Question for the General Welfare Crowd.

[saveliberty]

Anything can be, if the people so decide. That was the intent of the framers. They did lots of homework on republics and governments in general. Government has always had social welfare programs. They just look different as society changes. There is nothing vague about the idea of the people deciding through the legislature or government just what the General Welfare is at any given moment in the course of a nation's history..

Well there in lies the problem with Health care. Notice you said if the people so decide. Yet every poll tells us the people did not want this version of health care reform, and yet we have it.

The people of the nation have a voice in the Congress. That is how our government works - how it was laid out by the framers. They purposefully did not construct a mechanism for the people voicing wishes through plebiscite, which is what you are appealing to.

So when the elected officals lied about what they stood for when getting the office or refuse to listen to the public it is just too bad? Politicans have turn the whole ploitical process into using the public in order to maintain power by doling out welfare to their group. It is a house of cards. Money is infinite, but value is finite.

 

[saveliberty]

Hey bitch. I'm shreding you out here.

 

[Charles_Main]

Chuck, the US Constitution as well as many state Constitutions were based on the
Massachusetts Constitution. The brain child of John Adams. In the Mass Constitution the state originally provided for the general welfare by directing the state to support houses of worship where monies were and when needed. This from a man who stated explicitly that the the USA was not founded as a Christian nation.

Now I admit I may be simplifying things a bit much, but I hope this gets the message across in a manner that does not confuse.

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government...

...Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
...
...] [Art. XI of the Amendments substituted for this].

No it is not confusing at all, and I think it kind of proves my point. See you are quoting from a commonwealths Constitution. My point all along is that it is not the power of the Federal government to run Welfare. Now if it is not the power of the Fed, then it falls to the states. Which would be entirely consistent with what you have posted.

Notice how it says at their own expense, as in the Federal Government should not be paying for it, It should be managed at the state level.

Your point being what? Specific acts not passed in the 19th century, pertaining to 20th century society?

You are the one that brought it up and said our constitution was based in part on it. So then is not relevant that they appeared to keep such things as local as possible.

It is 'we the people of the United States' which has a specific meaning. We the people being an expression of national sovereignty. Not as individual states. The framers made exacting distinctions when speaking of the state legislatures and the people of the new nation.

You are misunderstanding what the US Constitution addresses.

Please explain then. How am I misunderstanding. If the constitution does not specifically grant a power to the Fed, then it is the domain of the states is it not? Is that not just another example of attempting to keep as much government as we could on the local level?

 

[Dante]

Of course a Preamble is going to stress national unity in the opening. That is part of its purpose. They had to get a bunch of states to sign on and be a big reasonably happy family. Did you think the Preamble was going to say, we the people of (insert states who passed the Constitution to date) in order to make some rules some us want to create establish blah blah blah? Get a clue.

a little more coherent and on topic.

se, you really can.


The Constitution itself is an expression of national unity. "A republic if you can keep it" meaning the compromises that made it possible. Read what I posted earlier and maybe you can attempt a debate.

 

[Dante]

While I am not opposed to a social net to help those who need it. I am opposed to claiming it is justified under because of the words General Welfare in the preamble.

Image the implications of that. Virtually anything could then be justified the same way.

Say we are attacked again my radical Muslim Terrorist. Suppose then that congress passes a law to intern all Muslims in the country. What would stop them from justifying in court as acting in the General Welfare. I think it simply opens up to broad of a power.

Exactly right, only a total loon would argue against ANY welfare programs, but be honest about it, its a power we have CHOSEN to give the government, not one they are entitled to have.

We have not chosen, the Constitution provides.

 

[Charles_Main]

Anything can be, if the people so decide. That was the intent of the framers. They did lots of homework on republics and governments in general. Government has always had social welfare programs. They just look different as society changes. There is nothing vague about the idea of the people deciding through the legislature or government just what the General Welfare is at any given moment in the course of a nation's history..

Well there in lies the problem with Health care. Notice you said if the people so decide. Yet every poll tells us the people did not want this version of health care reform, and yet we have it.

The people of the nation have a voice in the Congress. That is how our government works - how it was laid out by the framers. They purposefully did not construct a mechanism for the people voicing wishes through plebiscite, which is what you are appealing to.

I am well aware we elect representatives, Normally our response and recourse is to vote them out when they do something against our will. The Problem is, some things can be near impossible to ever reverse once implemented against our will. As will be this heath care bill.

