I want to show you how EASY what I do is. Any of you can do it. It's nothing but a plodding step by step analysis. No special intellect or knowledge needed! You don't need a law degree or a Ph.D. in political science.
1. You read something or hear something: E.g., these two articles:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-so...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/founding_fathers...
2. NEVER believe anything you read or hear. You must DEMAND proof. Notice that these two journalists don't prove what they say. All they do is spout off what they think, or what that idiotic Georgetown University history professor says.
3. When the topic is about Congress' legislative powers, as these two article are, where do you go to get The TRUTH? To Our Constitution - THAT is where you find out what Congress' legislative powers are. Even if one has never before read the Constitution, one could go thru it and underline all the places which delegate legislative powers to Congress.
One would see from Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 1-16, that Congress' legislative powers are enumerated and very limited.
But at clause 17, one sees that Congress is granted general legislative authority over the federal enclaves. Dock Yards are federal enclaves.
See?
After you have played around with The Federalist Papers a while, you can quickly find the Papers which discuss particular provisions of Our Constitution. This takes a bit of experience, but anyone can do it.
AFTER you have read the two articles by the silly journalists, go thru the steps set forth above.
Then, read this: http://www.americanclarion.com/5292/2012/04/04/merchant-seaman-1798...
Permalink Reply by David J Edwards on PH - Can't they do ANY better than that? Is that really the level of non-thought bringing America down?
How hard is it really to distinguish between civilian vs. military personnel and jurisdictions?
Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on Wait until you see the same - and more - idiocy flowing from the fetid recesses of the mind of a lawyer at Harvard.
But we did not read the Constitution in law school. So, it is very likely that these people - this Harvard Law Professor - have never read The Constitution; and don't know about the major differences in Congress' legislative powers for the Country at large (limited and enumerated powers only) and the federal enclaves (unlimited legislative jurisdiction except for the Bill of Rights).
Permalink Reply by Ralph Roshto on David,
They do not HAVE to do any better than that...NBC just proved that with their "Mis-edited" tapes of the Martin case. All the press does is misrepresent the truth (Lie) loudly and repeatedly and the mis-guided sheeple follow along in ignorance of the Truth of our constitution, and vote their own Freedom away. Therefore, they 'nudge' enough voters to elect closet Marxists like Obama. Dumbed down Public school educated useful idiots unfortunately are 'qualified' to vote.
Permalink Reply by Ralph Roshto on Of course laws such as this 1798 law, and similar ones, have really helped our Merchant Marine fleet. NOT! Almost ALL of worldwide shipping has virtually eliminated American Marine shipping from the face of the planet. The same thing will happen if we allow Obamacare to stand. American Medicine will virtually dissapear. I cannot say that this is not what this administration is attempting to do ON PURPOSE! Obama and his communist supporters are hell bent on destroying our country. So far, they are succeeding with the help of support from the Marxist supporters of the press, and bloggers such as Rick Ungar, who have become brainwashed into believing the Utopian Communist lies of a communist Nervanna.
Permalink Reply by Jon Brunke on Wow I love this! Specifically because our friend and mentor demonstrated how easy it is to research these things. Once again she has made the case plain and clear. I love researching things and because it is so easy I’d like to share some research tricks I’ve learned over the years.
When someone quotes something from the founding era one of the quickest ways I know to access information is to go to the 19th century search on Google books. For instance if you search for “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen” you’ll get these results (here is a link). Check it out for yourself.
Returning to the original topic here are some observations of my own. Having read thru some of the material I found, I can also (along with Publius) say these “journalists” are at best being silly. From the annals of congress for instance it’s plain that the bill in question only involved those people engaged in war fighting. It is also equally clear that even in this case there was a great deal of disagreement over this act and many like it that followed in very short order. The record is hardly an affirmation for the founder’s view of national healthcare.
I would suggest these journalists take great care when trying to associate the founder’s views with their own progressive agenda. For progressives, going there can be a slippery slope.
Here’s an example. From my inquiry I learned as late as 1817 the discussion over the coverage of (even) war time pensions was still ongoing. Newly inaugurated President Monroe in his State of the Union address arguing on behalf of pensions had this to say:
“In contemplating the happy situation of the United States, our attention is drawn with peculiar interest to the surviving officers and soldiers of our Revolutionary army, who so eminently contributed by their services to lay its foundation. Most of those very meritorious citizens have paid the debt of nature and gone to repose. It is believed that among the survivors there are some not provided for by existing laws, who are reduced to indigence and even to real distress. These men have a claim on the gratitude of their country, and it will do honor to their country to provide for them…”
These comments hardly reflect a favorable view toward a national healthcare program and to our progressive opponents again I say beware who and what you quote. In fact, in this same address President Monroe offered his opinion on the Federal government’s authority to “improve” other things as well.
“When we consider the vast extent of territory within the United States, the great amount and value of its productions, the connection of its parts, and other circumstances on which their prosperity and happiness depend, we cannot fail to entertain a high sense of the advantage to be derived from the facility which may be afforded in the intercourse between them by means of good roads and canals.”
“As this subject was acted on by Congress at the last session, and there may be a disposition to revive it at the present, I have brought it into view for the purpose of communicating my sentiments on a very important circumstance connected with it…”
“A difference of opinion has existed from the first formation of our Constitution to the present time among our most enlightened and virtuous citizens respecting the right of Congress to establish such a system of improvement...”
“Taking into view the trust with which I am now honored, it would be improper after what has passed that this discussion should be revived with an uncertainty of my opinion respecting the right...”
“Disregarding early impressions I have bestowed on the subject all the deliberation which its great importance and a just sense of my duty required, and the result is a settled conviction in my mind that Congress do not possess the right..."
"It is not contained in any of the specified powers granted to Congress, nor can I consider it incidental to or a necessary means, viewed on the most liberal scale, for carrying into effect any of the powers which are specifically granted...”
“In communicating this result I cannot resist the obligation which I feel to suggest to Congress the propriety of recommending to the States the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution which shall give to Congress the right in question. In cases of doubtful construction, especially of such vital interest, it comports with the nature and origin of our institutions, and will contribute much to preserve them, to apply to our constituents for an explicit grant of the power. We may confidently rely that if it appears to their satisfaction that the power is necessary, it will always be granted.”
There you have it my progressive journalists, your national healthcare and an untold number of progressive adventures just went right down the tubes. If you progressives wish to extend the authority of Congress beyond those enumerated in the Constitution then try to obey the law, try asking us to amend the Consititution. In case you forgot what we're talking about here these days it's called self governement.
Now where have I heard that before…
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
