The "welfare clause" of the U.S. constitution

[Spetsnazos]

Originally Posted by all pro

I'm also 20% Native American
Cry me a river!

Originally Posted by thomashenry

Well I have not responded to any of your diatribes in a while, coming from a person who`s country is historical in it`s barbarity and souless treatment of man where human enslavement and indentured servitude is 2nd nature & if that doesn`t work shoot them !, didn`t Stalin MURDER butcher slaughter kill annihilate 55 million of his own people, where confiscation of wealth was regaled by karl marx and the other communists clowns---and oh how many socialist/communist nation`s have flourished in the last century under the hammer and sickle "interesting moniker"
How many Millions have been liberated and enjoy freedom due to communism in the last 75 years
Who has the longest lasting Constitution in modern history ?
Who actually has a bill of rights for ALL people
Who`s the 1st to respond to a global crisis
Ever hear of the Marshall plan, or Berlin airdrop, who put a man on the moon, "IN God we Trust is OUR National Motto", God is in our National Pledge & Anthem, We celebrate Independence Day, Memorial Day, Christmas

Can you come here and get a superior education with ample opportunity to be anything you want, go anywhere you want ?

The General Welfare of the United States : welfare as defined by Websters not Wikepedia is defined as a NOUN : the state of being, or doing well, condition of health, happiness, & comfort, well-being: Prosperity, all things the United States represents !

Do NOT attempt to understand and or explain a document like no other in history "the Constitution", and certainly not in the soviet union, that enhances mankind for the "WELFARE" of the human race, you are clueless simply because you indicate your a true "communist" which automatically disqaulifies you as a reasonable, civil person !
A true communist aside from being souless and Godless deals with human tragedy inflicted by the very likes of communism, despair, failure, misery and slavery are your lot in life as a communist !

Don`t attempt to explain MY CONSTITUTION, MY BILL OF RIGHTS, MY COUNTRY, LANGUAGE, HERITAGE, CULTURE--------WE ARE THE LAND OF THE FREE AND THE HOME OF THE BRAVE, WE BELIEVE IN LIBERTY & FREEDOM

YOUR a communist

Have a good day

Might want to practice those English skills I have to explain the constitution, bill of rights(included in the constitution, dont you think this is a little redudant ?), your country, and your language(you dont know the basics of grammar).

Sorry but the rest of your post just made me laugh because 90% of it is McCarthy Red Scare BS piled with some kind of nationalistic facepalm retardation. This country is the country of immigrants making it better. Sorry to break the news to you so late, looks like you're in your 40's learning this

[nutsy54]

For those who somehow believe that words 200 years ago have the exact same meaning and context as today:

"General Welfare" clearly means that only senior Army officers should receive Welfare benefits.

[all pro]

Originally Posted by Spetsnazos

wow this is some serious racism dude. Reported.

You do that.

[WarHawk109]

It's a shame we don't have a modern day McCarthy to keep the commies in check.

[Spetsnazos]

Originally Posted by WarHawk109

It's a shame we don't have a modern day McCarthy to keep the commies in check.

I'm sure neocons like you would love even more scare tactics that you could use to rile up the population from rational thought?

But i still cant stop laughing at that guys huge rant.

[all pro]

Originally Posted by Spetsnazos

just because you're 20% Native American doesnt mean you have the right to be a racist bigot.

Welcome to ignore. I can't afford to lose anymore brain cells reading your mindless dribble.

[Spetsnazos]

Originally Posted by all pro

Welcome to ignore. I can't afford to lose anymore brain cells reading your mindless dribble.

What you said was very racist about blacks, I hope you dont actually think that way.

[WarHawk109]

neocon? nope. classical liberal thank you. I view communism the same way I view nazism, both ideologies of evil that must be fought.

[Spetsnazos]

Originally Posted by WarHawk109

neocon? nope. classical liberal thank you. I view communism the same way I view nazism, both ideologies of evil that must be fought.

except socialism defeated Nazi'sm and saved the world from Hitler.

I hope you raise a red army flag on VE day every year

[Stizzel]

Originally Posted by Spetsnazos

except socialism defeated Nazi'sm and saved the world from Hitler.

