johnwk
09-06-2009, 04:02 PM
SEE: PRESIDENT OBAMA TO ADDRESS JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS ON HEALTH CARE (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09022009/news/nationalnews/president_obama_to_address_joint_session_187783.ht m)
President Obama will be addressing a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, September 9th, concerning federal legislation which proposes to tax for, spend on and regulate the personal health care needs of the people living in the various United States. Perhaps he will take a moment during his speech to encourage members of Congress to answer a very important question which almost every member of Congress has neglected or refuse to answer for their constituents. Better yet, maybe our President will take it upon himself to answer this fundamental question which is on the minds of millions of American Citizens who have attended town hall meetings and tea party events across our country!
Under what article, section, clause or amendment of our federal Constitution have the people of the united States knowingly and intentionally granted authority to Congress to tax for, spend on and regulate their personal health care needs?
Seems to me, Mr. President, our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment is specifically intended by a freedom loving people to forbid Congress and our federal government from exercise powers not consented to by the people --- the specific words being:
“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.”
I might add that one of the very reasons the above mentioned Tenth Amendment was adopted by the people of the various united States was eloquently stated by George Mason during the Virginia ratification 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.". SEE 3 Elliots 442 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=453&itemLink)
For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly added to our Constitution --- to prevent a perversion of our written Constitution by those holding an office of public trust!
Bottom line is, the phrase “general welfare”, which some have suggested grants the power in question, was intentionally limited to the specific grants of power listed beneath these words.
Moving on Mr. President and to your beloved cable news network, FOX NEWS and the “Factor” with Bill O'Reilly, you’ll be please to learn that one of Bill’s guests, Lis Wiehl, has offered an answer to the above question of power, and suggested that Congress has been granted power to adopt a national health care plan under Congress’s power to regulate commerce among the States
But this assertion is groundless when the definition of commerce, as used by our founding fathers, is applied to the assertion, and, in addition, Lis Wiehl’s position is not in harmony with the documented intentions for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states, i.e., Lis Wiehl’s position is refuted by both the letter and spirit under which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the States.
In addition to the clear and documented intentions for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the States, Federalist Paper No. 45 sums up an intentional separation of powers between our federal and State governments:
“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.
As you can see Mr. President, millions of Americans who have attended town hall meetings across the country to express their opposition to a federal involvement in their personal health care needs have a legitimate question to be answered, especially when our Supreme Court has, over 200 years ago, already confirmed that Congress’s powers are limited by a written Constitution:
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. SEE: MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
In closing Mr. President, millions of Americans who support and defend our constitutionally limited system of government will be expecting you to identify a constitutional power intended to allow Congress to tax for, spend on and regulate the personal health care needs of the people living within the various united States. To not answer this important question and address a joint session of Congress to agitate and encourage members of Congress to move forward with legislation which would assume the exercise of powers not granted, would be a overt act of sedition and confirm you, as so many member of Congress now are, a willing participant in a planned overthrow of America’s constitutionally limited system of government
JWK
Expounding upon our Constitution is not a matter of “interpretation” as some would have us believe…it is a task of “documentation”! Domestic enemies of our constitutional system wish to ignore the recorded intentions for which our Constitution was adopted in order to be free to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean.
President Obama will be addressing a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, September 9th, concerning federal legislation which proposes to tax for, spend on and regulate the personal health care needs of the people living in the various United States. Perhaps he will take a moment during his speech to encourage members of Congress to answer a very important question which almost every member of Congress has neglected or refuse to answer for their constituents. Better yet, maybe our President will take it upon himself to answer this fundamental question which is on the minds of millions of American Citizens who have attended town hall meetings and tea party events across our country!
Under what article, section, clause or amendment of our federal Constitution have the people of the united States knowingly and intentionally granted authority to Congress to tax for, spend on and regulate their personal health care needs?
Seems to me, Mr. President, our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment is specifically intended by a freedom loving people to forbid Congress and our federal government from exercise powers not consented to by the people --- the specific words being:
“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.”
I might add that one of the very reasons the above mentioned Tenth Amendment was adopted by the people of the various united States was eloquently stated by George Mason during the Virginia ratification 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.". SEE 3 Elliots 442 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=453&itemLink)
For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly added to our Constitution --- to prevent a perversion of our written Constitution by those holding an office of public trust!
Bottom line is, the phrase “general welfare”, which some have suggested grants the power in question, was intentionally limited to the specific grants of power listed beneath these words.
Moving on Mr. President and to your beloved cable news network, FOX NEWS and the “Factor” with Bill O'Reilly, you’ll be please to learn that one of Bill’s guests, Lis Wiehl, has offered an answer to the above question of power, and suggested that Congress has been granted power to adopt a national health care plan under Congress’s power to regulate commerce among the States
But this assertion is groundless when the definition of commerce, as used by our founding fathers, is applied to the assertion, and, in addition, Lis Wiehl’s position is not in harmony with the documented intentions for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states, i.e., Lis Wiehl’s position is refuted by both the letter and spirit under which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the States.
In addition to the clear and documented intentions for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the States, Federalist Paper No. 45 sums up an intentional separation of powers between our federal and State governments:
“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.
As you can see Mr. President, millions of Americans who have attended town hall meetings across the country to express their opposition to a federal involvement in their personal health care needs have a legitimate question to be answered, especially when our Supreme Court has, over 200 years ago, already confirmed that Congress’s powers are limited by a written Constitution:
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. SEE: MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
In closing Mr. President, millions of Americans who support and defend our constitutionally limited system of government will be expecting you to identify a constitutional power intended to allow Congress to tax for, spend on and regulate the personal health care needs of the people living within the various united States. To not answer this important question and address a joint session of Congress to agitate and encourage members of Congress to move forward with legislation which would assume the exercise of powers not granted, would be a overt act of sedition and confirm you, as so many member of Congress now are, a willing participant in a planned overthrow of America’s constitutionally limited system of government
JWK
Expounding upon our Constitution is not a matter of “interpretation” as some would have us believe…it is a task of “documentation”! Domestic enemies of our constitutional system wish to ignore the recorded intentions for which our Constitution was adopted in order to be free to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean.