The Dangers of the 'Collective'

[Derideo_Te]

Promote equals Provide?

The General Welfare Clause | from Reason to Freedom

The preamble to the Constitution states:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Article 1, Section 8 states:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

So how come they didn't write:

"Promote the Common Defense" and

"Provide the General Welfare"?

Why did they write it as they did?

Excellent question.

Perhaps someone who has a better knowledge of the writings of the founding fathers could shed some light on why they made that specific choice of words.

In just my humble opinion the Preamble is a set of goals for the Constitution while Article 1 Section 8 is more specific in nature as to what role the federal government was to play. A Constitutional scholar would be better able to define it further.

 

[Agit8r]

One more example of the effect of leaving market decisions to government?
Railroad transportation: as demand for railroads stagnated over the 20th century, and aviation and trucking took over, Congress responded to special interests and sought to 'save' railroads; Amtrak was formed to subsidize railroads. Railroads are now the most subsidized form of transportation, even though it costs taxpayers over $100 per 1000 miles traveled by train compared to $10 for the same distance per airplane, and $4 for buses. Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation | Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Only in the 20th century? How do you think the Transcontinental Railroad got built? Do you think that Dagny Taggart's grandfather "built that"?

And your knowledge of America's founders is nil. (See signature)

Thanks for asking....
....now let's see whose knowledge is nil:

...“Many European postal systems, telegraph lines and railroads were built with government money, and sometimes with insufficient capacity. But in the United States, instead of burdening taxpayers, we sell investors the equivalent of high-priced lottery tickets each time one of these technologies arrives.”
In Technology, Supply Precedes Demand - NYTimes.com


2. Now...speaking of the Founders......here's a guy they had studied, Adam Smith.

a. "The Theory of Moral Sentiments,"is often referred to by its abridged title The Wealth of Nations. It was first published in 1776, the same year as the American Declaration of Independence, and is considered a foundational text in modern economic theory...

Gee....you must love being made to look like a dope....you do it so very often.

So, in your fantasy world, the US Post Office was never subsidized, the 'Theory of Moral Sentiments' is the same book as 'Wealth of Nations' AND (can't stop laughing now) Adam Smith supports your rediculous OP???

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
-- Adam Smith; from WN, Chap II

 

[Derideo_Te]

A government of the people, by the people and for the people is a de facto "collective".
[/B]

Utter nonsense. What mental convolutions must you put yourself through to come to such an inane conclusion?

Have you considered informing the Founding Fathers, Lincoln and Merriam-Webster that they are all wrong?

 

[depotoo]

Only in the 20th century? How do you think the Transcontinental Railroad got built? Do you think that Dagny Taggart's grandfather "built that"?

And your knowledge of America's founders is nil. (See signature)

and so do you.

um... what?

It was built by those that wished to support, through the purchase of bonds and the gift of the land.

Congress granted the corporations vast tracks of land to serve as collateral for the capital they needed to borrow.

they gave the land to secure government use of the rail lines.

SEC 3. And be it further enacted, That there be, and is hereby , granted to the said company, for the purpose of aiding in the construction , of said railroad and telegraph line, and to secure the safe and speedy transportation of the mails, troops, munitions of war, and public stores thereon, every alternate section of public land, designated by odd num- bers, to the amount of five alternate sections per mile on each side of said railroad, on the line thereof, and within the limits often miles on each side of said ro1ld, not sold, reserved, or otherwise disposed of by the United States, and to which a preemption or homestead claim may not have attached, at the time the line of said road is definitely fixed

The companies were authorized to sell stock to secure funds for building as well as issued them loans. The government did not pay for the railroad, they were loans. They were given the land for acess to the railroad. See this for info on the bonds issued -
CPRR Bond Prospectus, 1868.

 

[depotoo]

Heck we didn't even have an income tax then (other than the temporary act in which to pay for the Civil War). The government raised money through tariffs, excise taxes, selling of land, etc.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The General Welfare Clause | from Reason to Freedom

So how come they didn't write:

"Promote the Common Defense" and

"Provide the General Welfare"?

Why did they write it as they did?

Excellent question.

Perhaps someone who has a better knowledge of the writings of the founding fathers could shed some light on why they made that specific choice of words.

In just my humble opinion the Preamble is a set of goals for the Constitution while Article 1 Section 8 is more specific in nature as to what role the federal government was to play. A Constitutional scholar would be better able to define it further.