I hope you raise a red army flag on VE day every year

You scumbags raped east germany.

I hate you

[thomashenry]

Originally Posted by Spetsnazos

Might want to practice those English skills I have to explain the constitution, bill of rights(included in the constitution, dont you think this is a little redudant ?), your country, and your language(you dont know the basics of grammar).

Sorry but the rest of your post just made me laugh because 90% of it is McCarthy Red Scare BS piled with some kind of nationalistic facepalm retardation. This country is the country of immigrants making it better. Sorry to break the news to you so late, looks like you're in your 40's learning this

All countries are comprised of immigrants in the grand scheme, but let me ask you this How many other nations in the World allow other`s to come to their Nation and attempt to circumvent their Soverignty & or change their national identity ?

[WarHawk109]

Originally Posted by Spetsnazos

except socialism defeated Nazi'sm and saved the world from Hitler.

I hope you raise a red army flag on VE day every year

Yep that was some liberation, the gang raping of German women and children as the Red Army advanced towards Berlin was legendary.

Communism over the past 100 years has killed far more innocent people than Nazism ever did (both were despicably evil).

[asylumz]

I've posted this before:

Oh the general welfare argument. This has been a side taken by liberals for years.

They also use the argument that healthcare is a right, granted by the Constitution as described in the preamble, specifically, the ?General Welfare? clause. They who wish this sort of program reason that the very health of the citizenry must be looked out for and that this justifies their attempt to initiate and execute the nationalization of nearly 20% of the national economy. It all sound so reasonable, so humane, so compassionate, until you strip all the rhetoric away and see that it is: a complete fabrication that can?t be sustained.

The Constitution has many parts. The preamble is designed to state broad goals of government. Some are quite specific. ?Establish justice? implies that government should be the agent to ensure that justice be meted out fairly to all. ?Provide for the common defense? states plainly that the government has the obligation to defend the realm from enemies both foreign and domestic. The line ?promote the general welfare? has been expanded and stretched far beyond what the original framers of the document intended. The intention was that government should encourage the general prosperity by preventing if possible, ill-conceived, damaging or improper acts from occurring that violated the enumerated powers, thus harming the general welfare of the state and its people. The constitution was writen giving specific responsibilities to federal government, outlined absolute rights of the citizens (the Bill of Rights) and left the states and the individual citizenry all other powers not specifically enumerated in the document.
The above quote taken from http://www.chucksmith2010.com/blog/30

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution enumerates the powers given to the federal government. The tenth amendment states that if an issue is not specifically under the authority of the federal government as enumerated by the U.S. Constitution, it is a state issue. In other words, unless health care is listed in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, or unless the federal government has been granted permission by an amendment that was ratified by three-quarters of the states, a federal mandate of health care (or any involvement in the health care system, for that matter) by the federal government is unconstitutional.

What you don't realize is that there are public health care programs implemented by your state that already exist for people who are struggling. For example Medi-Cal http://www.medi-cal.ca.gov/

As for your complaints about education, water and food. Public education exists. (Though I think the current public education system is a union controlled crock and we are dumping money into it more and more every year and the quality keeps going down. I think it should be privatized.) And for people in special need (homeless) there are homeless shelters for people! Oh and there's welfare. But we all know that's a failure, go to the "hood or ghetto" in your city and tell me if welfare is working.

Oh and a nice quote - Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Reagan


The facts are:

Most people in America have health insurance.
Most people in America can afford health insurance.
Nobody is denied health care.
Health insurance != health care.
Health care is not a right.
Health care is property.
Government subsidies do not work. -THIS
Medicare isn't free. http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...will_rise.html
There are programs out there for people unemployed who can get health care, I have a friend paying 6 dollars a month for his from the state of Minnesota.
The current health care bill is unconstitutional. See quote below.

IF YOU HAVE DOUBTS AFTER THE PRESIDENT???S SPEECH , READ WHAT A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER HAS TO SAY???

Michael Connelly of Carrollton, Texas is a retired Constitutional lawyer and has read the entire health care bill and has some comments, not about the bill, but about the effects on our Constitution. It???s a broader picture than just health care reform.

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏
It???s time we sit up and pay attention; once this sort of thing happens, it will be irreversible. We have reason to be very afraid of what is happening.

