Impeachment for violating Sworn Oath?

[jackson33]

Bascule; Even the "PROVIDING" for the common defense, was questionable to the States in the early years of the US, noting New England STATES, refused to supply militia troops for the War of 1812-15, against England. To carry over the meaning of words, it would seem to me, promoting then would carry extra meaning to the rights of States to object intrusion. In fact, not until after the 1898 Spanish American War and under the 'Militia Act' of 1903, were the issue of State Obligation to the Federal Interest on Defense, really settled.

 

 

e British were engaged in war with the First French Empire and did not wish to .... The failure of New England to provide militia units or financial support was a ..... On July 17, without a fight, the American fort on Mackinac Island ...[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

 

 

The Congress shall have 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; [/Quote]

 

What IMO always gets left out, are the concluding words "uniform throughout the United States", additionally the specification of exceptions further listed and finally the necessity for any law, provision or regulation for ENFORCEMENT. The Constitution is very clear on where Federal and State enforcement of law, where not specified to a National Interest, which were all listed, 'DUTIES'.

 

Note in P's referenced case, Helvering v Davis the ruling specifies implication and objectives were National Issues, playing to the concept of localization, which was then and remains unconstitutional "be for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose". The case itself in 1936, was improperly argued, IMO, leaving the gap open for enforcement.

 

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program. The Court defended the constitutionality of the Social Security Act of 1935, requiring only that welfare spending be for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose. It affirmed a District Court decree that held that the tax upon employees was not properly at issue, and that the tax upon employers was constitutional.[/Quote]

 

Now as for the Health Care Bill, that gap for enforcement remains the issue, along with State Rights. The Federal Government, simply cannot approach into State Right for enforcement of any purchase of a product, EVEN THEIR OWN PRODUCT, but may impose a tax which would have to be equal in all States. In order to accomplish this, they have only one current Constitutional means for ENFORCEMENT, being the IRS and the current laws (are different from 1995, under due process). What this will create are first evasion of owed taxes (Federal Crime) and punishable with jail time (Al Capone) and subject to "Penalties and Interest" which by any standard are punitive, arguable extensively. If on topic, I'd pursue this to the point where Government, could add other taxation's, based on individuals and/or business, to the point no one would be exempt from having delinquent taxes owed government. I'm not sure it couldn't extend to States where compliance to Federal Regulation, would trump State Rights, the exact opposite of the US Constitution.

 

 

To the thread; One more point on Rep. Hare, or for that matter the other the other 434 members of the House, they were intended to represent and ADVOCATE (speak out) for those they represent (be from those they represent), as they see fit and understand their constituents. Most in the early years and some today are still common folks, shop keepers, farmers, today even the common Hockey Mom or the common laborer. I seriously doubt Polosi "Speaker of the House" would have any idea, what on earth I'm even talking about, much less capable of giving a good argument. It would be hard for anyone to argue, there was ever the intension House Membership, should be made up societies elite or the highly educated, I'd suggest quite the opposite.

[bascule]

Did you miss section 8 of that article and the list of enumerated "services"? That's plenty specific enough.

 

You mean this section 8?

 

Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and

provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States

; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

 

No, I didn't miss it...

 

But yeah, we're disagreeing on old ground here. I'm guessing you're more of a Hamiltonian stripe, but then keep in mind, that interpretation is also what keeps us from enjoying some relaxing "herbal" remedies. Since I've read your views on that, and other civil liberties, I'm wondering how you reconcile that conflict.

 

Providing services is a lot different from making things illegal. I certainly agree that the federal government should not have the power to regulate "substances"

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What IMO always gets left out, are the concluding words "uniform throughout the United States"

 

Are you arguing that the healthcare bill isn't "uniform throughout the United States"? It's a federal service. It's not like you can't get it in Tennessee.

Edited April 17, 2010 by bascule
Consecutive posts merged.

[ParanoiA]

You mean this section 8?

 

Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes' date=' duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States[/quote']

No, I didn't miss it...

 

Yeah, that's the generalized statement that Madison was referring to. It is not its own enumerated power - or else the enumerated powers are needless detail.

 

We could argue this, but I already did above. If you didn't read it the first time, I'm not sure I want to try again.

[bascule]

Yeah, that's the generalized statement that Madison was referring to. It is not its own enumerated power - or else the enumerated powers are needless detail.

 

We could argue this, but I already did above. If you didn't read it the first time, I'm not sure I want to try again.

 

I did read it, and this was my response:

 

It seems that we merely disagree as to whether or not healthcare falls under the auspices of "general welfare". I say yes, you say no.

 

*shrug* not much more can be said, we disagree.