Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

The “Taxing Clause”, Five Lawless Judges, and obamacare.

By Publius Huldah.

Our federal Constitution is one of enumerated powers only.  This means that WE THE PEOPLE, who ordained and established the Constitution, listed therein every power We delegated to the federal government. If We didn’t list a power, the federal government doesn’t have it.1

Furthermore, we delegated only a very few powers to the federal government.

Accordingly, Congress has strictly limited legislative powers over the Country at large. These powers are listed primarily at Art. I, §8, clauses 3-16, and are restricted to war, international commerce & relations; and domestically, the creation of an uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & roads. Several Amendments delegate to Congress some power over civil rights.

These enumerated powers are the only areas where the federal government has lawful authority over The States and The People in The States.  In all other matters [except those listed at Art. I, §10]the States and The People retain supremacy, independence, and sovereignty. Go here for a complete list of all of Congress’ Enumerated Powers.

Obamacare is altogether unconstitutional because it is outside the scope of the legislative powers We granted to Congress. Nothing in Our Constitution authorizes the federal government to control our medical care (or to exercise the other fearsome powers in the Act).  

I challenge those five (5) lawless judges on the supreme Court [Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, & Breyer], all other totalitarians,  liberals,  and parasites who support obamacare, to point to that clause of The Constitution where We delegated to the federal government power to control our medical care.

Article I, §8, clauses 1-16: What it Really Means.

Those five (5) lawless judges on the supreme Court looked at Art. I, §8, cl.1, and found power in Congress and the Executive Branch to take over our medical care – even to decide whether we will receive medical treatment or be denied medical treatment.2

And how did The Lawless Five do this?  I’ll show you. But first, let’s see what the Constitution really says.  Article I, §8, clauses 1 & 2 read:

Clause 1: “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;” [boldface added]

Clause 2: “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;”

Immediately after Clauses 1 & 2 follows the list of enumerated powers WE delegated to Congress:

  • Clause 3: To regulate “commerce” [For the Truth about the “commerce clause”, go here];
  • Clause 4: To establish uniform laws on Naturalization and on Bankruptcies;
  • Clause 5: To coin money & regulate its value, and fix the standard of weights & measures;
  • Clause 6: To punish counterfeiting;
  • Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
  • Clause 8: To issue Patents and Copyrights;
  • Clause 9: To set up federal courts “inferior” to the supreme Court [one may well ask how any court can be “inferior” to the supreme Court];
  • Clause 10: To punish Piracies & Felonies on the high seas and offenses against the Law of Nations;
  • Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque & Reprisal, and make rules for Captures;
  • Clause 12: To raise and support Armies;
  • Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
  • Clause 14: To make Rules for the land and naval Forces;
  • Clause 15: To call forth the Militia; and
  • Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, disciplining the Militia.

Add to this short list of enumerated powers; the “housekeeping powers” itemized in the paper linked here; the salaries authorized by Art. I, §6, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, next to last clause; Art. III, §1, cl. 1, and others on the civil list; together with the Amendments addressing civil rights; and you have the sole purposes for which Congress is authorized to levy and collect taxes, borrow money, and spend money for the Country at Large.

And this is precisely what James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, says in Federalist Paper No. 41 (last 4 paras).   Some people were concerned 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. ”  (4th para from end).

Madison answered the above objection by saying that one would be grasping at straws to stoop to such a silly “misconstruction”.  He said:

“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’ .” (3rd para from end)

“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? … 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 … is an absurdity…” (2nd para from end)

In the final paragraph of Federalist No. 41, Madison says Art. I, §8, cl. 1 does not vest in Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever: Clause 1 is merely a “general expression”, the meaning of which is “ascertained and limited” by the clauses which “immediately follow” it.

To put Madison in modern English: Clauses 1 & 2 grant to Congress the power to raise money; clauses 3-16 enumerate the objects on which Congress may appropriate the money so raised, thus limiting clauses 1 & 2.

THAT is the Constitution We ratified.

What the Lawless Five Assert it Means:

See where it says in Clause 1, “To lay and collect Taxes”?  The Lawless Five assert that this phrase authorizes Congress to lay & collect taxes for any purposes whatsoever.

