It’s all constitutional candy to the Democrats.

That makes three in a matter of days! I’m so proud. You will excuse us in Michigan if we can’t or don’t jump onto the bandwagons of candidates in other states.

We have a pretty big mess to clean up here in our own backyard.

I think he had a better idea of the meaning of the Constitution than Conyers, and elite statist eager to bend it around his authoritarian will.

“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ” all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition….

To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.

It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

Chairman of the Judiciary Committee says it is all good, Don’t us little folk worry none. This is done taken care of by the great minds.

However kudos on the “Res ipsa loquitur” comment that was hilarious. There really is nothing else to add to that.

_____________________________________________________________
“This year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practice ourselves the kind of behavior we expect from other people.” C. S. Lewis

“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” – Ronald Reagan

“Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.” – C. S. Lewis

Join the RedState Strike Force

we see blatant examples of it non-stop in the MSM; so much so that you would go crazy if you really let it bother you. And no one really cares too much to follow up on it.

With this administration, it’s almost getting to that point with people running all over the Constitution, not caring what it says, or, in this case, not knowing what it says. Pretty soon it’s going to be hard to get people worked up about it because it’s so prevalent. That’s a dangerous place for our government to be.

All three of them, Moe, Larry AND Curly?

i’m almost sure there’s a “Good and Welfare” clause in the constitutions of one of the 57 states, if not in the US Constitution itself…

As matter of fact, I pulled out my little booklet on the Constitution yesterday and read it slowly to see if any clause can be used to justify this monstrosity of the health care bill being forced upon us. I found none.

The closest thing I could find, if one wanted to stretch its meaning, is Commerce Clause. But I’ve never understood how could Congress force a person doing nothing to purchase a good, then turning around and using that basis as grounds for regulating the private sector. On its surface, it seems to be a logical fallacy.

Please correct me if I am wrong, was commerce ever understood as a voluntary act in a legal sense? To engage in commerce implies one has a choice in what sort of commercial activity he desires to participate in. If one refuses or is not required to participate in a certain commercial activity, then how can that be federally mandated as to make that person engage in an involuntary act?

You know, it’s in the secret article that Roe is based on. The only people who’ve ever seen it are the member of the judicial committee, the justices on the SCOTUS, and, as the result of a bizarre accident, the Beast Boyz (turns out, it also defines your right to parrrrrrrrty).

If you asked nicely, they’d probably let you see it, but then…

Well, you know the rest.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm

Hmmmm, I was in Oklahoma last weekend. They have Indian Casinos.
What is to prevent a hospital from building on Indian lands and setting up health clinics? Imagine the Choctaw Casino & Hospital resort.

But I bet he’s got unions, TLA lobbyists, NOW, ACORN, and UAW on speed dial.

“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men.”

Massachusetts Constitution

It should be common good and not simply the good of few, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men.