Micky G. Jagger
Member
- Feb 17, 2009
- 656
- 31
- 16
You know the Constitution to be ambiguous.
--Edmund Randolph
--Edmund Randolph
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Maybe a bigger hammer will get that square peg to fit into that round hole.You know the Constitution to be ambiguous.
--Edmund Randolph
The government of the United States is, in reality, a government of general and unlimited powers.
--Joseph Story (1833)
I agree.If the Preamble and the founder's letters and other documents were to be the basis of our laws, they wouldn't have written The Constitution at all.
The Constitution doesn't even contain the term "individual liberty."The Constitution embodies a Rule of Law that is complete in and of itself and should be viewed in the context that it is intended to protect and promote Individual Liberty.
Depends on how you define General Welfare doesn't it?
That could go a number of ways, but the 2 most likely to the discussion are:
1. Gov't is responsible for ALL social wellbeing.
2. Gov't is only responsible for creating an environment where people can prosper.
It's a vague statement, and I think that was done on purpose. "Promote the general welfare" to me means creating an environment wherin the people can be safe, and prosper. NOT one where the Gov't calls all the shots.
This is where I got on this merry-go-round. I will simply say, that IF it was intended to be a power of the federal government, they would have enumerated it in an article, not the preamble.
Good point. I have to agree with that.
Accoring to "Mickey G. Jagger" S.C. fought for a bill of rights over this issue (If I understood your point?) Two things there: 1. That's a leap since they didn't state the "General welfare" clause. and 2. We have a bill of rights, which can be added to by constitutional amendment. So where is the push for an amendement from the left?
This is where I got on this merry-go-round. I will simply say, that IF it was intended to be a power of the federal government, they would have enumerated it in an article, not the preamble.
Good point. I have to agree with that.
Accoring to "Mickey G. Jagger" S.C. fought for a bill of rights over this issue (If I understood your point?) Two things there: 1. That's a leap since they didn't state the "General welfare" clause. and 2. We have a bill of rights, which can be added to by constitutional amendment. So where is the push for an amendement from the left?
The State of South Carolina, in it's ratification papers, didn't even propose a Bill of Rights.