Mar
25

The “good and welfare” clause is your new series of tubes

By


You know what’s painful? Linking to Fox News. You know what’s even more painful? Linking to bag of dicks Sean Hannity on Fox News. Unfortunately, Roger Ailes’ propaganda shop is always the first on the scene when someone like John Conyers does something stupid. There you go.

Conyers can’t even blame this gaffe on his wife, the convicted felon. The second most senior member of the U.S. House (and Judiciary Committee Chairman) says health care reform is kosher under the…sigh…“good and welfare” clause in the Constitution. One can assume he meant the “general Welfare” language in the Constitution’s Preamble. Or maybe he meant Good and Plenty candy. Conyers should’ve mixed in a “such as the Iraq” for good measure. Whereas. Also.

Since the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is unable to coherently answer a rudimentary Constitutional question, Dyspathy will do it for him.

The Constitution’s Preamble does charge the government organized therein to “promote the general Welfare.” The Supreme Court, in United States v. Butler, interpreted that phrasing to mean: “Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.”

Article 1; Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes…” The new health care law is nothing if not a regulation of the commercial product known as health insurance.

For those knuckle-dragging dullards, like Mike Cox, who believe states can “opt-out” (because they masturbate furiously to the 10th Amendment), there’s this thing called the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In a nutshell, that means Michigan residents have a Constitutional right the same federal laws as the residents of Ohio or Utah or Vermont. It’s true that the framers didn’t include the 14th Amendment in the Constitution. However, they did write a process into the Constitution to amend it. The 14th Amendment was ratified through that process. Just as our Founding Fathers intended. Don’t like it? Get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the state to repeal the 14th Amendment. Or shut up.

But, back to Monica Conyers’ husband. Given the partisan tension in Washington, Democrats would be well advised to give Committee chairmanships to their sharpest minds. Think of governing like slicing a ripe tomato. John Conyers is a plastic Taco Bell spork in a drawer full of Ginsu knifes.

The worst part? It’s hard to mock the incoherent ramblings of right-wingers when a high-ranking Democratic leader is spouting equally retarded gibberish. Apologies to Trigg. Let’s hope Nancy Pelosi can bestow a Chairman Emeritus title on Conyers and send him to that Congressional hospice on the back bench. (FoxNews)

Categories : Political Obituary

7 Comments

1

Is it a tax or is it a fee or fine? Or is there no legal semantic difference under the commerce clause? I don’t know because I’m not a lawyer, super or otherwise. This seems like a punitive tax on people, and I’m uncomfortable using taxation as punishment. If it’s a fee, perhaps that’s one this. But if it’s a tax, and there’s a legal difference from a fee, then … I don’t know. If I drive w/o car insurance, I get in trouble and pay a fine. If it’s a fine, call it a fine, not a tax or fee. It’s punishment, not a collection of the tax to promote the general welfare — so that’s why I think there’s a commerce clause question here. If it’s a fine for not doing something, then it shouldn’t be handled by the IRS. But greater .. dare I say, super … legal minds will figure this out, with the attendant mewling from talking heads across the spectrum.

2
Woodward's Friend
March 26th, 2010 at 11:21 am

Hell if I know, Bill. I just wanted to jury-rig a better Constitutional argument, after five minutes of legal research on the Google, than the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee could muster.

I suspect the individual mandate’s Constitutionality will come down to Anthony Kennedy’s interpretation of the Interstate Commerce and Equal Protection clauses.

3

Does your wife take bribes, too? Wait … are they still alleged bribes now that she’s rescinding the rescind-proof guilty plea? I need a lawyer to explain that to me, too.

4
Woodward's Friend
March 26th, 2010 at 11:52 am

I wish. Then we could send our kids to Cranbrook.

5

Did you create your own blog or did a program do it? Could you please respond? I like poop. 53

6

What I find interesting is all these people bitching about Obama Care already get some type of government hand out. I know Republicans in their 60s bitching about Obama Care and how it’s socialism and marxism but are the first ones on the phone bitching to the Social Security Administration when their checks are a day late and are the first ones in line to get their Medicare supplements.

7

Most Tea Baggers are on some type of government assistance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/us/politics/28teaparty.html

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.