Hypocrite screams you lie

[Light]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Funny because some of the top Constitutional lawyers in DC have already prepared lawsuits to challenge its constitutionality. Common defense and general welfare are tied together. General welfare does not mean what you are trying to stretch it into. It is not, nor has it historically ever been, about the redistribution of wealth. Show me one bill where Congress has relied on their power to promote the general welfare in order to spend.

I thought you were against frivolous law suits.

Tort reform in a republics eyes is as follows. Doctors go ahead do shoddy work, remove the wrong organ and we will stop the poor sap from suing.

[Baron1710]

There are consequences, sir, still more extensive, which, as they follow dearly from the doctrine combated, must either be admitted, or the doctrine must be given up. If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.

Who do you think said this?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Light

I thought you were against frivolous law suits.

Tort reform in a republics eyes is as follows. Doctors go ahead do shoddy work, remove the wrong organ and we will stop the poor sap from suing.

This wouldn't be a tort. So tort reform wouldn't touch it. Tort reform doesn't eliminate the accountability of doctors, it limits the amounts that can be acquired from a Tort. Most people on a jury looks at the guy with one leg and determines the dollar value of the leg based on many criteria, what opportunities is he missing financially, what the damage would have been had the doctor not made a mistake, etc. However many also look at the defendant and determine in their own minds what they have the ability to pay. They assume because it is a doctor he can pay more.

Compare the lawsuit of the guy who lost his leg in a car accident through no fault of his own to the guy who lost it at the hands of a doctor through no fault of his own. All things being equal they payout should be too, but it isn't.

[Baron1710]

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
-- President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875 [1877]

[Baron1710]

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:

With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.

[Baron1710]

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

[Baron1710]

"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." - James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." - James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

Thank you Baron1710 for the history lessons.

Light, read and learn what 'General Welfare' really meaneth........

[Pressing-On]

He did not help the cause of diversity and tolerance with his remarks -- if I were a betting man I would say it instigated more racist sentiment," Johnson said Tuesday. "And so I guess we'll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside intimidating people ... that's the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude is not rebuked, and Congressman Wilson represents it. He's the face of it." - Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...t_rebuked.html

OMG! What an idiot!!!!!!

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

OMG! What an idiot!!!!!!

Ditto!! And what a racist!