Constitutional Tender Act

[Centinel]

Thanks, you lose.

How so?

 

[Rune]

How so?

Those are just changes.

Again, only the powers specifically granted.

.

 

[Centinel]

Okay, so congress only has the powers specifically granted.

One of congress' powers is to raise an army.

Armies use planes.

What does this prove about congress' power to interfere in the healthcare industry?

 

[Rune]

Okay, so congress only has the powers specifically granted.

One of congress' powers is to raise an army.

Armies use planes.




What does this prove about congress' power to interfere in the healthcare industry?

Where in the Constitution was Congress granted the authority to purchase planes and flamethrowers?
Clearly the founders never intended for Congress to purchase planes or flamethrowers.

 

[apple0154]

Okay, so congress only has the powers specifically granted.

One of congress' powers is to raise an army.

Armies use planes.

What does this prove about congress' power to interfere in the healthcare industry?

"The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."

"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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published
online today by the American Journal of Public Health.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...s-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

If the government is mandated with promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty would not trying to prevent the unnecessary death of 45,000 citizens every year qualify?

 

[Centinel]

Where in the Constitution was Congress granted the authority to purchase planes and flamethrowers?
Clearly the founders never intended for Congress to purchase planes or flamethrowers.

Congress is authorized to raise an army. This means they are authorized to equip it with weapons of war. To think that the ratifiers never anticipated technological change is ridiculous.

 

[Centinel]

"The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."

"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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published
online today by the American Journal of Public Health.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...s-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

If the government is mandated with promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty would not trying to prevent the unnecessary death of 45,000 citizens every year qualify?

Any state in the union may save lives by implementing whatever health insurance programs they wish.

Let's put it this way. Either you see the union as a compact among many sovereign states, similar to the EU, or you see the union as a single massive state. Personally, I think that distributed power is safer for the people than centralized power, and I see very strong evidence that those who ratified the creation of the union shared the same apprehensions. During the ratification debates, the proponents of the new union gave all sorts of assurances that the several sovereign nations were only giving up limited powers, and that all powers not delegated to the union would remain theirs.

Simply put, the states never gave to congress the power to implement health care. They reserved this right to themselves. For the union to take this power from them would be an illegal usurpation.

 

[Rune]

Simply put, the states never gave to congress the power to implement health care. They reserved this right to themselves. For the union to take this power from them would be an illegal usurpation.

To think that the ratifiers never anticipated change is ridiculous.

So the states anticipated change in the systems of war but not in the systems of health?

It seems that if the topic is one you support, (warfare) change makes sense to you,
but if it is something you don't support, you will twist the constitution around until it meets your desire.

Why does your signature line say no exceptions, yet you make exceptions for what YOU support?

You sir are a hypocrite.

I have proven this for post after post, but like a stubborn child you refuse to see or acknowledge your active double standard.

 

[apple0154]

Any state in the union may save lives by implementing whatever health insurance programs they wish.

Let's put it this way. Either you see the union as a compact among many sovereign states, similar to the EU, or you see the union as a single massive state. Personally, I think that distributed power is safer for the people than centralized power, and I see very strong evidence that those who ratified the creation of the union shared the same apprehensions. During the ratification debates, the proponents of the new union gave all sorts of assurances that the several sovereign nations were only giving up limited powers, and that all powers not delegated to the union would remain theirs.

Simply put, the states never gave to congress the power to implement health care. They reserved this right to themselves. For the union to take this power from them would be an illegal usurpation.

When the union was formed the states never gave congress the power to end slavery or the power to insist women have the right to vote, however, those things are included or encompassed in the Constitution by virtue of everyone being free.

Considering the Preamble is recognized as laying out the purpose/objective of the Constitution and it includes "to promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty" the question is, "Is protecting the lives of citizens considered promoting the general Welfare and securing the Blessings of Liberty?"

The states never specifically gave congress the power to implement health care as health care was non-existent just as the states never specifically gave congress the power to allow blacks to be free and women to vote although the Constitution makes clear everyone has certain rights and the Preamble makes clear the purpose of the Constitution is to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty.

