House Majority Leader Pushes Unconstitutional Government

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD)

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD)

We have a serious problem in America when the U.S. House Majority Leader–a leadership position of no small importance–either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about one of the most fundamental tenets of his own government.

From CNS News:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”

Rep. Hoyer is either pathetically ignorant about his own government (and if he’s that bad, he has no business leading within that government) or he knows the truth and he’s an outright liar.

For anyone who might only be ignorant about our government, please allow the men who created our government to enlighten you:

The Constitution says, “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, &c., provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States”. I suppose the meaning of this clause to be, that Congress may collect taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare, in those cases wherein the Constitution empowers them to act for the general welfare. To suppose that it was meant to give them a distinct substantive power, to do any act which might tend to the general welfare, is to render all the enumerations useless, and to make their powers unlimited. – Thomas Jefferson

Our tenet ever was…that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. – Thomas Jefferson

They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please…Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. – Thomas Jefferson

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. – Thomas Jefferson

[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. – James Madison

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison

With respect to the two words ‘ general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government. – James Jackson, First Congress

A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. – Thomas Jefferson

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet’ and `Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free. – John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions 1787

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – James Madison

Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. – James Madison

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. … Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America. – James Madison

Does anything the founders have said sound anything remotely like “broad authority”? Of course not.

Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution clearly defines the areas the federal government is empowered to govern; if something is not enumerated here, the federal government has no authority to legislate or execute in that area.

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly states that any authority not delegated to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Ours is not a “make it up as you go” form of government.  That is a government of men–men’s opinions–not law.  We have a written constitution for a reason: so that our government many not be changed and our freedoms wiped out by the whim of a group of people.  It is the governing authority for all other laws in our nation, and it was made difficult to change (through the amendment process) for a reason.

The founders made the purpose of a firm, written constitution clear as well:

[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights. – Thomas Jefferson

Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. – Thomas Jefferson

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. – James Madison

[T]he Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution. But this doctrine is not deducible from any circumstance peculiar to the plan of convention, but from the general theory of a limited Constitution. – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 81, 1788

What Hoyer proposes is a gross perversion of our Constitution and our system of government. I have to believe he knows better and is intentionally lying. I simply cannot believe someone of his stature can be that profoundly ignorant about our government.

Though socialists in the past have tried to hijack the General Welfare clause to promote illegal programs, even the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has admitted that such an un-American move as Hoyer advocates would be an “unprecedented form of federal action.”

It is an outrage to see our own government not only try to violate the U.S. Constitution by trying to force this freedom-robbing socialist monstrosity on the American people, but to actually see a representative of our government try to pervert the Constitution to facilitate that crime.

I sincerely hope the good people of Hoyer’s district are watching closely and see how hostile their representative is to their freedom and to their Constitution which Hoyer swore to protect and defend. Other Americans around the country might want to consider sending a contribution to whoever ends up opposing Hoyer, as well.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark
  • Mac
    Healthcare is one of this things Bob that should not be run on profit. That is immoral in God's eyes. We are talking about peoples' lives and they are not worth $$$ in God's eyes. Privitization is why we are in this mess to begin with. The Public Option will be the only meaningful and successful attempt at reforming our broken system. We can not trust a track record led by the corrupt and inefficient insurance oligarchy.
  • Really? And you base that on what authority? Your own misinformed opinion?

    How do you know God considers free market health care immoral? Was it in the Ten Commandments? Was it in the Mosaic Law? Was it anywhere in the New Testament. Of course it wasn't

    You will, however, find multiple instances in both Old and New Testaments where private enterprise was smiled upon by God, along with his establishment of the sanctity of property rights.

    You see, socialists like yourself somehow conveniently miss the reality that someone has to pay for every product or service in society. Are you working for free? I'm pretty sure you aren't going in to a job for 8+ hours a day and working for love and good will. It costs money to procure materials for medical goods, and the people who perform medical services deserve an income, do they not? Of course they do.

    So if the free market doesn't pay for it, who does? The people who work in free market jobs, with their taxes. And there are several key problems with government robbing people to give that money to someone else.

    For one thing, virtually every government program is inefficient, highly expensive and wasteful. And those of us who have spent some time under socialists systems in other countries know as well as anyone how grossly inefficient they are, as well as the exorbitant taxes that are required to support such a wasteful system. Further, we've seen the tremendous abuse in the system; anything you make "free" will have freeloaders coming out of the woodwork to misuse and abuse it.

    Theft, for another thing, because government isn't authorized by God or the Constitution to take money from one person and give it to another.

    Speaking of the Constitution, no where in it will you find authority for the kind of socialist scheme you advocate. Did you even bother to read anything I wrote? I cannot see how you possibly could have.