They IGNORED the “specification of the objects [Clauses 3-16] alluded to by these general terms” [Clauses 1 & 2] – the “enumeration of particulars” which “explain and qualify” “the general phrase”.   

In effect, they repealed Clauses 3-16.  In a nutshell, the Lawless Five asserted that Congress and the President may do whatever they want to us.  Just call it a “tax”.

What can WE Do?

First, we must disabuse ourselves of the monstrous lie that the federal government We created by Our Constitution is the exclusive and final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it; and that the opinion of five judges, not the Constitution, is the sole measure of its powers. 3 That is a pernicious  ideology antithetical to our Founding Documents and Principles. Once you understand that, our remedies are readily apparent:

1. Impeach Federal Judges who violate their Oaths of Office. The supreme Court is merely a creature of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms; and when judges on that and lower federal courts – who serve during “good Behaviour” only (Art. III, §1, cl. 1) – usurp power, they must be removed from office. Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist No. 81 (8th para) of:

“… the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments in … [the House] … and of determining … them in the … [Senate] … give[s] to … [Congress] … upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations…” 4

We must elect Representatives and Senators who will support our Constitution by impeaching & removing usurping federal judges.  We must elect people who will rid of us The Lawless Five.

2. Elect Representatives and Senators who will also repeal obamacare and dismantle everything which has been implemented so far.

3.  Elect Romney.  He has promised he will “repeal” obamacare.  His Oath of Office – which is “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” – requires him to refuse to implement obamacare. By Executive Order, he must refuse to implement it, he must reverse all implementation in effect when he takes office, and he must rescind the unconstitutional rules [see, e.g., Art. I, §1] made by the baby-killing totalitarians who presently infest the Department of Health & Human Services.

4.  States must nullify obamacare.   Here are Nullification Resolutions States may use to nullify obamacare and the HHS rules.

State officials, legislators, and judges all take The Oath to support the federal Constitution (Art. VI, cl. 3); and that Oath requires them to nullify obamacare.

5. We the People must stop deceiving ourselves about the motives of people such as obama and the Lawless Five. They are not ‘basically decent people who just have different opinions”. They are Dolores Umbridges who are determined to reduce us to abject slavery. PH.

Endnotes:

1 Contrary to the misconstructions long and unlawfully applied by the federal government, the federal Constitution is one of enumerated powers only.  E.g.:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.  The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”  (Federalist No. 45 , 9th para)

“…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignity over all other objects….” (Federalist No. 39, 3rd para from end)

“…the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects...” (Federalist No. 14, 8th para)

2 There is much more in obamacare than transferring to the Executive Branch power to decide whether we will receive or be denied medical care. It is a parade of horribles worthy of Stalin, Hitler, and Anita Dunn’s hero, Mao.  It transfers total control of our lives to the Executive Branch.

3 Our beloved Thomas Jefferson writes in para 1 of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:

“1. Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes,–delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.” [boldface mine]

4 With obamacare, the Lawless Five colluded with Congress & the Executive Branch to subvert Our Constitution. Our Framers warned us of such connivances  between the branches of the federal government:

Alexander Hamilton tells us that Congress can’t successfully usurp powers unless The People go along with it!  In Federalist No.16 (next to last para), he points out that because judges may be “embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature”, the People, who are “the natural guardians of the Constitution”, must be “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.

James Madison says in Federalist No. 44 (last para before 2.):

“…the success of the usurpation [by Congress] will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; …” [boldface added]

Hamilton and Madison are telling us that We don’t have to go along with obamacare just because Five totalitarians on the supreme Court want the Executive Branch to have total control over our lives. This is where we draw the line.  We must Resist this tyranny. PH

July 5, 2012

Revised November 8, 2012.; November 15, 2012.
Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

July 5, 2012 - Posted by | Health Care, obamacare, Resistance to tyranny, The taxing clause, Usurpations of power | ,

45 Comments »

  1. […] e.g., this paper at the subheading, Article I, §8, clauses 1-16: What it Really […]

    Pingback by How Do You Balance The Federal Budget? Restrict Spending To The Enumerated Powers - Sons of Liberty Media | September 21, 2014 | Reply