Is preventing the unnecessary deaths of 45,000 citizens, every year, beneficial to the country? I would say, "Yes". Is attending to the health of citizens the first step in helping them secure the blessings of liberty? Again, I would say, "Yes", as an ill individual is unable to enjoy the many blessings of liberty.

The freedom to work at what one wishes means nothing to one who is too ill to work. The right to freely move around the country means little to the ill, bedridden individual.

If the government has the right to prevent price fixing and unfair competition and generally ensure everyone has a fair chance of securing the blessings of liberty then surely health is priority one.

 

[Centinel]

So the states anticipated change in the systems of war but not in the systems of health?

It is likely they anticipated changes in both. The couldn't foresee those changes precisely. They probably could not more imagine an MRI machine than they could a M1 Abrams tank. However, the fact that we have different tools at our disposal does not change the fundamentals division of responsibilities between the states and their union. The states gave the union the power to raise an army and provide for a navy. Obviously the technology of warfare changes over time, but the responsibility does not. They retained to themselves power of internal issues, such as hospitals and health care. Again, the technology of a hospital changes over time, but the nature of the responsibility does not.

It seems that if the topic is one you support, (warfare) change makes sense to you,
but if it is something you don't support, you will twist the constitution around until it meets your desire.

Technical change is inevitable, and I don't see them as changing the fundamental division of responsibilities between the states and their union.

Why does your signature line say no exceptions, yet you make exceptions for what YOU support?

You sir are a hypocrite.

I have proven this for post after post, but like a stubborn child you refuse to see or acknowledge your active double standard.

I'm not making any exceptions. The states delegated certain responsibilities to the union, and they retained all other powers. Technological changes don't change this division of responsibilities.

 

[Centinel]

When the union was formed the states never gave congress the power to end slavery or the power to insist women have the right to vote, however, those things are included or encompassed in the Constitution by virtue of everyone being free.

Considering the Preamble is recognized as laying out the purpose/objective of the Constitution and it includes "to promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty" the question is, "Is protecting the lives of citizens considered promoting the general Welfare and securing the Blessings of Liberty?"

The states never specifically gave congress the power to implement health care as health care was non-existent just as the states never specifically gave congress the power to allow blacks to be free and women to vote although the Constitution makes clear everyone has certain rights and the Preamble makes clear the purpose of the Constitution is to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty.

Is preventing the unnecessary deaths of 45,000 citizens, every year, beneficial to the country? I would say, "Yes". Is attending to the health of citizens the first step in helping them secure the blessings of liberty? Again, I would say, "Yes", as an ill individual is unable to enjoy the many blessings of liberty.

The freedom to work at what one wishes means nothing to one who is too ill to work. The right to freely move around the country means little to the ill, bedridden individual.

If the government has the right to prevent price fixing and unfair competition and generally ensure everyone has a fair chance of securing the blessings of liberty then surely health is priority one.

Sorry, but I have to go for the time being. I'll respond when I return - could be a couple of days...

 

[Rune]

It is likely they anticipated changes in both. The couldn't foresee those changes precisely. They probably could not more imagine an MRI machine than they could a M1 Abrams tank. However, the fact that we have different tools at our disposal does not change the fundamentals division of responsibilities between the states and their union. The states gave the union the power to raise an army and provide for a navy. Obviously the technology of warfare changes over time, but the responsibility does not. They retained to themselves power of internal issues, such as hospitals and health care. Again, the technology of a hospital changes over time, but the nature of the responsibility does not.



Technical change is inevitable, and I don't see them as changing the fundamental division of responsibilities between the states and their union.



I'm not making any exceptions. The states delegated certain responsibilities to the union, and they retained all other powers. Technological changes don't change this division of responsibilities.

Centinel, have you met SmarterThanFew?

You're one of the few he's smarter than.​

 

[Centinel]

While I have internet access, I thought I'd try to respond to Apple. I'll be sporadic over the next couple of days...

When the union was formed the states never gave congress the power to end slavery or the power to insist women have the right to vote, however, those things are included or encompassed in the Constitution by virtue of everyone being free.

Considering the Preamble is recognized as laying out the purpose/objective of the Constitution and it includes "to promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty" the question is, "Is protecting the lives of citizens considered promoting the general Welfare and securing the Blessings of Liberty?"

