve wrote:


Nothing needs clarification. That cute phrase is to explain the purpose
of the constitution. It has ZERO weight.

The Preamble is a "cute phrase"? Interesting.

In fact, if any imbiciles think the intro to the constitution is
meaningful, they probably read the ramblings on the walls of outhouses
with serious introspection also.

Seeing the Preamble has "ZERO weight", I guess that's why our Founding
Fathers specifically repeated parts of it when enumerating the Powers of
Congress.

Sec. 8
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;

There's that pesky "general Welfare" again.


Dollars to donuts, 90% of the "righties" here have never read the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Congress still denying health care
 

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:31:36 +0000, Steve wrote:


Nothing needs clarification. That cute phrase is to explain the purpose
of the constitution. It has ZERO weight.

The Preamble is a "cute phrase"? Interesting.

In fact, if any imbiciles think the intro to the constitution is
meaningful, they probably read the ramblings on the walls of outhouses
with serious introspection also.

Seeing the Preamble has "ZERO weight", I guess that's why our Founding
Fathers specifically repeated parts of it when enumerating the Powers of
Congress.

Sec. 8
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;

There's that pesky "general Welfare" again.

Preamble = an introduction

Congress still denying health care
 

On Sep 5, 8:59*am, thunder wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:31:36 +0000, Steve wrote:
Nothing needs clarification. That cute phrase is to explain the purpose
of the constitution. It has ZERO weight.

The Preamble is a "cute phrase"? *Interesting.

In fact, if any imbiciles think the intro to the constitution is
meaningful, they probably read the ramblings on the walls of outhouses
with serious introspection also.

Seeing the Preamble has "ZERO weight", I guess that's why our Founding
Fathers specifically repeated parts of it when enumerating the Powers of
Congress.

Sec. 8
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;

There's that pesky "general Welfare" again.

Get over it already. The constitution did NOT allow for progressive
taxation to provide health care for all citizens. That is a new,
socialist concept. The founding fathers would have nothing to do with
that, and you know it.

Congress still denying health care
 

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:59:28 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:31:36 +0000, Steve wrote:


Nothing needs clarification. That cute phrase is to explain the purpose
of the constitution. It has ZERO weight.

The Preamble is a "cute phrase"? Interesting.

In fact, if any imbiciles think the intro to the constitution is
meaningful, they probably read the ramblings on the walls of outhouses
with serious introspection also.

Seeing the Preamble has "ZERO weight", I guess that's why our Founding
Fathers specifically repeated parts of it when enumerating the Powers of
Congress.

Sec. 8
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;

There's that pesky "general Welfare" again.

The fact that the FF saw the necessity of repeating parts of the
Preamble would lend credence to the lack of weight given the Preamble.

Of course, having Harry supporting you tends to increase the credence
of your comments.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.