  2. […] are Americans. We are resourceful. When doors are slammed in our faces, we find another way. Since five (5) lawless judges on the U.S. supreme Court betrayed us by failing to declare the Patien…; since we may be stuck with obama for four more years; 1 and since a democrat-controlled U.S. […]

    Pingback by How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It! - Sons of Liberty Media | August 31, 2014 | Reply

  3. […] are Americans. We are resourceful. When doors are slammed in our faces, we find another way. Since five (5) lawless judges on the U.S. supreme Court betrayed us by failing to declare the Patien…; since we may be stuck with obama for four more years; 1 and since a democrat-controlled U.S. […]

    Pingback by How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It! : Freedom Outpost « Gds44's Blog | February 4, 2013 | Reply

  4. […] are Americans. We are resourceful. When doors are slammed in our faces, we find another way.  Since five (5) lawless judges on the U.S. supreme Court betrayed us by failing to declare the Patien…; since we may be stuck with obama for four more years; 1  and since a democrat-controlled U.S. […]

    Pingback by Lawyer Publius Huldah: Nullify Obamacare | USA NEWS FIRST | January 22, 2013 | Reply

  5. […] are Americans. We are resourceful. When doors are slammed in our faces, we find another way.  Since five (5) lawless judges on the U.S. supreme Court betrayed us by failing to declare the Patien…; since we may be stuck with Obama for four more years; 1  and since a Democrat-controlled U.S. […]

    Pingback by Now, How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It! | Musings from a Middle Aged Man | December 30, 2012 | Reply

  6. […] We are Americans. We are resourceful. When doors are slammed in our faces, we find another way. Since five (5) lawless judges on the U.S. supreme Court betrayed us by failing to declare the Patien…; since we may be stuck with obama for four more years; 1 and since a democrat-controlled U.S. […]

    Pingback by Publius Huldah: Now, How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It! 10th Amendment - ALIPAC | November 23, 2012 | Reply

  7. […] May Congress levy taxes to implement obamacare? No!Because the Constitution does not delegate power over medical care to the federal government! [8] […]

    Pingback by What Now? You Ask, Political Insurgency! « A NATION BEGUILED | November 15, 2012 | Reply

  8. […] Since five (5) lawless judges on the U.S. supreme Court betrayed us by failing to declare the Patien…; since we may be stuck with Obama for four more years; 1  and since a Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate will not repeal Obamacare, we must find another way. […]

    Pingback by How to Get Rid of ObamaCare? Nullify It! | getdclu.com | November 13, 2012 | Reply

  9. […] are Americans. We are resourceful. When doors are slammed in our faces, we find another way.  Since five (5) lawless judges on the U.S. supreme Court betrayed us by failing to declare the Patien…; since we may be stuck with obama for four more years; 1  and since a democrat-controlled U.S. […]

    Pingback by Now, How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It! | The Constitution Sentinel | November 13, 2012 | Reply

  10. […] are Americans. We are resourceful. When doors are slammed in our faces, we find another way.  Since five (5) lawless judges on the U.S. supreme Court betrayed us by failing to declare the Patien…; since we may be stuck with obama for four more years; 1  and since a democrat-controlled U.S. […]

    Pingback by Now, How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It , what an excellant idea « GOD, GUTS,OLD GLORYand AMMO | November 13, 2012 | Reply

  11. […] are Americans. We are resourceful. When doors are slammed in our faces, we find another way.  Since five (5) lawless judges on the U.S. supreme Court betrayed us by failing to declare the Patien…; since we may be stuck with obama for four more years; 1  and since a democrat-controlled U.S. […]

    Pingback by Now, How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It! « Publius-Huldah's Blog | November 13, 2012 | Reply

  12. […] are Americans. We are resourceful. When doors are slammed in our faces, we find another way. Since five (5) lawless judges on the U.S. supreme Court betrayed us by failing to declare the Patien…; since we may be stuck with obama for four more years; 1 and since a democrat-controlled U.S. […]

    Pingback by Now, How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It! | Grumpy Opinions | November 13, 2012 | Reply