The preamble does not have any legal power. It is introductory, and does not assign any powers to the federal government.

The states never specifically gave congress the power to implement health care as health care was non-existent just as the states never specifically gave congress the power to allow blacks to be free and women to vote although the Constitution makes clear everyone has certain rights and the Preamble makes clear the purpose of the Constitution is to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty.

Is preventing the unnecessary deaths of 45,000 citizens, every year, beneficial to the country? I would say, "Yes". Is attending to the health of citizens the first step in helping them secure the blessings of liberty? Again, I would say, "Yes", as an ill individual is unable to enjoy the many blessings of liberty.

When the constitution was initially proposed and the states were asked to ratify it, there were many who saw the general welfare phrase in the taxing clause and were alarmed that this would give the federal government nearly unlimited power. For, if the federal government could spend on whatever it deemed to be in the general welfare, what could it not spend on? However, those promoting the constitution were quick to assure the states that such phrasing conferred no such power. For example, Madisin, in Federalis 41 write the following:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

When the states ratified the constitution they did so with the understanding that they were not granting carte blanche to the federal government, but instead were delegating to it s specfic set of powers, powers that had been carefully negotiated by the delegates of the states.

The freedom to work at what one wishes means nothing to one who is too ill to work. The right to freely move around the country means little to the ill, bedridden individual.

If the government has the right to prevent price fixing and unfair competition and generally ensure everyone has a fair chance of securing the blessings of liberty then surely health is priority one.

Congress was delegated the power to regulate commerce among the states, so I think there is a better case to be made that the acts you mention are legitimate federal powers.

If you are concerned with the health of the citizens in your state, by all means take the political action in your state that you feel is necessary to correct the problem. Pennsylvania and Utah don't have to implement the same solution, and neither should try to impose their preferred solution on the other. Similarly, The UK and the Czech Republic don't have to solve their health care problems in the same way either. They don't need to manage their national domestic issues at the federal EU level, nor do the various sovereign states in our federation have to look to the federal government to solve our own internal domestic problems. In fact, for the federal government to attempt to do so infringes upon the rights of the individual sovereign members, violating the 10th amendment, in which the several states reserved all these powers to themselves.

The constitution never would have been ratified had the ratifiers believed they were giving the federation the power to write any law that was in the general welfare.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

A perfect place for Centinel the nonsensical:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b46_1315312581

 

[apple0154]

The preamble does not have any legal power. It is introductory, and does not assign any powers to the federal government.

"The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution

If courts have the legal power to interpret the Constitution and the "courts have referred to it (the Preamble) as reliable evidence of the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning" then it must follow the Preamble does have legal power.

When the constitution was initially proposed and the states were asked to ratify it, there were many who saw the general welfare phrase in the taxing clause and were alarmed that this would give the federal government nearly unlimited power. For, if the federal government could spend on whatever it deemed to be in the general welfare, what could it not spend on? However, those promoting the constitution were quick to assure the states that such phrasing conferred no such power. For example, Madisin, in Federalis 41 write the following:

...."Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction...."

When the states ratified the constitution they did so with the understanding that they were not granting carte blanche to the federal government, but instead were delegating to it a specific set of powers, powers that had been carefully negotiated by the delegates of the states.

Congress was delegated the power to regulate commerce among the states, so I think there is a better case to be made that the acts you mention are legitimate federal powers.

The constitution never would have been ratified had the ratifiers believed they were giving the federation the power to write any law that was in the general welfare.

For what purpose, for whom was the Constitution written? If for the citizens of the United States what is more important to the general welfare of the citizens than their lives? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...we notice "life" is the first thing mentioned. There is no liberty and happiness if one is not alive.

There are medications today which greatly prolong a person's life. For example, the drug Teva-Metoprolol used to control high blood pressure. Would the Founding Fathers have ever contemplated a drug that costs approximately 50 cents today having the benefit of preventing a stroke at 50 years of age and allowing one to live an additional 20 years or more? Would they have imagined a yearly check-up could prevent the current deaths of 45,000/yr?

Again, what is the purpose of the Constitution if not the concern for the lives of US citizens? What is the purpose of writing "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" if their concern was not for the lives of American citizens?

As Madison wrote, "Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity,..."

