Steny Hoyer (D-MD) wrongly interprets Constitution again

[Little-Acorn]

House Majority Leader Hoyer announced today that the "Welfare Clause" of the Constitution gives the Fed Govt broad powers to do virtually anything it wants to promote the welfare of the U.S. It was another misinterpretation of that part of the Constitution, common among big-government advocates.

Actually that part of the Const says that Congress can collect taxes for certain purposes, and no others. One of the purposes is "to provide for the General Welfare of the U.S.". But that means, Congress can spend tax money on things that benefit all American equally... and NOT on things that benefit some but not others.

When the Constitution was written, there were two kinds of "Welfare": "General" welfare, and "Particular" welfare. "General" welfare meant things that benefit everyone equally, while "Particular" welfare meant things that benefit only certain persons or groups but not everyone.

So the "Welfare clause" is actually a restriction. Congress can spend tax money on things that benefit all Americans equally, but not on things that only benefit some (what we would call Special Interests today).

If it were to give the Fed govt the broad powers Hoyer claims it does, 3/4 of the Constitution would become irrelevant. There would be no need for it to spell out the actual powers it does (Running the armed forces, setting up courts, coining money etc. - all of which benefit people).

The Welfare Clause meant nothing of the kind, of course. The entire Constitution was written to create the Fed govt, take some powers from the states and give them to the Fed... and to forbid the Fed from any others, which the states still hold.

This purpose is violated by Big-Govt advocates (in both parties) all the time, of course. Hoyer's bizarre announcement is merely more of the same... and is just as wrong today as it has been for centuries, no matter how often the Constitution is violated.

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55851

Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance

Wednesday, October 21, 2009
By Matt Cover

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”

The Congressional Budget Office, however, has stated in the past that a mandate forcing Americans to buy health insurance would be an “unprecedented form of federal action,” and that the “government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

Hoyer, speaking to reporters at his weekly press briefing on Tuesday, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution was Congress granted the power to mandate that a person must by a health insurance policy. Hoyer said that, in providing for the general welfare, Congress had “broad authority.”

“Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end,” Hoyer said.

[avatar4321]

Democrats have wanted to interpret that clause that way for years. Because it gives them broad powers.

Unfortunately, the longer the Democrats can put people on the Courts, the more likely that interpretation will be seen as valid despite hundreds of years of case law.

[sgtdmski]

Democrats have wanted to interpret that clause that way for years. Because it gives them broad powers.

Unfortunately, the longer the Democrats can put people on the Courts, the more likely that interpretation will be seen as valid despite hundreds of years of case law.

Unfortunately you are right. We have a SCOTUS today that uses value judgement to decide cases. It has been this way for the past 20 years. Gone is the day and age of reasoned interpretation relying on what the Constitution explicitly says and in its place is an interpretation where 5 Justices can tell us what the Constitution implicitly says. In other words, there is no real law, only that which the justices tell us is law. No longer a nation of laws, but a nation of men.

dmk

[Little-Acorn]

Unfortunately you are right. We have a SCOTUS today that uses value judgement to decide cases. It has been this way for the past 20 years. Gone is the day and age of reasoned interpretation relying on what the Constitution explicitly says and in its place is an interpretation where 5 Justices can tell us what the Constitution implicitly says. In other words, there is no real law, only that which the justices tell us is law. No longer a nation of laws, but a nation of men.

dmk

We may be about to find out (again) whether it's 5 telling us what the Constitution implies, or 5 telling us what it actually says.

Hopefully the latter.

[LuvRPgrl]

We may be about to find out (again) whether it's 5 telling us what the Constitution implies, or 5 telling us what it actually says.

Hopefully the latter.

I generally dont generalize about general issues or generals in the marines,