  13. […] are Americans. We are resourceful. When doors are slammed in our faces, we find another way.  Since five (5) lawless judges on the U.S. supreme Court betrayed us by failing to declare the Patien…; since we may be stuck with Obama for four more years; 1  and since a Democrat-controlled U.S. […]

    Pingback by Now, How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It! | BurlesonCountyTeaParty.org | November 13, 2012 | Reply

  14. […] are Americans. We are resourceful. When doors are slammed in our faces, we find another way.  Since five (5) lawless judges on the U.S. supreme Court betrayed us by failing to declare the Patien…; since we may be stuck with Obama for four more years; 1  and since a Democrat-controlled U.S. […]

    Pingback by Now, How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It! | American Clarion | November 12, 2012 | Reply

  15. […] are Americans. We are resourceful. When doors are slammed in our faces, we find another way.  Since five (5) lawless judges on the U.S. supreme Court betrayed us by failing to declare the Patien…; since we may be stuck with obama for four more years; 1  and since a democrat-controlled U.S. […]

    Pingback by Now, How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It! | American Conservative News Politics & Opinion - The Land of the Free | November 11, 2012 | Reply

  16. […] Congress levy taxes to implement obamacare? No! Because the Constitution does not delegate power over medical care to the federal government! […]

    Pingback by God-given Rights, Man-made Anti-rights, and why “Safety Nets” are Immoral | American Conservative News Politics & Opinion - The Land of the Free | September 1, 2012 | Reply

  17. […] Congress levy taxes to implement obamacare? No!  Because the Constitution does not delegate power over medical care to the federal government! […]

    Pingback by God-given Rights, Man-made Anti-rights, and why “Safety Nets” are Immoral « Publius-Huldah's Blog | August 29, 2012 | Reply

  18. […] May Congress levy taxes to implement obamacare? No! Because the Constitution does not delegate power over medical care to the federal government! 8 […]

    Pingback by GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS, MAN-MADE ANTI-RIGHTS | Grumpy Opinions | August 28, 2012 | Reply

  19. […] May Congress levy taxes to implement obamacare? No! Because the Constitution does not delegate power over medical care to the federal government! 8 […]

    Pingback by God-Given Rights, Man-Made Anti-Rights, and Why ‘Safety Nets’ are Immoral « Veteran Patriot | August 28, 2012 | Reply

  20. […] Congress levy taxes to implement obamacare? No! Because the Constitution does not delegate power over medical care to the federal government! […]

    Pingback by God-Given Rights, Man-Made Anti-Rights, and Why ‘Safety Nets’ are Immoral | The Constitution Sentinel | August 27, 2012 | Reply

  21. […] Congress levy taxes to implement obamacare? No! Because the Constitution does not delegate power over medical care to the federal government! […]

    Pingback by God-Given Rights, Man-Made Anti-Rights, and Why ‘Safety Nets’ are Immoral | Christian Patriots USA | August 27, 2012 | Reply

  22. […] Congress levy taxes to implement obamacare? No! Because the Constitution does not delegate power over medical care to the federal government! […]

    Pingback by God-Given Rights, Man-Made Anti-Rights, and Why ‘Safety Nets’ are Immoral | Illinois Conservative Beacon | August 27, 2012 | Reply

  23. […] Congress levy taxes to implement obamacare? No! Because the Constitution does not delegate power over medical care to the federal government! […]

    Pingback by God-Given Rights, Man-Made Anti-Rights, and Why 'Safety Nets' are Immoral | August 27, 2012 | Reply

  24. I heard that in arriving at his decision, Roberts relied on the advice of a former supreme court judge who said (and I paraphrase): if part of a law can be found to be constitutional, then the entire law should be deemed so; as opposed to declaring the entire law unconstitutional. Have you heard of this, PH? I don’t really understand this matter of precedence in the law. Why must judges or lawyers follow bad precedence? Interested in hearing you comments on these matters.

    Comment by Jeff Edelman | July 22, 2012 | Reply

    • Judges have an endless supply of “legal maxims” from which they choose in order to “justify” the result they want in a case.

      Long ago, judges abandoned the concept that THE LAW is a body of fixed Principles and Standards to which they must conform.

