Friday, December 19, 2014

Ben Carson's Bizarre Explanation Of Why Obamacare Is Unconstitutional

The likely GOP presidential candidate explained that the law helps some people while hurting others, so is therefore unconstitutional: “Your solution should be something that represents all the people. The Constitution says one of the purposes, in the preamble, it says is for the ‘promote the general welfare.’ What that means is that we do things that help everybody, we don’t pick this group and say, ‘We’re going to help you at the expense of this group over here.’ That’s not promoting the general welfare so we’re actually violating the Constitution in that sense.”


Full Definition of GENERAL

1:  involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind, or group general
equation of a straight line>


The Poors, Ben Carson, you crass ignorant house negro, are a class of people. Regardless this question of what the 'general welfare' meant was settled by the supreme court in 1936. But I wouldn't expect you to give a shit you bigoted oreo.

In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
Though the Court decided that Butler was consistent with Madison's philosophy of limited federal government, it adopted Hamilton's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, which gave Congress broad powers to spend federal money. It also established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress.
Ben, please stick to your brand of republican messianic quackery and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.



No comments: