Sen. McConnell and spending cuts

[Ringel05]

Yep, right there in Art. I, Sec 8, Clause 1 next to the "general Welfare".

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

And where is President Madison's regard for the term "general Welfare" in the Constitution of the United States? As the "Father of the Constitution" he approved of the phrase in Art. I, sec 8, clause 1 without caveat, had he reservations that was the time for him to change the document and obviate the need of us today to argue the point

Since all the founders such as he were all knowing and prescient - as many on the Right claim - and the they made the document without ambiguity, must we take all phrases in their literal sence, as we are told we must in re the Second Amendment?

Would that not at least suggest that "general Welfare" and "shall not infringe" be taken to their extremes?

No, the idea for understanding what the founders were referring to is to understand the "culture" of the time. This understanding offers insight into what they meant by what they were saying. The culture identification and understanding concept is fully documented as a way to understand not only other modern cultures but previous historical cultural manifestations from our own past.
Try putting someone from today's culture back in the 1700s, essentially they'd have to learn a new language to understand and be understood without some extreme miscommunications.
Basically what "general welfare" and "shall not infringe" may have been interpreted much differently then as it is today by some.

 

[Stephanie]

The Minority Leader in the Senate stated yesterday that the revenue debate is over and we must now focus exclusively on spending.

I suggest Sen. McConnell begin here:

Kentucky Defense Contractors - $40,879,393,789 in Government Contracts by 2,784 Contractors in 120 KY Counties

You mean he isn't a mavericky kinda guy who turns down earmarks?

Apparently each one of those defense contactors is essential for the defense of the United States. Certainly more important then some 80 something demanding affordable health care.

holy smokes..now people are DEMANDING health care that they can already GET
what a joke..providing for our defense is the governments JOB, not giving away demands for health care
this country is so up shit creek with people like you

 

[Wry Catcher]

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

And where is President Madison's regard for the term "general Welfare" in the Constitution of the United States? As the "Father of the Constitution" he approved of the phrase in Art. I, sec 8, clause 1 without caveat, had he reservations that was the time for him to change the document and obviate the need of us today to argue the point

Since all the founders such as he were all knowing and prescient - as many on the Right claim - and the they made the document without ambiguity, must we take all phrases in their literal sence, as we are told we must in re the Second Amendment?

Would that not at least suggest that "general Welfare" and "shall not infringe" be taken to their extremes?

No, the idea for understanding what the founders were referring to is to understand the "culture" of the time. I see, so when the Second Amendment was debated and finally written the culture of the time considered 'arms' to be single shot black powder long guns . This understanding offers insight into what they meant by what they were saying. The culture identification and understanding concept is fully documented as a way to understand not only other modern cultures but previous historical cultural manifestations from our own past.
Try putting someone from today's culture back in the 1700s, essentially they'd have to learn a new language to understand and be understood without some extreme miscommunications.
Basically what "general welfare" and "shall not infringe" may have been interpreted much differently then as it is today by some.

So in the 18th Century "shall not infringe" means something different than it does today?

 

[Ringel05]

And where is President Madison's regard for the term "general Welfare" in the Constitution of the United States? As the "Father of the Constitution" he approved of the phrase in Art. I, sec 8, clause 1 without caveat, had he reservations that was the time for him to change the document and obviate the need of us today to argue the point

Since all the founders such as he were all knowing and prescient - as many on the Right claim - and the they made the document without ambiguity, must we take all phrases in their literal sence, as we are told we must in re the Second Amendment?

Would that not at least suggest that "general Welfare" and "shall not infringe" be taken to their extremes?

No, the idea for understanding what the founders were referring to is to understand the "culture" of the time. I see, so when the Second Amendment was debated and finally written the culture of the time considered 'arms' to be single shot black powder long guns . This understanding offers insight into what they meant by what they were saying. The culture identification and understanding concept is fully documented as a way to understand not only other modern cultures but previous historical cultural manifestations from our own past.
Try putting someone from today's culture back in the 1700s, essentially they'd have to learn a new language to understand and be understood without some extreme miscommunications.
Basically what "general welfare" and "shall not infringe" may have been interpreted much differently then as it is today by some.

So in the 18th Century "shall not infringe" means something different than it does today?

It's a matter of applications, so yes, it's possible there could have been some differentiation, but obviously you glossed over what I wrote.... one key word..... (may).........
Interesting that you did that..... Uuuummmmmm..........

 

[Wry Catcher]

No, the idea for understanding what the founders were referring to is to understand the "culture" of the time. I see, so when the Second Amendment was debated and finally written the culture of the time considered 'arms' to be single shot black powder long guns . This understanding offers insight into what they meant by what they were saying. The culture identification and understanding concept is fully documented as a way to understand not only other modern cultures but previous historical cultural manifestations from our own past.
Try putting someone from today's culture back in the 1700s, essentially they'd have to learn a new language to understand and be understood without some extreme miscommunications.
Basically what "general welfare" and "shall not infringe" may have been interpreted much differently then as it is today by some.

So in the 18th Century "shall not infringe" may mean something different than it does today?

It's a matter of applications, so yes, it's possible there could have been some differentiation, but obviously you glossed over what I wrote.... one key word..... (may).........
Interesting that you did that..... Uuuummmmmm..........

Mea culpa, I will edit my prior post.

Hey, I spent four nights at a resort in Co. Springs in January 2002; a DOJ conference on Domestic Violence. Interesting little town, a mix of modern day hippies and Christians. I stayed an extra day to walk around town and when I had lunch the cashier saw my badge and said, lunch is half price, our owner supports LE. Since it was only a few months after 9-11 airport security was tight, each time I entered the secure area I was pulled out of line because of my badge. Take the good with the bad, I guess.

 

[Sallow]

Maybe you can do another thread on the exact same topic?

Yep. I have on Eric "the weasel" cantor. I still need to make and additional 1736 threads to reach the record of posts on Obama's place of birth; and 1494 more to reach your hysterical rants on 'commies' in government.

Virginia Defense Contractors - $451,677,556,740 in Government Contracts by 14,121 Contractors in 134 VA Counties

Providing for the National defense is actually in the Constitution.

Did you know that?

Providing for a permanent navy is in the constitution.

The rest is optional. You gotta vote on it every two years.

Did you know that?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Just imagine all the welfare programs and social justice that could be achieved without defense spending. It takes a village.

 

[Ringel05]

So in the 18th Century "shall not infringe" may mean something different than it does today?

It's a matter of applications, so yes, it's possible there could have been some differentiation, but obviously you glossed over what I wrote.... one key word..... (may).........
Interesting that you did that..... Uuuummmmmm..........

Mea culpa, I will edit my prior post.

Bene habet

 

[Sallow]

Just imagine all the welfare programs and social justice that could be achieved without defense spending. It takes a village.

Our military is no longer defensive.

Hasn't been in a very long time.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's a matter of applications, so yes, it's possible there could have been some differentiation, but obviously you glossed over what I wrote.... one key word..... (may).........
Interesting that you did that..... Uuuummmmmm..........

Mea culpa, I will edit my prior post.

Bene habet

Grazie.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Lets hear more about what other countries in the ummm global community spend on defense. Because that matters. lol