      Judges no longer see themselves as UNDER the law – they see THEMSELVES as THE LAW: THEIR word is “law”. So they rule however they want and choose the legal maxim [such as the one you quoted] which “justifies” the result they want.

      I skimmed that part of the majority opinion which says the “taxing clause” permits obamacare. I don’t remember the particular legal maxims Roberts recited. It doesn’t matter b/c all these maxims do is “justify” the opinion the judges write.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | July 22, 2012 | Reply

  25. Reblogged this on Political Ness.

    Comment by DarcsFalcon | July 15, 2012 | Reply

  26. A paraphrased, but overheard conversation. Makes one want to cry.
    Louis Alden

    Boy, no one seems to understand that Supreme Court decision everyone’s talking about.

    What do you mean?

    Wasn’t one of the mandates of the Founders that it be written so that it could be understood by just about anyone?

    Yeah, but why do you ask?

    Well, if that’s the case, why are so many people, you know-all of those commentators on TV and the press-so confused with what this latest ruling by Chief Justice Roberts?

    I don’t understand.

    Well, most of those guys say the decision had more to do with what the press would say about him rather than what the Constitution said, or how it will affect all of us.

    No, I don’t think so. I guess it was such a complicated issue that only the Chief Justice, with years of legal education, could be wise enough to issue a just decision.

    But if I remember right, just about anyone-even someone without a law degree-could be nominated to a justice on the Supreme Court-so by the Constitution, couldn’t anyone on the court be wise enough to just follow the Constitution?

    Yeah, but this was different. This time the country needed a really, really wise decision that would put the health care thing to rest and not look partisan.

    But that wouldn’t have been a problem if all those smart people just went by what was written by the Founders, right?

    How do you mean?

    The way I read it is that the Constitution was written to insure the branches of government had only enumerated powers. You know, establish a Navy, Post Office, trade-that sort of thing. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be there at all.

    But this is different! Just like Social Security, Medicare and Food Stamps, this had to be decided by that part of the Constitution that says: “promote the general welfare,” and, and sometimes-it’s found in that commerce clause thing that means, means-well, it takes really wise men to figure out what that means.

    But what about those enumerated powers?

    You should know that when it comes to the general welfare, those enumerated powers don’t count-there’s no limit.

    Why?

    Just because.

    You mean just like the President’s enumerated powers don’t count when he want to push something on the people he knows would never get past the Congress? Like with that executive order thing?

    Yeah, well, kind of.

    Just where did the Supreme Court, Congress and the President get the authority to ignore those enumerated-you know-those limits put on the their powers; did it take very, very wise men to figure out when those enumerated powers don’t count anymore? Will they ever count in the future?

    Well, it’s kind of complicated. Maybe we ought to talk about that some other time.

    Comment by Louis Alden | July 15, 2012 | Reply

  27. http://www.westernjournalism.com/in-2014-the-obama-dictatorship-will-be-complete/

    Read this. I haven’t checked it out personally, but think they are reputable. Use this to encourage your delegation to Congress to repeal obamacare. Use it to get your States to nullify obamacare of secede from the Federation.

    Comment by Publius/Huldah | July 11, 2012 | Reply

  28. […] The “Taxing Clause”, Five Lawless Judges, and obamacare (Publius Huldah) Courier Service:FacebookTwitterDiggEmailPrintMoreRedditStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. […]

    Pingback by The Constitution: It’s Around Here Somewhere | Be Sure You're RIGHT, Then Go Ahead | July 10, 2012 | Reply

  29. One point I would like to bring up, that if you mentioned it, I simply missed it. That is the “General Welfare” clause. Ask a prospective Constitutional attorney to please explain the General Welfare clause.

    Article 1, Section 8 is where the term general Welfare is listed. No, I did not mistype the words. In the Constitution the word ‘general’ is lower case, while the word ‘Welfare’ is capitalized.

    Since words do not necessarily mean the same thing after hundreds of years, let us look at two definitions of welfare.

    Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (1955): wel·fare (w l fâr) n. 1. a. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being. b. Prosperity.

