Presidential candidates agree to trash Constitution!

[johnwk]

See:
House passes bill to regulate tobacco (http://news.aol.com/article/house-passes-bill-to-regulate-tobacco/95128?cid=14)



WASHINGTON -The House on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed legislation that for the first time would subject the tobacco industry to regulation by federal health authorities charged with promoting public well-being.

Its backers call the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act "landmark" legislation. While the bill appears to have enough support to pass this year, it's unclear whether the Senate will have time to act, and the Bush administration issued a veto threat Wednesday.

The 326-102 House vote signaled solid bipartisan support for the measure, with 96 Republicans breaking with President Bush's position to vote in favor of the bill. Both presidential candidates, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., back the legislation. ___(my emphasis)



Well, if you thought either of our two presidential candidates intend to abide by their oath of office to support and defend the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, the above is more evidence they are both tyrannical control freaks of the worst kind, and very much part of our Washington Establishment’s control freak crowd. Both Obama and McCain support the above proposed and tyrannical seizure of power and intend to have Congress enter the states and exercise a power not authorized by our written Constitution.

Let us look at the facts. The legislation titled Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1108) H.R.1108, states in part:



`(b) Registration by Owners and Operators- On or before December 31 of each year every person who owns or operates any establishment in any State engaged in the manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of a tobacco product or tobacco products shall register with the Secretary the name, places of business, and all such establishments of that person.


And the question is, by what constitutional authority does Congress have power to enter a state to regulate tobacco products therein and compel a person who manufactures tobacco products to register with the federal government?

Of course, our control freak crowd on Capitol Hill will claim such power is found under Article 1, Section 8, of our Constitution ___ that Congress has been granted power:


To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

So, let us take a look at the documented intentions for which power was granted to Congress to regulate commerce among [not within] the states. An immediate clue to those intentions is surprisingly discovered in another part of our Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 9:



“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”(my emphasis)

Indeed, we now begin to learn the intentions of our founding fathers with regard to commerce, which was to insure free trade [movement of goods] among the states.

And, in Federalist Paper No. 42] (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed42.htm) Madison articulates the very reasons for which the power to regulate commerce ought to be placed under the national legislature‘s powers:


“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”

The power to regulate commerce among the states was primarily intended to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as those goods passed through its borders. There was never any intention to allow Congress to enter a state to regulate the manufacture, sale, use or consumption of any products what-so-ever!

Additionally, Congress was also to have oversight in a specific and narrowly defined area__ a state‘s inspection laws:



No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. ____ Article 1, Section 10


The documented truth is, Congress is not authorized by our written Constitution, nor was there any intentions expressed during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution, to authorize Congress to enter a state to regulate the manufacture, sale, use, or consumption of any products! As a matter of fact, Congress’s limited powers in this particular area [regulation of commerce among the states] was specifically intended to prevent interference of free trade among the states, which our control freak crowd now attempts to engage in via regulating the manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of a tobacco product or tobacco products.

Aside from the above documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, there is still more glaring evidence, also found in the wording of our Constitution, to show our control freak crowd is acting tyrannically and without Constitutional authority!

In 1920 Congress was granted power to enter the states to prohibit the “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors” see the 18th Amendment. Under section 2, the power to allow Congress to enter the states was intentionally granted by the states to the federal government by the following words:



The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

But this power granted to Congress to enter the various states to regulate the manufacture, sale, or transportation of a product was withdraw by the 21st Amendment by the following words:



The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.


And thus, such power evaporated with the repeal of the 18th Amendment!

In addition, the authority of the various states to once again exercise and assume sovereign control over their own internal affairs and regulate as the people in each state feel is in their own state’s best interests was intentionally taken back and emphasized by section two of the 21st Amendment!



The transportation or importation into any State, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

So why do we have Congress promoting legislation to seize regulatory powers within the various states in violation of our written Constitution which blatantly violates federalism, our Constitution’s plan?

