Re: Isn’t the “Individual Mandate” a violation of my right to privacy?

On 1/7/2010 3:51 PM, Joe Steel wrote:
> Luke Pearson wrote in
> news:4b3cf833$0$8236$c5fe31e7 @&*$?%read01.usenet4all.se:
>
>> —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 12/29/2009 2:28 PM, Joe Steel wrote:
>>> You have bizarre ideas.
>>>
>>> Where did you get them? Did you concoct them yourself or did you get
>>> them from so extremist right wing website?
>>>
>>
>> you don’t read much history do you?
>>
>
> Bad guess.
>
>> “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 will render
>> all the others useless…
>>
>
> Good point.
>
> Preamble: …promote the general welfare.
> First Amendment: …petition Congress for a redress of grievances.
> Tenth Amendment: …powers…are reserved to…the people.
>
> The stated intent of the Constitution is “promotion of the general
> welfare.” The People’s right to demand from Congress “redress of
> grievances” is protected by the First Amendment. Finally, the People
> are declared the ultimate sovereign in the Tenth Amendment.
>
> All those “other parts of the instrument” support the construction of
> the general welfare clause as an unlimited power to legislate.
>

The problem is that there is no General welfare clause for “the people”

The preamble says “promote” NOT provide. It’s also not an article of the
constitution it is the mission statement so it is suggesting that the
entire document is to be used to “encourage” congress to do what is best
for the people, but using what is allowed for within the constitution.

The next thing is that in Article 1 Section 8 where it suggests that
congress provide for the “United States” it is referring to the U.S.
Congress providing taxes to spend on the U.S. Governments needs.
*NOT THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE*

If there were a “Welfare clause” then the rest of the document would be
meaningless, as all the congress need do is call any item “public
welfare” and they can ignore the rest of the constitution….

That makes the rest of the document useless in the face of *PUBLIC_WELFARE*

That was not what the preamble is saying, they never say that ultimate
control is in the hands of the United States Congress. In Fact it says
just the opposite.