    Wikipedia (2011): The provision of a minimal level of wellbeing and social support for all citizens.

    WOW! has that definition ever changed?

    The founders wrote that Congress was responsible for the general wellbeing (general Welfare) of the United States (The Country!). Today’s politicians believe that Congress is responsible for the wellbeing and social support for all citizens. Note the difference? The Founders were speaking about the country while todays politicians are pandering for votes from the citizens.

    The so-called General Welfare clause is not a clause at all. It is part of a definition of the purpose of the 17 items that are listed by the founders in Section 8, not one of the 17 items in itself.

    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. (for the bThat is the way Defense is spelled in the Constitution)

    Then the Constitution goes on and expands on this general definition and adds specific duties. For instance:
    To pay the Debts, the first of the 17 itemized items is: To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To pay the Debt, you borrow money.
    To provide for the common Defence numbers 11 and 12 in the list of the17items says specifically: To raise and support armies,… and number 12: To provide and maintain a Navy. To provide Defense, you form an army and a navy.
    To provide for the general Welfare you (2) regulate commerce with foreign Nations…(4)coin money…(6) establish post offices…(7) promote the Progress of Science…(13) make rules for Government.

    Do you see how the Founders explained what the 17 items were for in the beginning of the Section? They were not listing each item in the first paragraph as a ‘clause’. Otherwise you would hear Congressional members spouting the Taxes clause, the Duties clause, the Imposts clause, Excise clause, Debts clause, Defense clause. Remember that almost all of the Democrats in the Senate are lawyers and are trained to parse words, make incorrect statements as fact to sway you to their belief.

    I had better stop before I climb up onto my soapbox and start on the ‘necessary and proper’ clause. (Which is not a clause)

    Now a favor, Please go to constitutionaloversightposse.org and sign up, We need Constitutional scholars to assist us in takeing back the U.S.A.

    Thank you.

    Comment by Suncoast | July 8, 2012 | Reply

  30. Publius, you are infinitely more qualified on the Constitution than our lawless SCOTUS! You are the FIRST that I’ve heard mention that Obamacare is un-Constitutional on its face simply because health care is NOT one of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government. I’m sick of hearing so-called conservatives arguing over the “commerce clause” and the “tax clause” and even trying to put a positive spin on John Robert’s OPINION. They’ve accepted government’s hand in health care and are merely arguing over the implementation details. Thank you for your efforts!

    Comment by Brett Hannah | July 7, 2012 | Reply

    • Thank you, Brett! Thank you for having a functioning brain. Thank you for being able to think at all, not to mention being able to think out of the box.

      Now, if we just had 200,000 million of you, I wouldn’t worry.

      I was just thinking about how all these moronic establishment conservatives are doing us in. How do people get to be so shallow?

      But there is at least one more person with us. The other day, Dr. Walter E. Williams sat in for Rush Limbaugh, and Dr. Williams knows about enumerated powers. He also said the States should man up and nullify it. I wrote Model Nullification Resolutions some months ago – now I’ll revise them for obamacare and the HHS Rules.

      Man, I am sick to death of other peoples’ STUPIDITY.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | July 7, 2012 | Reply

  31. […] Blog | The Taxing Clause, Five Lawless Judges, and obamacare. Our federal Constitution is one of enumerated powers only. This means that WE THE PEOPLE, who […]

    Pingback by Saturday Links – We’re Famous Edition | What Would The Founders Think? | July 7, 2012 | Reply

  32. Okay, I’ve got a question. You say: “To put Madison in modern English: Clauses 1 & 2 grant to Congress the power to raise money; clauses 3-16 enumerate the objects on which Congress may appropriate the money so raised, thus limiting clauses 1 & 2.”

    But this doesn’t limit how the money may be raised. It only limits how the money may be spent.

    And in fact, later you say “See where it says in Clause 1, “To lay and collect Taxes”? The Lawless Five assert that this phrase authorizes Congress to lay & collect taxes for any purposes whatsoever.”

    Under the explanation given by Madison, couldn’t Congress do the same thing, and tax those without healthcare and then appropriate that money to, for example, national defense? That would have the same impact as the Individual Mandate but would be an appropriation that would be within the limits of clauses 3-16. And, isn’t that essentially the justification that the five gave? That is, we can’t spend the money in any way (despite the fallacious interpretation of Necessary & Proper and Commerce clauses) but we can raise it in any way.