    I don't have a real big problem with ignorance. We have all been ignorant of certain things at one time or another, but it is our responsibility to learn. But once we've been presented with the incontrovertible truth on a silver platter as you have been here..and still remain oblivious to it, well, sir, that is truly pathetic.

    Until you can open your eyes and turn on your brain, we don't need any more of your ignorant peddling of socialism here.
  • brianrutledge
    I have been practicing medicne for 25 years and the abuse in the private system is repugnant.Money mongers are feeding off the health of others. This isn't like government subsidies for food stamps etc but we are talking about people needlessly dying because they have no health insurance. Many are simply too afraid to get help until it's often too late.

    Medicare has no more fraud in it than the private systems and has lower overhead. I am sorry but if the public option saves one life then it is worth it.Private enterprise had its chance and it failed. My moral code puts life above the fear of government expansion
  • What moral code, Dr, Rutledge? You apparently regard yourself as the final arbiter of morality on this issue, based upon your experiences and prejudices. If you deny an ultimate moral authority then talk of morality is merely specious, at best.

    I have practiced medicine in some fashion since 1969, and always at the front lines. I have seen countless selfless acts by physicians and nurses (and even hospital administrators!) and little of what you describe as "money mongers." That there are some only demonstrates man's fallen nature and is not unique to health care professionals.

    Before government got involved almost all physicians considered charity care an obligation of the profession. I was told by wise older physicians that at least 10% of my practice should be charity and for several years practiced just that way. That is, until the government got involved. Then my fees were "discounted" or frozen and I was told that I could NOT do any charity care under threat of fines and loosing my Medicare/Medicaid certifications. When Medicare "discounts" my charges below what it actually costs to provide a service where do I go to make up the difference? You know, of course, that we must increase our fees so as to get something a little closer to reality, but that also raises the fees for the uninsured who then cannot afford my services. And, I've already told you that we are not allowed to discount fees or see patients for free because if the government finds out we will be hit with staggering fines and threats to our family's livlihood.

    Government has wrought great mischief in the health care arena and at a very high cost. The actual costs of Medicare administration is close to 60% of the health care dollar. By creative accounting, money-laundering through obscure departments and out-right lies they will say that it is much lower, but they cannot hide the fact that Medicare is quickly going broke and only deep rationing and cuts in reimbursements can possibly keep it going.

    You wrote, "This isn't like government subsidies for food stamps etc but we are talking about people needlessly dying because they have no health insurance." Why isn't it like subsidies for food stamps? Food is much more fundamental to health and survival that medical care. By your reasoning, why shouldn't we have "universal groceries?" If it could save "only one life" wouldn't it be worth it? Additionally, I am not aware of people dying in the streets for lack of health insurance, Dr. Rutledge. If you know of some cases, then why didn't you do something to help?

    What you are advocating will destroy medical care in the United States and reduce us to a third-world system where everyone but the elite will get equally abominal care at a staggering cost in taxes and loss of jobs. I, for one, do not intend to ever work in such a system.
  • brianrutledge
    dr theo I was a little surprised that you would claim that I feel I am the final arbiter of morality. I just rreferred to 'my' moral code that feels that no human should die or suffer, if we can help them. Others may or may not agree, but I will go to my death believing that. Your display of self-conscious virtue caught me off guard and I would ask you which moral beliefs do you have that I do not. My main moral mantra is 'do unto others....' which was espoused by many before Luke and Matthew and most notably by Confucius 500 years before Christ.The Greeks said it as well.

    I don't commit adultery,try not to covet, don't steal,honor my mom and dad etc. I base my life on morality that I would guess is identitical to yours.In fact my beliefs are quite rigid and burned into my being I just don't think it comes from the supernatural. If you and I have the same moral code and live our lives passionately according to that code, how can you call mine specious ?
  • If there is no ultimate moral authority then what you call morality is an illusion and a meaningless affectation.

    I trust that you are a moral person because you know in your heart that it matters. Those that truly believe that we and all the universe are simply protons, electrons and neutrons inconsequentially bouncing off each other should rightly scoff at talk of "morality."

