The Government is NOT a Charity

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Hobbit, Sep 13, 2006.

  1. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    September 17 is Constitution Day. On that day, as mandated by legislation introduced by Sen. Robert Byrd, all public schools must have a Constitution education program. What a load of crap. Sen. Byrd, of all people, doesn't want the Constitution to be figured out by anybody, lest his pork barrelling comes screeching to a halt. It was James Madison who stated, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Hear that Congress? That means no public schooling, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, or foreign aid (except as it relates to defense spending). That is, unless you've somehow managed to pass an ammendment without the knowledge or consent of the states, as you're supposed to. More at townhall.com.

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/09/13/constitution_day
     
  2. Hagbard Celine
    Offline

    Hagbard Celine Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,756
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +61
    The Constitution also prohibits the federal government from keeping a standing army for more than two years. (Section 8, Article 1) Things change Bilbo. Grow a heart, heed your Christian ideals and realize that social programs are good for the well-being of our nation because they take care of the frail, the infirm and the poverty-ridden. Quit being so selfish. WWJD?
     
  3. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +620
    No it doesn't. It says,
    It doesn't say that they can't fund it for another two years.
     
  4. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708

    A lot of what you cite comes under the "general welfare" clause.
     
  5. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    Holy crap! I have HC on ignore, but I can see from your quotations that he thinks the Constitution prohibits the US government from keeping a standing Army!!!! What the Constitution states is that no army can be FUNDED for more than two years at a time. That is a HUGE difference.

    Congressional review every two years or less is a GOOD thing in my book. It has some subtle implications too, especially in this day and age. Theoretically, the Congress could just NOT FUND the Army and thus stop ongoing operations in Iraq...just like that!

    It is also interesting that the Congress is not restricted in their funding of a Navy! Lots of stuff gets hidden under that rug, believe me!
     
  6. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    Read the article. The Constitution is VERY specific on how the federal government may promote the general welfare. It is not given carte blanche to do so.
     
  7. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    Understood. That does not keep the politicians and others from twisting, stretching and otherwise distorting the basic document and its intent. Much like the assertion in this thread that the US cannot have a standing Army because of the clauses in the Constitution.
     
  8. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    WWJD ??????:rotflmao:

    He would go out and personally help people who need it. He probably WOULDN"T expect the government to do it. BTW--thats just a guess. God forbid that anyone would accuse me of me having any idea what Jesus would REALLY do.
     
  9. Hagbard Celine
    Offline

    Hagbard Celine Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,756
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +61
    I admit "prohibits" was the wrong word. I think it does imply though that an all-time, standing, federal army is not something the founders forsaw. The Constitution mentions state militias several times, but never a standing, federal army. I think they saw this as something that would have been raised if the Union were under attack from a foriegn or homegrown power.

    My point was that we do have a standing army. And we also have social programs. Times have changed since the writing of the Constitution. If we didn't both of those things, our society would be extemely different--and I think worse-off.
     
  10. Hagbard Celine
    Offline

    Hagbard Celine Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,756
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +61
    Exactly. If we're a "Christian" nation as so many of you and as so many of our Republican leaders claim, why do you fight so hard to get rid of programs that give relief to millions from poverty, illness and ignorance? You argue that you don't want these programs funded with your tax money--so you want to (I won't say greedily) line your own pocket instead of taking care of those weaker and lower than yourself. Seems pretty selfish and un-Jesus-like to me. But what do I know? I'm not in the military.
     

Share This Page