Republican drive to end social programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Micky G. Jagger]

You know the Constitution to be ambiguous.

--Edmund Randolph

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

What would not be embraced by a general power to raise money, a power to provide for the general welfare, and a power to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry these powers into execution?

--James Madison

 

[saveliberty]

Sorry Micky, I have not had the time to read the documents you listed recently. I did some and noted that most, if not virtually all, the discussions of all the states were geared toward refining the language of the articles. Where as the preamble is general, the articles are rather exacting.

I can only conclude that the Framers did not expect laws to be based on the general language of an introduction. You also have an affinity for taking these things out of context for your point of view's benefit.

 

[boedicca]

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.

What Mickey fails to understand is that 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. Opinions outside of it are just that, opinions.

 

[Big Fitz]

You know the Constitution to be ambiguous.

--Edmund Randolph

Maybe a bigger hammer will get that square peg to fit into that round hole.

Keep hitting it, something will change.

 

[Dick Tuck]

How in the fuck did that total moron get a law degree? His simpleton answer to a very simple question about how social programs were unconstitutional was babababa. It's good to have his early life on video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yjGPHo8JFQ]YouTube - Gordon Ramsay swearing at baby left in kitchen![/ame]

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The government of the United States is, in reality, a government of general and unlimited powers.

--Joseph Story (1833)

 

[saveliberty]

The government of the United States is, in reality, a government of general and unlimited powers.

--Joseph Story (1833)

Is that where we get the term stories from? Joe was wrong.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

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.

I agree.

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.

The Constitution doesn't even contain the term "individual liberty."

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

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?

The State of South Carolina, in it's ratification papers, didn't even propose a Bill of Rights.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

Only one state can propose any part of the Constitution or addition to said document. South Carolina might have supported it. Oh look, they voted for it. Imagine that.