    In challenging your morality I saw what I expected to see. You responded as any moral person would, with indignation and certitude. It is almost as if you really believe that human life has a purpose.
  • brianrutledge
    Yeah, I tried to avoid the indignation and certitude with all my might, but just couldn't suppress it. I wake up everyday full of purpose. Many goals I want to reach and one of the main ones is always try to do to others what I would wish they would do to my wife and daughters ( I have changed my Golden Rule to 'my family' rather than 'me' because I feel that sounds self-serving when one says 'do unto me')

    If I wonder this earth for 80 years and follow that rule,and genuinely treat people lovingly and do no harm, why is that morality an illusion or a meaningless affectation? Have not others benefitted from it and hopefully had better lives because of it? My daughters are quite moral people and I think( hope) I had something to do with it. Is that a meaningless affectation in your eyes? I am not indignant, but curious.
  • Brian, I wholeheartedly believe that you are a sincere, moral and thoughtful person. I have seen much evidence of that in previous discussions. What I am challenging you to think about is the purpose that compels such virtues. I think that you know in your heart that there is in reality both good and evil and that a life devoted to doing good is the most rewarding and emotionally (or more precisely, spiritually) satisfying. But why should that be if life is nothing more than chance arrangements of matter and energy?


    Jeffrey Dahmer was asked in a jailhouse interview how he could have done the horrendous things that he did. He responded that he was taught and believed that there is nothing more than this fleeting time on earth and then death. Therefore, nothing that he did mattered except to provide him some momentary pleasure and satisfaction during his short existence. You know, Brian, he has a point.

    The love that you have for your family is not an accidental by-product of evolution and it does matter in the great scheme of things, because God gave us that capacity to love because he loves us first.

    Paul tells us in Romans 1:20
    "From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse."

    God's divine nature, created in you, is that thing that compels you to do good, Brian.
  • brianrutledge
    I deeply admire your belief system. Deeply admire, but have a question. It is not questioning or challenging your beliefs, but is more of asking an explanation of a conundrum I see.

    You stated that Dahmer said he was taught there was nothing after this life and so he pleasured himself by doing those hideous deeds. He also was aware of the Christian God and was given the same divine nature that God gave me, so as I understand your belief and the Christian ideology, Dahmer used his free will to decide what route to take in life. Dahmer, like you and I, are not robots and do have choices or a free will.

    My understanding is that God gave us this free will, which is indepedant of His control and up to the individual to use and we also make moral choices using it. If Dahmer used his free, independent will to be immoral, then don't I use an independent free will to be moral ?
  • Dahmer, and others of like mind, make a decision in life to reject the law written on their hearts. It is a decision borne of free will, but arrived at by convincing themselves that they, and we, are as meaningless as a stone and therefore of no consequence. You and I believe that human life does have a purpose so act according to the law that God places on the heart of all humans beings.

    If you mean to suggest that Dahmer's decisions and yours are fundamentally equivalent, then you have a real conundrum, my friend.
  • brianrutledge
    I see what your saying and don't feel the decisions that Dahmer and I make are fundamentally equivalent, but for different reasons than you stated. I guess it all comes down to something you mentioned earlier and that is whether evolution has an explanation for moral behavior. I think it has an excellent explantion and you feel God divinely gave us the capacity to act morally and love one another and it is then up to us to choose or reject that divine nature.

    I am as sure as a human can be sure of anything that when I die that there is nothing for me. That doesn't make me feel empty at all and I rarely, if ever, even think about it. I used to when I first realised the implications, but came to grips with it. I was nothing for eternity before my life and will simply return to that state. If anything, it makes me wants to experience life, love and family while I'm here.The fact that there is no afterlife shouldn't negate me doing the right things in life.

    That's why I am retiring in January and hopefully get out and spread a little good cheer in this little dot called earth.
  • Private enterprise hasn't been given a chance in this country for 40-60 years, so it's incorrect to say it hasn't been given a chance; our system has been too heavily infested with government meddling to have worked properly.

    But if you still believe--despite all the evidence around the world throughout history that finally, this time socialism can work, you need to push for a major change to our constitution.

    Because this idea is flatly illegal according to the Constitution.
  • Macgregor
    More and more people support the Public Option, because it is the only serious attempt at reforming our eroding medical system with unreliable insurance. The polls show the overwhelming majority want the Public Option and it appears the House is going to fight hard to pass it as they should and force the Senate's hand to go along. It is the best plan to for keeping down costs and controlling deficit. I just knew they would fight hard in the House for the Public Option. Good for them and us!
  • Actually, no, it's not the only serious attempt at reforming our medical system. These socialists don't want to reform our system; they want to socialize it.

    To reform our system, it needs to be taken back to a fully privatized system that is in line with American values and our Constitution. Getting government out of over-regulating the industry, increasing competition (between private companies, not this BS of "government competition), and more consumer involvement in health care decisions are the way to go.

    And no, polls do NOT show show support for socialist health care. Just yesterday Rasmussen found 54% opposed to this garbage. Even CNN has a recent poll which finds most Americans disagree with President Obama. You must have been dining at the table of "mainstream" media propaganda.

    America was designed to be a free country, and that is what we should remain. Until these socialists actually change our Constitution through the amendment process, measures such as those proposed by the White House and congress are illegal.
blog comments powered by Disqus