Catch 22 really. You are correct that we do not have a direct say and the representatives are with in their rights to pass what ever they want against our will. However I do not have to like it

 

[Dante]

Well there in lies the problem with Health care. Notice you said if the people so decide. Yet every poll tells us the people did not want this version of health care reform, and yet we have it.

The people of the nation have a voice in the Congress. That is how our government works - how it was laid out by the framers. They purposefully did not construct a mechanism for the people voicing wishes through plebiscite, which is what you are appealing to.

So when the elected officals lied about what they stood for when getting the office or refuse to listen to the public it is just too bad? Politicans have turn the whole ploitical process into using the public in order to maintain power by doling out welfare to their group. It is a house of cards. Money is infinite, but value is finite.

Go away

 

[Charles_Main]

While I am not opposed to a social net to help those who need it. I am opposed to claiming it is justified under because of the words General Welfare in the preamble.

Image the implications of that. Virtually anything could then be justified the same way.

Say we are attacked again by radical Muslim Terrorist. Suppose then that congress passes a law to intern all Muslims in the country. What would stop them from justifying in court as acting in the General Welfare. I think it simply opens up to broad of a power.

Exactly right, only a total loon would argue against ANY welfare programs, but be honest about it, its a power we have CHOSEN to give the government, not one they are entitled to have.

We have not chosen, the Constitution provides.

seems to me it is more a power the government has chosen to take away from the states and centralize at the federal level, and that is what I have a problem with.

 

[saveliberty]

While I am not opposed to a social net to help those who need it. I am opposed to claiming it is justified under because of the words General Welfare in the preamble.

Image the implications of that. Virtually anything could then be justified the same way.

Say we are attacked again my radical Muslim Terrorist. Suppose then that congress passes a law to intern all Muslims in the country. What would stop them from justifying in court as acting in the General Welfare. I think it simply opens up to broad of a power.

Exactly right, only a total loon would argue against ANY welfare programs, but be honest about it, its a power we have CHOSEN to give the government, not one they are entitled to have.

We have not chosen, the Constitution provides.

No the Constitution does not provide for the type of welfare you suggest. You wish to derive power from a Preamble. Preambles are simply opening statements. Articles grant powers. Lawyers like to muddy the waters and opened up this whole line of thinking.

 

[saveliberty]

Oh, so I have your attention now I see, you just can't debate the points. Go home and think about it.

 

[Dante]

No it is not confusing at all, and I think it kind of proves my point. See you are quoting from a commonwealths Constitution. My point all along is that it is not the power of the Federal government to run Welfare. Now if it is not the power of the Fed, then it falls to the states. Which would be entirely consistent with what you have posted.

Notice how it says at their own expense, as in the Federal Government should not be paying for it, It should be managed at the state level.

Your point being what? Specific acts not passed in the 19th century, pertaining to 20th century society?

You are the one that brought it up and said our constitution was based in part on it. So then is not relevant that they appeared to keep such things as local as possible.

It is 'we the people of the United States' which has a specific meaning. We the people being an expression of national sovereignty. Not as individual states. The framers made exacting distinctions when speaking of the state legislatures and the people of the new nation.

You are misunderstanding what the US Constitution addresses.

Please explain then. How am I misunderstanding. If the constitution does not specifically grant a power to the Fed, then it is the domain of the states is it not? Is that not just another example of attempting to keep as much government as we could on the local level?

I am not arguing against local control. The Federal welfare programs are administered by state governments along with state funds. The preamble of the US Constitution and the preamble of any state constitution address different audiences.

Take the 9th amendment for example and it's phrase "the existence of rights which are not enumerated" and apply it's spirit here.

I am not arguing for or against any specific program. I am arguing a reading of the Constitution. We have the commerce clause which was argued over by the very men who inserted it in the document. They disagreed over how narrowly or widely to -- interpret -- the clause. Fact is there is tradition on this as we as case law on this subject.

There will always be tension between powers. What is silly is the ignorance paraded around here posing as interpretation. (note: I am not speaking of you. lol)

 

[saveliberty]

Interpretation? That is all you have paraded about Dante. Interestingly, you are allowing Congress to intrepret the Constitution, when it is clearly the realm of the Supreme Court.

 

[Dante]

I don't open or reply to trolls

 

[saveliberty]

I don't open or reply to trolls

Despite the fact you apparently put me in that category, you just responded bitch.

 

[Dante]

Exactly right, only a total loon would argue against ANY welfare programs, but be honest about it, its a power we have CHOSEN to give the government, not one they are entitled to have.