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HEALTH CARE BILLS

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead, it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn???t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care..

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn???t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn???t stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress, I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution:
http://www..archives.gov/exhibits/ch...ranscript.html

And another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly
Retired Attorney, Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas
http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/

Oh and check out this taken from http://briansullivan.blogs.foxbusine...merica-yes-no/

1. There is a difference between health care and health insurance. Everyone has access to health care. They may not have health insurance, but the law mandates everyone who shows up at emergency rooms must be treated, insurance or not.

2. 46 million in America lack health insurance. The "in America" reference, as opposed to writing "46 million Americans," is an important point because of those 46 million without insurance, an estimated 10 million or so are non-U.S. citizens, most living in this country illegally.

3. Millions can apparently afford health insurance but for whatever reason choose to not buy it. In 2007, an estimated 17.6 million of the uninsured made more than $50,000 per year, and more than 9 million of those made more than $75,000. According to researcher and author Sally Pipes, 38 percent of the U.S. uninsured population earn more than $50,000 per year.

3. Young workers often just don't think about health insurance. The Census figures show that 18.3 million of the uninsured were under 34 who may simply not think about the need for insurance.

4. Government health insurance programs currently exist that aren't being used. A 2003 Blue Cross/Blue Shield Association study estimated that about 14 million of the uninsured were eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP and would be signed up automatically if they went to the hospital.

5. Many children who should be insured aren't. This study by Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute shows that 7 out of every 10 kids who lacks insurance could get it if their parents simply enrolled in current government programs.

6. Millions lose health insurance only temporarily through the year. The CBO has estimated that millions who fall into the uninsured category are those who have lost or left jobs and they will regain insurance once they return to work.

According to the American Spectator article citing this Blue Cross study, the 46 million figure should actually be closer to about 8 million truly uninsured. Too many are simply non-US citizens, not paying for insurance because they choose not to or feel too young to need it, or simply are not signing up for programs for which they are eligble.

[thomashenry]

Originally Posted by Spetsnazos

except socialism defeated Nazi'sm and saved the world from Hitler.

I hope you raise a red army flag on VE day every year

Really, haven`t I schooled you on this before, go back and read, socialism has not defeated anything other than the human spirit, and before you fought the Nazis your boy Stalin was in bed with Hitler and was double crossed, who is remebered more in History, Eisenhower, Bradley, McCauliffe, Patton, McCarthur, Marshall etc the 101 st Airborne, the 3rd Army, the Battle of the Bulge, Anzio, the 8th Air Force, the Battle of Britan---- or Operation overlord, Omaha, Gold Juno, Sword compared to Operation Barbarossa, more people remember the Bismark or the Graf Spee, who Liberated Europe ? the Soviets, hardly unfortunately for you my friend revisionsit historian you are, the Soviet Union was on a par with the 3rd Reich, simply becasue in the Grand Scheme its ends were the same, totalinarinism and domination of the world and the absolute scorched earth policies are one & the same !
Can you name one Communist who has ever fought for the liberty & freedom of the World and all the People of the earth, compared to any from the West

[hooked4life]

Originally Posted by thomashenry

Really, haven`t I schooled you on this before, go back and read, socialism has not defeated anything other than the human spirit, and before you fought the Nazis your boy Stalin was in bed with Hitler and was double crossed, who is remebered more in History, Eisenhower, Bradley, McCauliffe, Patton, McCarthur, Marshall etc the 101 st Airborne, the 3rd Army, the Battle of the Bulge, Anzio, the 8th Air Force, the Battle of Britan---- or Operation overlord, Omaha, Gold Juno, Sword compared to Operation Barbarossa, more people remember the Bismark or the Graf Spee, who Liberated Europe ? the Soviets, hardly unfortunately for you my friend revisionsit historian you are, the Soviet Union was on a par with the 3rd Reich, simply becasue in the Grand Scheme its ends were the same, totalinarinism and domination of the world and the absolute scorched earth policies are one & the same !
Can you name one Communist who has ever fought for the liberty & freedom of the World and all the People of the earth, compared to any from the West

It was a group effort, but to deny the Red Armies critical role in WWII is just revisionist bs. It makes you look stupid.

