Congress's First Power Demolishes Tea Party's "Constitutional Principle"

You're right, at least I haven't seen anyone make such a claim.

However, I've seen plenty here including yourself make the equally false claim that government funded general welfare programs are unconstitutional.
That would be because they are, welfare programs are not "general" welfare no matter how much you twist the words to try to make them mean that. Taking money from one person to give it to another does not provide for the "general welfare" it detracts from one persons welfare to give to anothers.

I understand your argument, and it is reasonable. I also understand the equally reasonable argument that paved roads, safe bridges, and a healthy, educated population is indeed 'general' welfare. Unfortunately for you, precedent is not on your side. Unless of course you can cite a 'general' welfare program that has been found to be unconstitutional.
The interstate system is inherently constituional under the commerce clause, it makes commerce regular.

Education is not, the states are responsible for that and there is absolutely no reason to believe they wouldn't live up to their responsibility on their own. All of them were found unconstitutional before FDR. It is only in the progressive era that they twist the words to make them mean what they don't mean.

You are responsible for your own health and have no reason to expect someone else to pay for your care for you, neither do you have any reason to be compelled to pay for theirs. health care is a service, not a right.
 
That would be because they are, welfare programs are not "general" welfare no matter how much you twist the words to try to make them mean that. Taking money from one person to give it to another does not provide for the "general welfare" it detracts from one persons welfare to give to anothers.

I understand your argument, and it is reasonable. I also understand the equally reasonable argument that paved roads, safe bridges, and a healthy, educated population is indeed 'general' welfare. Unfortunately for you, precedent is not on your side. Unless of course you can cite a 'general' welfare program that has been found to be unconstitutional.
The interstate system is inherently constituional under the commerce clause, it makes commerce regular.

Education is not, the states are responsible for that and there is absolutely no reason to believe they wouldn't live up to their responsibility on their own. All of them were found unconstitutional before FDR. It is only in the progressive era that they twist the words to make them mean what they don't mean.

You are responsible for your own health and have no reason to expect someone else to pay for your care for you, neither do you have any reason to be compelled to pay for theirs. health care is a service, not a right.

Like I said, I understand your argument and it is reasonable. But I also see the other side and IMO, it's also reasonable. Both positions are intellectually defensible and it ultimately comes down to a subjective judgement about priorities. And for better or worse, the Constitution was ambiguous enough to allow future generations to re-prioritize as needed to meet the needs of the day. I doubt even Scalia would vote that funding education programs are unconstitutional, so I don't expect it to happen anytime soon.
 
I understand your argument, and it is reasonable. I also understand the equally reasonable argument that paved roads, safe bridges, and a healthy, educated population is indeed 'general' welfare. Unfortunately for you, precedent is not on your side. Unless of course you can cite a 'general' welfare program that has been found to be unconstitutional.
The interstate system is inherently constituional under the commerce clause, it makes commerce regular.

Education is not, the states are responsible for that and there is absolutely no reason to believe they wouldn't live up to their responsibility on their own. All of them were found unconstitutional before FDR. It is only in the progressive era that they twist the words to make them mean what they don't mean.

You are responsible for your own health and have no reason to expect someone else to pay for your care for you, neither do you have any reason to be compelled to pay for theirs. health care is a service, not a right.

Like I said, I understand your argument and it is reasonable. But I also see the other side and IMO, it's also reasonable. Both positions are intellectually defensible and it ultimately comes down to a subjective judgement about priorities. And for better or worse, the Constitution was ambiguous enough to allow future generations to re-prioritize as needed to meet the needs of the day. I doubt even Scalia would vote that funding education programs are unconstitutional, so I don't expect it to happen anytime soon.
The fact that even the most conservative jurists we can get post the 17th amendment are still progressives does not change the facts thats they're distorting the constitution and playing mental gymnastics with its words to justify doing what the federal government is not empowered to do.

The federal government is not empowered to do every damned thing under the sun that a majority of people (or a rather loud minority... or any for that matter) find "reasonable". It's empowered to do certain things, and not one damned thing more. When we allow our government to userp authority it does not have in order to do something "reasonable" we empower it as well to userp authority to do what we may find "unreasonable" and there are no limittations on what it may do.

I support public education, and when the states controlled it we had an excellent education system. Once the federal government got involved all we got was a bigger bill and kids graduating HS who can't read. I will say that NCLB changed that some, in that it made the states prove we were getting something for our money while it returned control of the spending back to the states, and test scores have improved since then. It however came at a huge amount of increased cost, proving once again that the best thing the federal government can do to improve things is get the fuck out of the way and let others do it.
 
You changed the question. You asked what was unconstitutional that is funded by the government. Asked and answered.

Now you're asking what the government has decided it can't do because it's unconstitutional. The ultimate in sheep you are, you have the rights government tells you that you have.

He asked for what IS unconstitutional and you gave a list based on your opinion of what you believe is unconstitutional, not what actually IS or has been found to be unconstitutional.
Fair enough. Show the constitutional authority for any of those programs and I'll concede they are constitutional. If you can't, I win by the 10th amendment.

WOW is that really how you think?? You make baseless claims that you can't prove and then demand that others prove you wrong and that if they can't then you win??

You must be the wannabe charlie sheen of the message boards if you think that is winning. LOL

YOU made the claim that they were/are unconstitutional so the burden of proof is on YOU.
 

Forum List

Back
Top