Talking about confounding and misleading would the Founding Fathers have had to enumerate the particulars regarding the needless death of citizens? What would be the purpose of establishing a more perfect union and justice and domestic tranquility and the blessings of liberty and posterity while idly watching the needless death of thousands?

Surely there is nothing more absurd than saying the Federal Government has no business in trying to prevent thousands of needless deaths.

 

[icedancer2theend]

Most of those wishing to eliminate the federal reserve focus on the federal government and a federal solution. In other words, they look to congress for a solution.

I recently ran across an initiative called the Constitutional Tender Act. that seeks to introduce sound money at the state level.

Here’s a good synopsis of the initiative


There is little room for interpretation here. The constitution is clear: “No state shall”. Not much getting around that.

I find the idea intriguing. Given the fact that the states are in blatant violation of the constitution, it would seem difficult to argue against.

I do not see the violation? The federal government IS allowed to coin money and create credit. The prohibition against individual states in doing so, is to prevent monetary chaos.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Boneheads like Centinel the nonsensical come up with all kinds of stupid shit.

Remember the tax resister movement and the morons who bought into it?

 

[Centinel]

"The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution

If courts have the legal power to interpret the Constitution and the "courts have referred to it (the Preamble) as reliable evidence of the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning" then it must follow the Preamble does have legal power.

For what purpose, for whom was the Constitution written?

It was written for the people of the several sovereign states in order to form a union to provide mutual defense and an open integrated economy.

If for the citizens of the United States what is more important to the general welfare of the citizens than their lives?

Their sovereignty.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...we notice "life" is the first thing mentioned. There is no liberty and happiness if one is not alive.

There are medications today which greatly prolong a person's life. For example, the drug Teva-Metoprolol used to control high blood pressure. Would the Founding Fathers have ever contemplated a drug that costs approximately 50 cents today having the benefit of preventing a stroke at 50 years of age and allowing one to live an additional 20 years or more? Would they have imagined a yearly check-up could prevent the current deaths of 45,000/yr?

Any or all of the several states could make this drug available to their citizens. This is part of their reserved power. You live in one of the states, right? The legislature of your state could make this drug available. And any other state that wished to could do so as well. And those that didn't could choose not do do so.

Again, what is the purpose of the Constitution if not the concern for the lives of US citizens? What is the purpose of writing "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" if their concern was not for the lives of American citizens?

As Madison wrote, "Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity,..."

You are quoting Federalist 41, above. You are quoting part of Madison's argument against the general welfare clause being an open-ended grant of power. You understand that Madison was trying to convince the reluctant states that the federation would definitely not have an plenary power to legislate in the general welfare, right?

Talking about confounding and misleading would the Founding Fathers have had to enumerate the particulars regarding the needless death of citizens? What would be the purpose of establishing a more perfect union and justice and domestic tranquility and the blessings of liberty and posterity while idly watching the needless death of thousands?

Surely there is nothing more absurd than saying the Federal Government has no business in trying to prevent thousands of needless deaths.

I completely understand your intention to do good. The federal government appears to be a useful tool through which to implement your desired program. Unfortunately, it is not the proper tool. The states never delegated such power to the federal government. On the other hand, any one of the states has the power to implement whatever laws and systems they wish in order to protect the lives of their citizens.

I understand that you think that stretching the constitution on this matter seems like a good idea, but the purpose of the constitution is to limit the federal government, to keep it from infringing on the reserved powers of the states. That's what the 10th amendment is all about. So stretching the constitution for a beneficent and noble purpose leaves the door open for the federal government to be used for evil purposes as well.

 

[Centinel]

I do not see the violation? The federal government IS allowed to coin money and create credit. The prohibition against individual states in doing so, is to prevent monetary chaos.

The federal government is allowed to make coins, yes, but it is not empowered to create credit. (Unless you can show me where.)

 

[Centinel]

A perfect place for Centinel the nonsensical:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b46_1315312581

Somalia? A perfect place? Are you kidding? It's a hell-hole. It has no government.

If you think I am arguing against government in general, you are sadly mistaken. My Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a government, and I would have it no other way.

I am simply arguing that the federation is encroaching on powers and rights that are reserved by the several sovereign republics, in violation of the 10th amendment.