We have not chosen, the Constitution provides.

No the Constitution does not provide for the type of welfare you suggest. You wish to derive power from a Preamble. Preambles are simply opening statements. Articles grant powers. Lawyers like to muddy the waters and opened up this whole line of thinking.

The Constitution does not specify exactly what the General Welfare is. Do you know why that is?


gawd, you're an idiot

 

[saveliberty]

We have not chosen, the Constitution provides.

No the Constitution does not provide for the type of welfare you suggest. You wish to derive power from a Preamble. Preambles are simply opening statements. Articles grant powers. Lawyers like to muddy the waters and opened up this whole line of thinking.

The Constitution does not specify exactly what the General Welfare is. Do you know why that is?


gawd, you're an idiot

Yes I do. Why the Hell is it such a problem for you grasp it? I see your arrogance has got the best of you and you had to reply. You are soooo...easy.

P.S. There is no dictionary at the end of the Constitution for any terms. You probably haven't read it that far.

 

[Dante]

Exactly right, only a total loon would argue against ANY welfare programs, but be honest about it, its a power we have CHOSEN to give the government, not one they are entitled to have.

We have not chosen, the Constitution provides.

seems to me it is more a power the government has chosen to take away from the states and centralize at the federal level, and that is what I have a problem with.

You have an argument there that goes back to the beginnings of the forming of our nation. I disagree with the particular case here, but empathize and am sympathetic with the principle. There is nothing in the US Constitution preventing the Federal government doing what the states will not or that the states do poorly.

and again, the programs are state run. Individual states run federal programs differently.

 

[Charles_Main]

I am not arguing against local control. The Federal welfare programs are administered by state governments along with state funds. The preamble of the US Constitution and the preamble of any state constitution address different audiences.

Administered at the state level but legislated at the federal level. which has given them the power to do things like slap on new mandates to states who can not afford to provide for it as it is let alone with new expenses.

I am not arguing for or against any specific program. I am arguing a reading of the Constitution. We have the commerce clause which was argued over by the very men who inserted it in the document. They disagreed over how narrowly or widely to -- interpret -- the clause. Fact is there is tradition on this as we as case law on this subject.

This is the true difference between a liberal and a conservative. Liberals tend to see a lot of room for movement when they interpret the constitution where as a conservative tends to think there is not a lot of wiggle room.

There will always be tension between powers.

As there always should be, that is checks and balances in action. The problem I see is the Fed seems to always win, Gathering more and more power as the states get weaker and weaker. In the end we are losing a valuable part of the checks and balances system as the states grow less and less able to check the Feds power. and we continue down the road away from a Federated republic to a centralized one.

What is silly is the ignorance paraded around here posing as interpretation. (note: I am not speaking of you. lol)

LOL well thanks for that. There certainly is no shortage of people on either side of the spectrum who are guilty of that. I certainly do not claim to fully understand the intricacies of our Constitution, but I do try.

 

[Dante]

Well there in lies the problem with Health care. Notice you said if the people so decide. Yet every poll tells us the people did not want this version of health care reform, and yet we have it.

The people of the nation have a voice in the Congress. That is how our government works - how it was laid out by the framers. They purposefully did not construct a mechanism for the people voicing wishes through plebiscite, which is what you are appealing to.

I am well aware we elect representatives, Normally our response and recourse is to vote them out when they do something against our will. The Problem is, some things can be near impossible to ever reverse once implemented against our will. As will be this heath care bill.

Catch 22 really. You are correct that we do not have a direct say and the representatives are with in their rights to pass what ever they want against our will. However I do not have to like it

Nothing in Congress is implemented against our will. Nothing the Executive, the Legislative, or the Judicial Branches of government does is against the will of the people. We have a representative republic.

Popular opinion is what you are talking about and the framers had very hard views on public opinion as government -- they gave us a republic to prevent such.

 

[saveliberty]

We have not chosen, the Constitution provides.

seems to me it is more a power the government has chosen to take away from the states and centralize at the federal level, and that is what I have a problem with.

You have an argument there that goes back to the beginnings of the forming of our nation. I disagree with the particular case here, but empathize and am sympathetic with the principle. There is nothing in the US Constitution preventing the Federal government doing what the states will not or that the states do poorly.

and again, the programs are state run. Individual states run federal programs differently.

Don't let that part about powers not specifically granted to the federal government shall be retained by the states or its citizens. You have actually read the entire Constitution right?