|
|
"On every question
of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the
Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in
the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed
out of the text or invented against it, conform to the
probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas
Jefferson
|
My
Congresswoman Louise Slaughter NY-D - New
Rule
While
Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, chairperson of the house rules
committee, tosses out the idea of making a rule that would ignore
the constitution on passing bills into law, I am still waiting for
an answer to my question that I asked her this past summer on a
local public radio show.
First things first, then I will get
that question:
According
to the Washington Examiner online, an article that Slaughter's
Rochester N.Y. office told me is telling the story correctly,
"Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the
Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that
would make changes to the Senate version." --Of course this is
referring to the Senate bill passing in the House of
Representatives. (Click Here)
Office
help in Slaughter's D.C. office cited Article 1, Section
5, Paragraph 2, as Slaughter's power to do such. That paragraph
states, "Each house may determine the rules of its
proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with
the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member." Clearly
there is a misunderstanding of contextual meaning and of
prepositional phrases. The rules that the house may
determine are of its proceedings, proceedings that are to be
within the confines of the law. The houses cannot re-write
the way that bills are passed into law by calling such a
new rule. A rule cannot override the law; nor can it
make
law.
Now,
onto my question that has still yet to be constitutionally correctly
answered:
What constitutional power gives congress
the right to get involved in the people's private health care and
personal
welfare?
1 - On that radio interview, Louise
Slaughter claimed that they have been doing it all along, so it must
be legal. -
This is not a constitutional answer. Congress has done a lot of
things over the years that are not constitutional. The Constitution
is to be used to prove or disprove Congressional actions, not the
other way around.
2 - Slaughter's Rochester office
help said that she took an oath to serve the people and getting
uninsured people health insurance, is serving the people. -
She took an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution and to
serve the people in her district as a representative in Washington
D.C., not as a caretaker of our personal health care. Nor is
her job to redistribute the wealth to give health care or anything
else to those who have less money. Her job is very distinct and
limited to lie within the powers that are clearly given to Congress
in the U.S.
Constitution.
3 - Slaughter's
D.C. office help claimed that it is in the Preamble of the U.S.
Constitution. -
The Preamble states the reason that the U.S. Constitution was
ordained and established. It is not an open-ended right to Congress
to do whatever Congress deems would achieve those reasons.
The preamble does say, among other things, that the
Constitution was established to "promote the general welfare." That
is "promote," not "provide;" and it is general. The preamble also
states that the Constitution was established to "secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." If anything
the preamble proves that our founding fathers would never have meant
a power, within the Constitution to be twisted as a means to
infringe on our blessings and liberty.
4 -
The same D.C. office help also said that it is the first power that
is granted to Congress. -
The first power, granted to Congress, gives Congress the power to
collect taxes "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense
and general welfare of the United States." It also states that such
taxes "shall be uniform throughout the United States." We all know
that the Senate bill has actually exempted one state's government
from having to pay that which other states would be required to pay
if the bill is passed into law. But let's talk about the part that
Slaughter's office help claimed gives Congress the power to pass
this health care bill into law.
Congress has the power
to collect taxes "to pay the debts and provide for the common
defense and general welfare of the United States." It appears
that a simple lesson in language usage, would clear this
misapplication of the Constitution, right up. The conjunction "and"
is used in the prepositional phrase "for the common defense and
general welfare" to connect "common defense" and "general welfare,"
just before the prepositional phrase, "of the United States." When a
conjunction is used within a prepositional phrase, it equates the
two objects of the preposition, which in this case would be "common
defense" and "general welfare. This means that whatever is
true for the "common defense" is also true for the "general
welfare," as such pertains to the United
States."
The
"common defense" and "general welfare" that are spoken
of, are not as they pertain to the individual states or
the individual people. If such were true, then there would be no
need for the 10th amendment that states, "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to
the people." --If congress could make laws for
the states and the people that reached out beyond the business
of the United States, then there would be no such thing as anything
being reserved for the states or the people.
Just
as you could not call on the federal government to use its power
to defend you if your spouse that lives in your
home threatens to punch you in the nose, you also cannot call
on the federal government to use its power to take care of your
personal welfare in paying the medical bills that come
about from that punch. Neither situation is within the
jurisdiction of the United States federal government.
So
just what is the business of the United States government: That
business is listed within the rest of the powers that are given
to Congress. The constitution can be found online: Click
Here
The
list of powers end with giving Congress the
power 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." It
has been suggested that some people
in Congress might take "make all laws which shall be
necessary and proper" out of the context and claim that any certain
law that they want, is "necessary and proper." In order to
apply such in this manner, one would have to dismiss the rest of the
sentence that directly tells just what the laws would
be necessary and proper "for." And one would also have to fully toss
the rest of the Constitution out the window. --What would be the
need for the rest of it?.
So my question still remains
unanswered.
Debra
J.M. Smith - 03-11-10
www.InformingChristians.com.
|