[thomashenry]

Originally Posted by Spetsnazos

I'm sure neocons like you would love even more scare tactics that you could use to rile up the population from rational thought?

But i still cant stop laughing at that guys huge rant.

I would much rather be labled neocon, nationalist, liberal, conservative, Christian than a communist which equates to butcher, coward, babarian and murderer

[thomashenry]

Originally Posted by hooked4life

It was a group effort, but to deny the Red Armies critical role in WWII is just revisionist bs. It makes you look stupid.

Oh I am aware of that he said the Red Army defeated the Nazis

[WarHawk109]

The Red Army did play an important role in WW2, I can acknowledge that. They were also responsible for a great many atrocities during that conflict as well. The Third Reich and the USSR were two evil empires bent on each others destruction, the Allies were forced to take sides.

[hooked4life]

Originally Posted by thomashenry

I would much rather be labled neocon, nationalist, liberal, conservative, Christian than a communist which equates to butcher, coward, babarian and murderer

Countless good people gave their lives for an idea they really did believe in. The level of ignorance and disrespect you're showing right now is just disgusting.

[asylumz]

Originally Posted by hooked4life

It was a group effort, but to deny the Red Armies critical role in WWII is just revisionist bs. It makes you look stupid.

Yeah but to support Soviet Russia and communism is even worse, Stalin and Mao killed far more innocent people than Hitler.

[hooked4life]

Originally Posted by WarHawk109

The Red Army did play an important role in WW2, I can acknowledge that. They were also responsible for a great many atrocities during that conflict as well. The Third Reich and the USSR were two evil empires bent on each others destruction, the Allies were forced to take sides.

Most of the Japanese army was in China fighting communists there too. I don't really see the point in trying to make us look like total saints and everyone else as evil.

[hooked4life]

Originally Posted by asylumz

Yeah but to support Soviet Russia and communism is even worse, Stalin and Mao killed far more innocent people than Hitler.

That would be an assertion that you would be hard pressed to support. Not to mention two v. one isn't really fair.

And I'm certainly not calling Stalin a saint. I'm just saying the Russian people did a LOT to defeat Hitler.

Comparing Mao to Hitler is kind of silly.

[WarHawk109]

Originally Posted by hooked4life

Most of the Japanese army was in China fighting communists there too. I don't really see the point in trying to make us look like total saints and everyone else as evil.

Did the Allies mass rape and pillage conquered countries? I don't think so, and certainly not to the extent the Soviets did. There is no comparison.

[Spetsnazos]

Originally Posted by WarHawk109

Did the Allies mass rape and pillage conquered countries? I don't think so, and certainly not to the extent the Soviets did. There is no comparison.

Thats because you never conquered any country

[WarHawk109]

Originally Posted by hooked4life

That would be an assertion that you would be hard pressed to support. Not to mention two v. one isn't really fair.

And I'm certainly not calling Stalin a saint. I'm just saying the Russian people did a LOT to defeat Hitler.

Comparing Mao to Hitler is kind of silly.

65 million killed under Mao, and that's a conservative estimate.

[hooked4life]

Originally Posted by WarHawk109

Did the Allies mass rape and pillage conquered countries? I don't think so, and certainly not to the extent the Soviets did. There is no comparison.

Look, get your head out of your ass here. Did the soviets at times do awful things? Yes, yes they did. We have also done awful things.

I'm very glad I'm an American and not a Nazi German or a Soviet Russian, and I have nothing but respect for Americans who served in WWII. But that doesn't mean I don't ALSO have respect and am thankful for the countless Russians, Chines etc. that helped us beat Germany and Japan.

These things are not mutually exclusive.

[hooked4life]

Originally Posted by WarHawk109

65 million killed under Mao, and that's a conservative estimate.

Source?

[asylumz]

Originally Posted by hooked4life

That would be an assertion that you would be hard pressed to support. Not to mention two v. one isn't really fair.

Stalin killed more people than Hitler.
Mao killed more people than Hitler.