I would say the seizure of such power, aside from the obvious left wing control freak mindset which inspires it, also allows the creation of a substantial number of political plum jobs [federal regulators, administrators, etc.] which are awarded to the friends of big government and loyal to Congress ___ such jobs having excessive salaries, top of the shelf medical and dental plans and a very generous retirement plan, all of with Mary and Joe Sixpack, living South Carolina, can only dream of having but will be taxed to finance! See: WASHINGTON’S POLITICAL PLUM JOB OVERVIEW (http://federaljobs.net/)




Are you considering a government job? The federal government employs more than 2,700,000 workers and hires hundreds of thousands each year to replace civil service workers that transfer to other federal government jobs, retire, or leave for other reasons. Average annual salary for full-time federal government jobs exceeds $67,000. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation's work force. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries. The average annual federal workers compensation, pay plus benefits, is $106,871 compared to just $53,288 for the private sector according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.


Regards,

JWK

“He has erected a multitude of new offices (Washington‘s existing political plum job Empire) (http://www.firstgov.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

[avatar4321]

Did i miss where tobacco regulation was unconstitutional? i dont think its very bright but its hardly a constitutional issue.

[johnwk]

Did i miss where tobacco regulation was unconstitutional? i dont think its very bright but its hardly a constitutional issue.

What you missed is, Congress has not been granted power to enter the various states to regulate the manufacture, sale, use or consumption of any products what-so-ever! But if you have documentation showing those who framed and ratified our Constitution stated otherwise during the framing and ratification process, please feel free to post that documentation.


JWK



Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records during our Constitution‘s framing and ratification process, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[Gaffer]

It's just the start of more regulations to come.

[avatar4321]

What you missed is, Congress has not been granted power to enter the various states to regulate the manufacture, sale, use or consumption of any products what-so-ever! But if you have documentation showing those who framed and ratified our Constitution stated otherwise during the framing and ratification process, please feel free to post that documentation.


JWK



Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records during our Constitution‘s framing and ratification process, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Yeah they have. The commerce clause allows Congress authority to engage in any matter concerning interstate commerce. Manufacture and sale of products that travel between states clearly falls within the jurisdiction of commerce. Tobacco is a nationally sold product. Thus, Congress has authority to regulate it.

We are talking about products in the regular course of business here.

[emmett]

Yeah they have. The commerce clause allows Congress authority to engage in any matter concerning interstate commerce. Manufacture and sale of products that travel between states clearly falls within the jurisdiction of commerce. Tobacco is a nationally sold product. Thus, Congress has authority to regulate it.

We are talking about products in the regular course of business here.


Technically, Congress could beat down the writing in the Constitution and have the authority to regulate anything. Every time we are subjected to a new intrusive law it comes along with language assuring Americans that congress has the "authority" to do it.

One os these days you will:

Be issued a government apartment.

Not be allowed to own property.

Not recieve a paycheck, you will get vouchers for food, medical care and gasoline.

You will have to ask for permisson to cross from one state to another so a background check can be conducted to see if you are a fugitive.

You will not be allowed to travel abroad.

You will live in the Socaialist States of America.





Go ahead and laugh at me. Laugh aloud. Our Liberty is on the chopping block, we all know it and are too damn dumb to care enough to prevent it. 90 something percent of us will go to the voting booth and vote for a republican or a democrat.




VOTE LIBERTARIAN!

[johnwk]

What you missed is, Congress has not been granted power to enter the various states to regulate the manufacture, sale, use or consumption of any products what-so-ever! But if you have documentation showing those who framed and ratified our Constitution stated otherwise during the framing and ratification process, please feel free to post that documentation.


Yeah they have. The commerce clause allows Congress authority to engage in any matter concerning interstate commerce. Manufacture and sale of products that travel between states clearly falls within the jurisdiction of commerce. Tobacco is a nationally sold product. Thus, Congress has authority to regulate it.

We are talking about products in the regular course of business here.

No! We are talking about a proposal to regulate the manufacture of tobacco and tobacco products by Congress.

In any event, you forgot to provide you supportive documentation. But thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion concerning the word “commerce” and your suggestion that Congress, having the power to regulate “commerce” among the states, is authorize to enter the various states to regulate the manufacture, sale, use or consumption of any products Congress may choose to regulate.

However, and as a very important point, the historical record establishes that the word “commerce”, as our founding fathers used the word during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution, was in no way synonymous with a policing power allowing Congress to enter the states to regulate the manufacturing process of goods, the cultivation of agricultural products or their use, or the production processes carried on within the various state borders.

In fact, the word commerce as used by our founding fathers was very limited and synonymous with “trade” ___ the exchange of goods between the states. ___ the transportation and exchange of goods between point A and point B, and/or, between the people of point A and point B. Congress was given the power in question to insure free trade among the states and prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through, and which I documented in the very first post in this thread.

Now, since you seem to be working from an erroneous definition of the word “commerce” as it appears in our Constitution, the following documented examples of the word being used during the ratification process of our Constitution ought to establish beyond any doubt its meaning is synonymously used with “trade”, and it had nothing to do with a policing power over the manufacturing process of goods, the cultivation of agricultural products or their use, or the production processes carried out within the various state borders.

THE FOLLOWING IS TAKEN FROM THE MASSACHUETTS RATIFING CONVENTION WHEN THE CONVENTION WAS DISCUSSING ART. 1 SEC. 8, PROPOSED POWERS OF CONGRESS AND RAISING REVENUE

Mr. DAWES SPEAKING:

“As to commerce, it is well known that the different states” PAGE 57 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=002/lled002.db&recNum=69&itemLink):



now pursue different systems of duties in regard to each other. By this, and for want of general laws of prohibition through the Union, we have not secured even our own domestic traffic that passes from state to state. This is contrary to the policy of every nation on earth. Some nations have no other commerce. The great and flourishing empire of China has but little commerce beyond her own territories; and no country is better circumstanced than we for an exclusive traffic from state to state; yet even in this we are rivalled by foreigners--by those foreigners to whom we are the least indebted. A vessel from Roseway or Halifax finds as hearty a welcome with its fish and whalebone at the southern ports, as though it was built, navigated, and freighted from Salem or Boston. And this must be the case, until we have laws comprehending and embracing alike all the states in the Union.

But it is not only our coasting trade--our whole commerce is going to ruin. Congress has not had power to make even a trade law, which shall confine the importation of foreign goods to the ships of the producing or consuming country

IN CONTINUING ON THE SUBJECT AND Hon. Mr. BOWDOIN SPEAKING: PAGE 83 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=002/lled002.db&recNum=94&itemLink)




These are some of the consequences, certain and infallible, that will flow from the denial of that power to Congress. Shall we then, we of this state, who are so much interested in this matter, deny them that power -- a power so essential to our political happiness?

But if we attend to our trade, as it is at present, we shall find that the miserable state of it is owing to a like want of power in Congress. Other nations prohibit our vessels from entering their ports, or lay heavy duties on our exports carried thither; and we have no retaliating or regulating power over their vessels and exports, to prevent it. Hence a decrease of our commerce and navigation, and the duties and revenue arising from them. Hence an insufficient demand for the produce of our lands, and the consequent discouragement of agriculture. Hence the inability to pay debts, and particularly taxes, which by that decrease are enhanced. And hence, as the necessary result of all these, the emigration of our inhabitants. If it be asked, How are these evils, and others that might be mentioned, to be remedied? the answer is short -- By giving Congress adequate and proper power. Whether such power be given by the proposed Constitution, it is left with the Conventions from the several states, and with us, who compose one of them, to determine.



Now, where do you get the notion that the word “commerce” as used in our Constitution, is intended to vest in Congress a power to enter the various states to regulate the manufacture, sale, use or consumption of any products Congress may choose to regulate, when the intended meaning of the word has to do with the movement of products from state to state and nothing to do with their manufacture, sale, use or consumption? I am eagerly awaiting your documentation showing our founding fathers intended what you allege.

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records during our Constitution‘s framing and ratification process, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[avatar4321]

The manufacture of products is within the chain of commerce. Explain to me how someone can exchange/buy/sell commodities without the commodities being manufactured or created.

I've hardly got a broad view of the commerce clause. My view is significantly stricter than the Supreme Court has ruled in Commerce clause cases. I would gladly argue with you that the law is pointless and should not be passed. But it's hardly unconstitutional.

[johnwk]

The manufacture of products is within the chain of commerce. Explain to me how someone can exchange/buy/sell commodities without the commodities being manufactured or created.

I've hardly got a broad view of the commerce clause. My view is significantly stricter than the Supreme Court has ruled in Commerce clause cases. I would gladly argue with you that the law is pointless and should not be passed. But it's hardly unconstitutional.


I appreciate you debating trick ___ posting and irrelevant statement/opinion, and then switching the subject to an irrelevant question not related to the constitutional definition of “commerce”.

I took the time to post evidence as to the constitutional meaning of “commerce” and you have totally ignored what I have posted.


Now, where do you get the notion that the word “commerce” as used in our Constitution, is intended to vest in Congress a power to enter the various states to regulate the manufacture, sale, use or consumption of any products Congress may choose to regulate, when the intended meaning of the word has to do with the movement of products from state to state and nothing to do with their manufacture, sale, use or consumption? I am eagerly awaiting your documentation showing our founding fathers intended what you allege.


JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

[Yurt]

john, do you know what the "aggregate effect" is?

[avatar4321]

I appreciate you debating trick ___ posting and irrelevant statement/opinion, and then switching the subject to an irrelevant question not related to the constitutional definition of “commerce”.

I took the time to post evidence as to the constitutional meaning of “commerce” and you have totally ignored what I have posted.


Now, where do you get the notion that the word “commerce” as used in our Constitution, is intended to vest in Congress a power to enter the various states to regulate the manufacture, sale, use or consumption of any products Congress may choose to regulate, when the intended meaning of the word has to do with the movement of products from state to state and nothing to do with their manufacture, sale, use or consumption? I am eagerly awaiting your documentation showing our founding fathers intended what you allege.


JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

As I've already pointed out. My definition of commerce is much narrower than the one currently used. Which is mostly because it's the actual definition of commerce.

I take the view if the Founders meant to define commerce some other way, then they would not have used the word that more accurately described what they meant. These were after all very intelligent men here.

[johnwk]

As I've already pointed out. My definition of commerce is much narrower than the one currently used. Which is mostly because it's the actual definition of commerce.

I take the view if the Founders meant to define commerce some other way, then they would not have used the word that more accurately described what they meant. These were after all very intelligent men here.

Thank you for your personal opinion and views, but they offer very little in a discussion concerning the constitutionality of the proposed legislation.

JWK



" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=98&itemLink)

[Mr. P]

Give it up AV, he blow ya to pieces with his first response. AND he's right!

[emmett]

Whoa! That dude comes with his breifcase huh!

Fact is, I don't think we ever in the early days realized that the term commerce would have to have the elasticity that it obviously requires today.

I don't, even after the wonderful research he provided us, and it was done superbly, completely agree that he satisfied the "burden of proof" that the Constitution was actually written to particularly prohibit the government from exercising an entry to state's commerce issues, taxing or overseeing. It would have to be assumed that a certain amount of oversight should be necessary to see each state complied with what was required then. Of course they didn't have rail, trucks and planes to deal with.

It is a taxation issue obviously, which could be completely clarified and fixed with a flat tax across the board. Then the conversation would not be necessary.

[Mr. P]

Whoa! That dude comes with his breifcase huh!

Fact is, I don't think we ever in the early days realized that the term commerce would have to have the elasticity that it obviously requires today.

I don't, even after the wonderful research he provided us, and it was done superbly, completely agree that he satisfied the "burden of proof" that the Constitution was actually written to particularly prohibit the government from exercising an entry to state's commerce issues, taxing or overseeing. It would have to be assumed that a certain amount of oversight should be necessary to see each state complied with what was required then. Of course they didn't have rail, trucks and planes to deal with.

It is a taxation issue obviously, which could be completely clarified and fixed with a flat tax across the board. Then the conversation would not be necessary.

I couldn't disagree more, Emmett. It's a BIG BROTHER issue plain and simple.

[johnwk]

Whoa! That dude comes with his breifcase huh!

Fact is, I don't think we ever in the early days realized that the term commerce would have to have the elasticity that it obviously requires today.

I don't, even after the wonderful research he provided us, and it was done superbly, completely agree that he satisfied the "burden of proof" that the Constitution was actually written to particularly prohibit the government from exercising an entry to state's commerce issues, taxing or overseeing. It would have to be assumed that a certain amount of oversight should be necessary to see each state complied with what was required then. Of course they didn't have rail, trucks and planes to deal with.

It is a taxation issue obviously, which could be completely clarified and fixed with a flat tax across the board. Then the conversation would not be necessary.

If the term commerce needs the “elasticity” that you suggest it needs today, our wise founding fathers provided a specific method to accomplish change to accommodate changing times, see Article V, our Constitution’s amendment process.



The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Our founding fathers never intended to allow federal public servants to impose their personal predilections upon the people within their states under the banner of necessity. In addition, the 10th Amendment was intentionally adopted to prevent misconstruction of the powers granted to Congress and to further restrict the federal government’s exercise of power.

The intentions for which the federal “Bill of Rights” was sent to the States for ratification is documented in the very Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/resolu02.htm)



THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added …..

It is absurd to suggest that those who framed and ratified our Constitution intended to allow the federal government to enter a state and exercise a policing power within that state over the “manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of a tobacco product or tobacco products”.

But if I am wrong, please feel free to post our founding fathers expressed intentions to do so.


JWK


"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

[johnwk]

.
If folks in government, federal and state, were sincerely concerned about our health as they pretend they are and with regard to smoking, they would adopt a constitutional amendment which would prohibit the manufacture, sale, or transportation of tobacco products within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof which is used for human consumption purposes. And, the various state legislatures would agree by the constitutional amendment to allow the federal government to enter the states to enforce the amendment, just as they did with intoxicating liquors.

But, at least from where I stand, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1108) is not about our health, nor is it even about smoking! This is about control freaks in the federal government attempting to broaden their power to regulate commerce among the States and seize an iron fisted regulatory power within the various state borders disguised under a noble cause!

The game plan is ___ if we can get the people, especially our nation’s younger generation to accept and be comfortable with a federal regulatory power over their personal lives via the federal power to regulate commerce as applied to smoking, the door is then left open to regulate almost every aspect of their personal lives under Congress’s power to regulate commerce!

But as I have established above, the historical record establishes that the word “commerce”, as our founding fathers used the word during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution, was in no way synonymous with a policing power allowing Congress to enter the states to regulate the manufacturing process of goods, the cultivation of agricultural products or their use, or production processes carried on within the various state borders.

In any event, HERE IS A LIST (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-542) of House Members who are involved in this attempt to subjugate our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment and federalism, our Constitution’s plan. Please note how many Republicans are on the list!

Freedom loving people must start viewing these scoundrels for what they really are ____ domestic enemies of our constitutionally limited system of government ____ they are nothing more than slithering control freaks who wish to impose their personal predilections up the people in every state in our union, and do so without the people’s consent via an appropriate amendment granting such power to do so.

BTW, I am happy to see the following patriots voted against the proposal:

Boehner, John [R]
Hunter, Duncan [R]
Tancredo, Thomas [R]

Regards,

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records during our Constitution‘s framing and ratification process, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[Abbey Marie]

Hey johnwk, are you a smoker?

PS I was and probably always will be, a Duncan Hunter supporter.

[johnwk]

Hey johnwk, are you a smoker?


No. Emphatically No! And let me restate that:



The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1108) is not about our health, nor is it even about smoking! This is about control freaks in the federal government attempting to broaden their power to regulate commerce among the States and seize an iron fisted regulatory power within the various state borders disguised under a noble cause!

The game plan is ___ if we can get the people, especially our nation’s younger generation to accept and be comfortable with a federal regulatory power over their personal lives via the federal power to regulate commerce as applied to smoking, the door is then left open to regulate almost every aspect of their personal lives under Congress’s power to regulate commerce!

Aside from attempting to seize an iron fisted control over the lives of the people in every state in the Union, I asked and went on to say: IN POST NO.1 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=277970&postcount=1):



So why do we have Congress promoting legislation to seize regulatory powers within the various states in violation of our written Constitution which blatantly violates federalism, our Constitution’s plan?

I would say the seizure of such power, aside from the obvious left wing control freak mindset which inspires it, also allows the creation of a substantial number of political plum jobs [federal regulators, administrators, etc.] which are awarded to the friends of big government and loyal to Congress ___ such jobs having excessive salaries, top of the shelf medical and dental plans and a very generous retirement plan, all of with Mary and Joe Sixpack, living South Carolina, can only dream of having but will be taxed to finance! See: WASHINGTON’S POLITICAL PLUM JOB OVERVIEW (http://federaljobs.net/)
Are you considering a government job? The federal government employs more than 2,700,000 workers and hires hundreds of thousands each year to replace civil service workers that transfer to other federal government jobs, retire, or leave for other reasons. Average annual salary for full-time federal government jobs exceeds $67,000. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation's work force. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries. The average annual federal workers compensation, pay plus benefits, is $106,871 compared to just $53,288 for the private sector according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.


Now, ask yourself why is there such fighting between the Republican and Democrat party leadership during federal elections? Answer is, those who win elections get to be in charge of who will be hired and fired from the countless political plum jobs created by our folks in Washington___ many of these jobs not being within the delegated powers granted to the federal government and being nothing more than a job to redistribute wealth taxed away from Mary and Joe Sixpack, that’s you and me!

So, let us take a closer look at the``benefits`` which political plum job holders get, and Mary and Joe Sixpack are gouged to finance:

Life insurance plan___ Mary and Joe Sixpack get to pay 1/3 of a government workers federal life insurance plan.

Federal Employees Dental & Vision Program is a full coverage plan and federal employees get to use pre-tax dollars to pay for their vision and dental premiums while Mary and Joe are forced to use after taxed dollars to fund their Dental & Vision plan.


Under the federal employee retirement system, there is a tax-deferred savings plan known as the ``Thrift Savings Plan``. Under this plan, federal workers may contribute up to 10% of their salaries to the plan, with Mary and Joe Sixpack being taxed to match up to 5% of a federal employees contribution.


Also, under the Civilian Service Retirement System a federal employee contributes 7% of their paycheck to retirement while Mary and Joe Sixpack are forced to match that 7 % out of their paychecks.


And, with reference to health insurance, which is in addition to the above mentioned dental and vision plan, see Federal Employees to See Moderate Rise in Health Insurance Premiums (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/13/AR2007091301441.html)


Health insurance premiums for federal employees and retirees will increase by an average of 2.1 percent next year, the Office of Personnel Management announced this afternoon.

Cut------

The federal program will offer 283 plans next year and will provide insurance coverage to about 8 million Americans: civil service and postal workers, retirees, and family members. The government picks up about 70 percent of premium costs in its role as employer.

What the writer meant to say is, Mary and Joe Sixpack, who can barely meet their own health care needs, get to pick up about 70 percent of the premium costs to provide health care to federal employees and their families. How nice!

So, tell me, how many more political plum jobs would be created if the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act were enacted into law? All one has to do is recall the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. You can bet your bottom dollar Secretary Michael Chertoff (http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/biography_0116.shtm) [a Washington Establishment insider] is laughing all the way to the bank with his six figure salary and “benefits”, not to mention the hundreds of other POLITICAL PLUM JOB HOLDERS (http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/careers/content_multi_image_0014.shtm) created under the department which Mary and Joe Sixpack are taxed to finance.

Do we really want to create a national smoke control czar with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of jack booted thugs who will invade our borders, threatened business and property owners and exert the iron fist of a regulatory power not granted to our federal government? Do we really want to allow a further subjugation of federalism, our Constitution’s plan, and allow our employees in Washington to laugh up their sleeves while trashing our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment?

Sorry for rambling on, but I thought it necessary to put things into perspective.

BTW, I admired Duncan Hunter for his stand against those traitors who approved of our borders being invaded ---- our open border crowd.

JWK

The servant has become the master over those who created a servant and the new servant pays tribute by taxation to a gangster government which ignores our most basic laws…our constitutions, state and federal.

[Mr. P]

No. Emphatically No! And let me restate that:



Aside from attempting to seize an iron fisted control over the lives of the people in every state in the Union, I asked and went on to say: IN POST NO.1 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=277970&postcount=1):




Now, ask yourself why is there such fighting between the Republican and Democrat party leadership during federal elections? Answer is, those who win elections get to be in charge of who will be hired and fired from the countless political plum jobs created by our folks in Washington___ many of these jobs not being within the delegated powers granted to the federal government and being nothing more than a job to redistribute wealth taxed away from Mary and Joe Sixpack, that’s you and me!

So, let us take a closer look at the``benefits`` which political plum job holders get, and Mary and Joe Sixpack are gouged to finance:

Life insurance plan___ Mary and Joe Sixpack get to pay 1/3 of a government workers federal life insurance plan.

Federal Employees Dental & Vision Program is a full coverage plan and federal employees get to use pre-tax dollars to pay for their vision and dental premiums while Mary and Joe are forced to use after taxed dollars to fund their Dental & Vision plan.


Under the federal employee retirement system, there is a tax-deferred savings plan known as the ``Thrift Savings Plan``. Under this plan, federal workers may contribute up to 10% of their salaries to the plan, with Mary and Joe Sixpack being taxed to match up to 5% of a federal employees contribution.


Also, under the Civilian Service Retirement System a federal employee contributes 7% of their paycheck to retirement while Mary and Joe Sixpack are forced to match that 7 % out of their paychecks.


And, with reference to health insurance, which is in addition to the above mentioned dental and vision plan, see Federal Employees to See Moderate Rise in Health Insurance Premiums (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/13/AR2007091301441.html)



What the writer meant to say is, Mary and Joe Sixpack, who can barely meet their own health care needs, get to pick up about 70 percent of the premium costs to provide health care to federal employees and their families. How nice!

So, tell me, how many more political plum jobs would be created if the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act were enacted into law? All one has to do is recall the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. You can bet your bottom dollar Secretary Michael Chertoff (http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/biography_0116.shtm) [a Washington Establishment insider] is laughing all the way to the bank with his six figure salary and “benefits”, not to mention the hundreds of other POLITICAL PLUM JOB HOLDERS (http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/careers/content_multi_image_0014.shtm) created under the department which Mary and Joe Sixpack are taxed to finance.

Do we really want to create a national smoke control czar with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of jack booted thugs who will invade our borders, threatened business and property owners and exert the iron fist of a regulatory power not granted to our federal government? Do we really want to allow a further subjugation of federalism, our Constitution’s plan, and allow our employees in Washington to laugh up their sleeves while trashing our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment?

Sorry for rambling on, but I thought it necessary to put things into perspective.

BTW, I admired Duncan Hunter for his stand against those traitors who approved of our borders being invaded ---- our open border crowd.

JWK

The servant has become the master over those who created a servant and the new servant pays tribute by taxation to a gangster government which ignores our most basic laws…our constitutions, state and federal.

Excellent! :clap:

[Dilloduck]

Nice job, John----to say nothing about all the double dipping etc.