    Where is the means of raising the money limited, as opposed to what the money raised is spent on? Is Congress constitutionally limited in its goals? For example, if its goal is not to get revenue but to encourage behavior, then that is unconstitutional regardless of the means of raising the revenue?

    Thanks.

    Comment by Ross | July 6, 2012 | Reply

    • Ross,

      1. The key to understanding our Constitution is that IT IS ONE OF ENUMERATED POWERS ONLY. What that means is this: Our Constitution lists – itemizes – the objects on which the federal government is authorized to act.

      The Constitution does NOT authorize the federal government to take over the provision and denial of medical care for the people. Therefor, since there is no authority to take it over, the federal government may not lawfully take it over. When they do so anyway, they unlawfully usurp powers.

      We can compare Our Constitution to a “limited power of attorney“. There are two kinds of “powers of attorney” (P/A): Limited P/A & general P/A. A Limited P/A lists – itemizes – what the holder of the P/A is authorized to do. E.g., I can give you a limited P/A which authorizes you to sell my 1934 Silver Cloud Rolls Royce.

      A General P/A authorizes the holder of the P/A to do anything & everything the grantor of the P/A may lawfully do. Say, you have been diagnosed with early Altzheimers. You might be wise to give a general P/A to someone whom you trust completely to properly manage your affairs and property for the rest of your life, since you will be incapable of doing so.

      WE THE PEOPLE gave the federal government only a “Limited P/A”. We itemized the powers we were giving them. I list most of the powers WE THE PEOPLE delegated to Congress over the Country at Large in my most recent paper!

      2. You must read Art. I, §8, cl. 1 in the light cast by all other clauses in the Constitution dealing with taxation, as well as by the “enumeration of particulars” in Art. I, § 8, clauses 3-16, by which the meaning of clause 1 is “ascertained & limited” as to the LAWFUL OBJECTS OF CONGRESS’ SPENDING. THIS is what Madison is talking about in Federalist No. 41, last 4 paras.

      One must understand the entire Constitution in order to understand any one part. One may NOT properly read any clause out of the context of the entire Document and insert his own understandings and gimmicks.

      As to Congress’ LAWFUL, constitutionally granted powers to tax, see:

      Art. I, §2, cl. 3 which provides for the Census in order to permit the apportionment of direct Taxes. This was to be each State’s share of taxes to be paid to the the federal government by the States, based on the population of each State.

      Art. I, §7, cl. 1 which requires that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House.

      Art. I, §8, cl. 1, which imposes the uniformity requirement on duties, imposts and Excises.

      Art. I, §9, cl. 4, which prohibits any direct tax on the People of the States or any other direct Tax, except for the one laid on the States pursuant to the Authority granted by Art. I, §2, cl. 3. [A “direct tax” is a tax which is assessed directly on States or on individuals and which is paid directly to the federal government; as opposed to import tariffs or excise taxes which are imposed on objects of commerce.]

      There are other clauses in the Constitution dealing with taxes – read thru them. You get the idea. Read thru the Constitution, look for all the taxing clauses, read them. The last in time of the provisions dealing with taxation is the 16th Amendment, which imposed a direct tax on “incomes”.

      The Constitution VERY STRICTLY LIMITS THE MANNER IN WHICH CONGRESS MAY LEVY & COLLECT TAXES.

      You will NOT find any authority in the Constitution for Congress to impose the new tax for obamacare. It is not a direct tax to be paid by the States. It is not a tariff, toll, or excise tax. It is not income tax. In short, the tax levied by obamacare is nowhere authorized by the Constitution. THIS is an alternative & fundamental objection to obamacare. I just didn’t write about it, b/c Rush Limbaugh pointed this out, and many people have been talking about this. So MY paper is about the threshold issue that “medical care” is not one of the enumerated powers.

      But today, the totalitarians in the federal government, statist law professors, and all other statist totalitarians which now infest our Country, see Our Constitution as an opportunity for them to show how clever they are by the extent of their PERVERSIONS of its original intent.

