Joined: 18 Feb 2007
|Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 3:13 pm Post subject: Bill HR 2387, prohibit using Federal funds for mental health
|Bill HR 2387, Prohibiting Use of Federal Funds for Mental Health
Bill HR 2387 is: To prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental health screening program.
Go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and enter HR 2387 in the Search Bill Text box.
My question is, why pass a bill to prohibit Congress from doing that which they are not authorized or empowered, by the Constitution, to do in the first place?
For instance, in convention, Friday, June 8, 1787, on giving "the National Legislature authority to negative all [State] laws which they shd judge to be improper," it was rejected and denied to Congress, and remains so to this day, to wit, ...
....."Mr. WILLIAMSON was against giving a power that might restrain the States from regulating their internal police."
...and, in convention, Tuesday, July 17, 1787, on the power,
....."Mr. GERRY cd not see the extent of such a power, and was against EVERY POWER THAT WAS NOT NECESSARY."
....."He observed that the proposed negative wd extend to the regulations of the Militia, a matter on which the existence of a State might depend."
....."The States too have different interests and are ignorant of each other 's interests. The negative therefore will be abused. NEW STATES TOO HAVING SEPARATE VIEWS FROM THE OLD STATES WILL NEVER COME INTO THE UNION. THEY MAY EVEN BE UNDER SOME FOREIGN INFLUENCE; ARE THEY IN SUCH CASE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NEGATIVE ON THE WILL OF THE OTHER STATES?"
....."to make laws binding on the people of the United States in all cases which may concern the COMMON INTERESTS OF THE UNION;... and wherein the GENERAL WELFARE of the U. STATES IS NOT CONCERNED."
The above proposed added power was negatived (rejected), and so denied to Congress and remains so to this day.
Nowhere in the Constitution can it be found that the Congress has any such power that the proposed bill (HR 2387) is to supposedly deny. And, how can the Congress legislate for the welfare of a mentally ill child, having nothing to do with any of the enumerated objects in the Constitution, if they are at the same time denied the power to legislate in "cases which may concern the COMMON INTERESTS OF THE UNION;... and wherein the GENERAL WELFARE of the U. STATES IS NOT CONCERNED."
So, can it not then be said that, to present such a bill is to also unconstitutionally suggest that the Congress has such power that is to be denied, when in fact they have no such power that can be denied to begin with?
The content of this paper is derive from plain meaning of the Journals of the Convention at Philadelphia, the several State conventions, The Federalist Papers and Congressional Records.
(This post is protected under the copyright laws of the United States of America. You may not reproduce this post without express written permission from the poster. You may, however, disseminate a link to this post in any electronic communication or web page.)