And it's not hard to support:

100 million dead
The Museum of Communism has an excellent FAQ summarising a number of points I've felt for years:

1. Stalin and Mao are (by a long shot) the 2 greatest killers of all time. Hitler is a far distant 3rd. By any logical definition, Stalin and Mao are the 2 most evil men that have ever existed. In fact, since there is no devil, Stalin and Mao are the 2 most evil beings that have ever existed in the universe.
2. Some people let Lenin off the hook. Lenin was a mass murderer.
3. Some people let Trotsky off the hook. As leader of the Red Army in Lenin's war on the peasants, Trotsky was a mass murderer.
4. Some people think Marxism is "a good idea in theory", and the fact that every communist regime that ever existed has been murderously totalitarian is "a coincidence". This is crap. Totalitarianism is inherent in Marxism.
5. By any logical definition, socialism is the most evil idea in human history. Its record is more murderous than racism, tribalism, ethnic genocide and fascism, or the most bloodthirsty religion. Socialism has killed 100 million people. And it's still not finished.

Taken from - http://markhumphrys.com/modern.left.html#museum I suggest you go through and continue reading this site.

Stalin's slave empire lasted so long and went through so many waves of victims that one is left speechless. So many millions perished within the Gulag Archipelago for so many reasons, or for no reason. With a minimum of 5,000,000 slave laborers from 1931 to 1950, and a minimum death toll of 10% per year - both improbably low figures - one can conclude that Stalin's camps claimed a minimum of 10,000,000 victims, and easily two or three times as many.

Taken from - http://economics.gmu.edu/bcaplan/mus...mfaq.htm#part5

Mao, like Stalin, indisputably murdered more people than Hitler. He tyrannized the world's most populous nation for more than a quarter century; and while by most counts his victims were somewhat less numerous than Stalin's, the range of error makes it quite possible that Mao Zedong was the greatest mass murderer of the century. Mao was both the Lenin and the Stalin of Chinese Communism: not only did he found the system, but he raised it to lethal maturity. While Mao waited a few years to antagonize the peasants with forced collectivization, the killing began immediately. As Laszlo Ladany observes in his The Communist Party of China and Marxism: 1921-1985:

Also taken from - http://economics.gmu.edu/bcaplan/mus...mfaq.htm#part7


This is also an interesting read:

Even before Lenin had seized power, his program was totalitarian to the core: "All citizens are here transformed into hired employees of the state, which is made up of the armed workers... All that is required is that they should work equally, should regularly do their share of the work, and should receive equal pay." What of those who do not wish to be employees of the state? Or of the more able and skilled who refuse to work for equal pay? Once he was firmly in control, Lenin's program evolved to answer these difficult questions - and his replies were deadly. For example, when the peasants refused to sell food to the state for a pittance, Lenin threatened them with extermination: "These leeches have drunk the blood of toilers, growing richer the more the workers starved in the cities and factories. The vampires have gathered and continue to gather in their hands the lands of landlords, enslaving, time and time again, the poor peasants. Merciless war against these kulaks! Death to them!" Lenin carried out his threat: suppression of peasant uprisings cost an estimated 250,000 peasant lives. This is but one example among many: anyone who failed to obey Lenin courted death. Freedom of speech, freedom to choose one's occupation, freedom of religion, freedom to own property - to Lenin, all were meaningless because they were "bourgeois."

Also from - http://economics.gmu.edu/bcaplan/mus...faq.htm#part10

The worst genocides of the 20th Century
1.)Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
2.)Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
3.)Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII)

Taken from - http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

[asylumz]

Check this out as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bla...k_of_Communism


Do I have enough evidence for you to believe that Communism (or at least through history) is bad? lol




The more you know..

[WarHawk109]

Originally Posted by hooked4life

Look, get your head out of your ass here. Did the soviets at times do awful things? Yes, yes they did. We have also done awful things.

I'm very glad I'm an American and not a Nazi German or a Soviet Russian, and I have nothing but respect for Americans who served in WWII. But that doesn't mean I don't ALSO have respect and am thankful for the countless Russians, Chines etc. that helped us beat Germany and Japan.

These things are not mutually exclusive.

I urge you to do some reading on this subject. Soviet atrocities are quite well documented, and nothing the Allies did during WW2 comes even close AFAIK.

Berlin: The Downfall 1945 by Antony Beevor I highly recommend on this subject.