      You ask, “could they do this?”, “could they do that”? Well, they have seized the POWER to do it, but their acts are UNLAWFUL.

      The decision for you and for all other Americans is this: Are we going to permit the statists to impose a totalitarian dictatorship on us? I spent a good bit of time in Communist Countries during the Cold War. I know a good bit about NAZI Germany. Americans have NO IDEA what is ahead for them if they don’t wise up PDQ.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | July 7, 2012 | Reply

      • thank you. That answered my question very well.

        Comment by Ross | July 7, 2012 | Reply

        • Any time, Ross!

          Comment by Publius/Huldah | July 7, 2012 | Reply

  33. G-d bless you Publius for all the work you do for Americans in education us all. I knew Roberts was no hero like the media was trying to convince the America Public. Supreme Court Judges are not paid to play politics nor are they paid to save their own asses…. they are paid to do exactly what you have taught us here….. and NONE of them earned their paycheck on this one. I say fire them all and replace everyone of them! You have over 80% of American’s elected Representatives proud to be card carrying Communist, add to that a bench of Lawless Judged…. and you have a Nation whose Freedom is now being destroyed. Until America cleans house they are going to continue down the road of Communism. My prayer is that Wake Up before Bloodshed is their only alternative to Freedom!!!!!

    Comment by Veronica Varallo | July 6, 2012 | Reply

  34. […] The “Taxing Clause”, Five Lawless Judges, and obamacare. « Publius-Huldah’s Blog […]

    Pingback by New and Noteworthy for Today, July 6, 2012 - Survival Blog With A Family Focus | July 6, 2012 | Reply

  35. […] READ & Share@~> The “Taxing Clause”, Five Lawless Judges, and obamacare by Publius Huldah […]

    Pingback by Randoms: My Dog Can’t Impeach the Assassins of Our Character, She Just Is. « SubConch | July 5, 2012 | Reply

  36. Once again a great article showing us the truth.
    The only quible i have is the part about electing romney to get rid of this monstrosity.
    Anyone who thinks romney and the rest of the republicans will do anything to lead us back to the constitution are nuts. At best they will simply run us off into the ditch a little slower than the democrats. That’s the truth, no matter how much it hurts to admit it.

    Comment by yo | July 5, 2012 | Reply

    • So you think obama should be re-elected?

      The whole point of electing Romney IS to slow things down. With Romney, we will get 4 more years in which to wake up the Ignorant Americans.

      With obama, I expect many of us will get a bullet in our heads. Remember! obama’s close associates (Bill Ayers, Anita Dunn, George soros, etc.) just love mass murder.

      There is a particularly spiteful group of Americans who are so angry that their candidate didn’t get the nomination, that they want to take revenge on the American People by having obama re-elected.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | July 5, 2012 | Reply

  37. My first comment didn’t show up. Don’t know if it will later, so this might be a duplicate. But anyway, what did you think about the other parts of the opinion- specifically the commerce clause and elastic clause parts- they seem to be moving a little closer to intent there. Also, what did you think about Miller v Alabama? Thomas had a great dissent in that one.

    Comment by Ross | July 5, 2012 | Reply

  38. Did you read the opinion? Were the constructions of the Necessary and Proper and Commerce clauses correct? I haven’t read it yet, but those sections irritated the liberals, so I figured they might be correct. I was also curious what you thought about Miller v Alabama. Clarence Thomas had a good dissent in that case.

    Comment by Ross | July 5, 2012 | Reply

    • Ross, It doesn’t matter what The Lawless Five said about the “interstate commerce” or “necessary & proper” clauses!!!

      The supreme Court just created a NEW MONSTER: The federal government can do whatever it wants to us. Just call it a “tax”. And if the Congress & the president don’t call it a “tax”, the supreme Court will call it a “tax”.

      My paper on this is just out. It’s on the front page of my website.

      I haven’t read Miller v. Alabama. I must keep my focus where it is – and that normally doesn’t include criminal cases. Clarence Thomas usually writes very good opinions.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | July 5, 2012 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 880 other followers

%d bloggers like this: