ed as such:

"To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

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

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War,

It's primary season! Yippie! And with primary season every numbskull is out vying for political office. And believe me, here in Pittsburgh we have our fair share of numbskulls!

I was listening Thursday afternoon to the local "progressive" radio station here in town as I often do to see what the "progressives" are feeling. The regular host was on vacation but her stand in was having interviews with some locals vying for the nomination to run against Republican Melissa Hart for her seat in the United States House of Representatives. Needless to say they were pretty liberal and even more needless to say the interview was poor at best filled with softballs and no serious follow-up to the answers given.

And as usual when you start asking liberals about what they want to do you eventually hear how they want some socialist, fascist or communist program or government control over your life. Usually today this means promoting the idea of "national health care" since they already have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare and a myriad of others left wing and unconstitutional programs already engrained into our society.

So as the hostess is sitting there asking questions and getting the typical canned "socialized healthcare" response the next logical step would be to ask the question "And under what Constitutional authority would you justify that?" But since the left is rarely logical no such follow-up was even attempted.

I dare say it was because the hostess herself doesn't know enough about the Constitution to even think of the question which begs the another question - how someone thought she was qualified to be on the radio asking questions of political candidates which will be swearing to uphold the Constitution if elected. And if on the off chance that she was smart enough to have actually read and understood the Constitution it is probably fair to say neither of the candidates could have given an answer rooted in fact.

Sometimes you actually find a liberal who if actually asked the above hard question by an intrepid interview tries to be smart. They'll say "Well the Constitution says we are supposed to promote the 'general Welfare'".

Now, at that point you'll be even luckier if you have our intrepid interviewer do a follow-up to the follow-up which would be "Interesting interpretation considering James Madison explained in Federalist #41 that such an interpretation of the general Welfare clause was unfounded."

"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. - James Madison"

And those functions that fall under the term of "general Welfare" are clearly defined as such:

"To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

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

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, g

ational health care" since they already have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare and a myriad of others left wing and unconstitutional programs already engrained into our society.

So as the hostess is sitting there asking questions and getting the typical canned "socialized healthcare" response the next logical step would be to ask the question "And under what Constitutional authority would you justify that?" But since the left is rarely logical no such follow-up was even attempted.

I dare say it was because the hostess herself doesn't know enough about the Constitution to even think of the question which begs the another question - how someone thought she was qualified to be on the radio asking questions of political candidates which will be swearing to uphold the Constitution if elected. And if on the off chance that she was smart enough to have actually read and understood the Constitution it is probably fair to say neither of the candidates could have given an answer rooted in fact.

Sometimes you actually find a liberal who if actually asked the above hard question by an intrepid interview tries to be smart. They'll say "Well the Constitution says we are supposed to promote the 'general Welfare'".

Now, at that point you'll be even luckier if you have our intrepid interviewer do a follow-up to the follow-up which would be "Interesting interpretation considering James Madison explained in Federalist #41 that such an interpretation of the general Welfare clause was unfounded."

"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. - James Madison"

And those functions that fall under the term of "general Welfare" are clearly defined as such:

"To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

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

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War,

of the candidates could have given an answer rooted in fact.

Sometimes you actually find a liberal who if actually asked the above hard question by an intrepid interview tries to be smart. They'll say "Well the Constitution says we are supposed to promote the 'general Welfare'".

Now, at that point you'll be even luckier if you have our intrepid interviewer do a follow-up to the follow-up which would be "Interesting interpretation considering James Madison explained in Federalist #41 that such an interpretation of the general Welfare clause was unfounded."

"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. - James Madison"

And those functions that fall under the term of "general Welfare" are clearly defined as such:

"To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

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

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War,

a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. - James Madison"

And those functions that fall under the term of "general Welfare" are clearly defined as such:

"To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

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

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War,

ed as such:

"To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

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

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marquee and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Any mention of health care in there? Heck no. There isn't even a mention of any other left wing, big government programs like Social Security, Welfare, etc!

So again I ask all these budding left wing Marxists where their support for such grandiose plans comes from? Show me and the American public how you can justify even campaigning on these issues and still claim to believe in the Constitution!

I'm still waiting ...