MaggieMae
Reality bits
- Apr 3, 2009
- 24,043
- 1,635
- 48
Didn't you know the Commerce Clause covers everything?
I love the pretend constitutionalists who pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.
From what I understand from what I have read General welfare only considers what congress has seen as fitting under the term General. Meaning to me, that congress must vote on something to see if it fits under GW, like the HC bills. IMO that means that the elected officials need to be representing their people here and they clearly are not.
Your definition of GW could mean anything at any given time. Your version does what I have read the term GW was exactly NOT meant to do. Your version of GW would outright void the rest of the constitution as at any point congress could just vote of something and stuff it under the CW clause, like the HC bills.
For example, congress could just decide to put up a bill that says it would be safer to not have guns and BAM, just like that its over The constitution turned on itself without citizens having a say. In a sense, your version would mean that congress could pass any law and make themselves kings.
Many of the programs the GW clause was used for (and forced upon the people by FDR it seems with the Supreme Court takeover) have failed, horribly. We are now looking at new entitlement programs that are only hear today as to act as a refurbished version of past failures, nothing more.
Congress can pass any law they want, but if a law is challenged, the decision of the USSC is final. Must be most of the existing entitlement programs were just fine with everyone, before now, that is. Suddenly the country is filled with self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" and I find that absolutely phony.