That would be the Supreme Court.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Collectivism is how you secure rights, not take them away. Imagine if America were 50 countries, instead of 50 states under one central government.

Do you really think, (nation)state by state, one's rights would be as uniformly protected as they are under our Constitution?

The Constitution made states give women the right to vote, states that otherwise chose not to.
The Constitution ended slavery, despite many states wanting to preserve it.

The Constitution ended school segregation, despite it being the law in many states.

The Constitution ended laws against interracial marriage, despite it being illegal in many states.

And, yes, the Constitution confirmed the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, despite there being laws passed within states to take away that right.

...and on and on...

The function of the Constitution, and of the 'big government' it creates, as it relates to rights, is to protect them on a national level against anyone or any government at a more local level that would violate those rights. States' rights, as often as not, are asserted for the purpose of curtailing rights. The big government 'collective' is needed to set them straight.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Collectivism is how you secure rights, not take them away. Imagine if America were 50 countries, instead of 50 states under one central government.

Do you really think, (nation)state by state, one's rights would be as uniformly protected as they are under our Constitution?

The Constitution made states give women the right to vote, states that otherwise chose not to.
The Constitution ended slavery, despite many states wanting to preserve it.

The Constitution ended school segregation, despite it being the law in many states.

The Constitution ended laws against interracial marriage, despite it being illegal in many states.

And, yes, the Constitution confirmed the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, despite there being laws passed within states to take away that right.

...and on and on...

The function of the Constitution, and of the 'big government' it creates, as it relates to rights, is to protect them on a national level against anyone or any government at a more local level that would violate those rights. States' rights, as often as not, are asserted for the purpose of curtailing rights. The big government 'collective' is needed to set them straight.

Correct.

The authority of the Constitution emanates from the people, not the states, which is consistent with the inalienable nature of our rights.

Imagine if America were 50 countries

The right does, it’s their ultimate wet dream.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Promote equals Provide?

The General Welfare Clause | from Reason to Freedom

The preamble to the Constitution states:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Article 1, Section 8 states:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

So how come they didn't write:

"Promote the Common Defense" and

"Provide the General Welfare"?

Why did they write it as they did?

Because The Founders had enough sense to know that government is the only entity that can PROVIDE the common defense and that PROMOTING the general welfare within a [collective] framework of reasonable law instead of providing it allows more opportunities for individual expression and growth of commerce and culture?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Imagine if America were 50 countries

The right does, it’s their ultimate wet dream.

It's interesting that in most cases where the right is arguing to keep or give or return power to the states, it's because conservatives are objecting to some expansion of rights by the federal government, not some case where the federal government is taking rights away,

unless of course you want to say that the federal government is taking away a state's right to limit rights...

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

Imagine if America were 50 countries

The right does, it’s their ultimate wet dream.

It's interesting that in most cases where the right is arguing to keep or give or return power to the states, it's because conservatives are objecting to some expansion of rights by the federal government, not some case where the federal government is taking rights away,

unless of course you want to say that the federal government is taking away a state's right to limit rights...

Here's a present for you and m-too.
Be prepared for a short quiz.

"Federalism Definition:
A system of government which has created, by written agreement, a central and national government to which it has distributed specified legislative (law-making) powers, and called the federal government, and regional governments (or sometimes called provinces or states) governments to which is distributed other, specified legislative powers."
Federalism Definition

 

[ScienceRocks]

Our founders didn't give us a collective but individual freedoms. Wake up and get that through your heads.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

The right does, it’s their ultimate wet dream.

It's interesting that in most cases where the right is arguing to keep or give or return power to the states, it's because conservatives are objecting to some expansion of rights by the federal government, not some case where the federal government is taking rights away,

unless of course you want to say that the federal government is taking away a state's right to limit rights...

Here's a present for you and m-too.
Be prepared for a short quiz.

"Federalism Definition:
A system of government which has created, by written agreement, a central and national government to which it has distributed specified legislative (law-making) powers, and called the federal government, and regional governments (or sometimes called provinces or states) governments to which is distributed other, specified legislative powers."
Federalism Definition

The Constitution protects you from tyranny of the majority at the state level.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Our founders didn't give us a collective but individual freedoms. Wake up and get that through your heads.

They gave you a powerful central government, the ultimate collective, to protect those freedoms.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[

The right does, it’s their ultimate wet dream.

It's interesting that in most cases where the right is arguing to keep or give or return power to the states, it's because conservatives are objecting to some expansion of rights by the federal government, not some case where the federal government is taking rights away,

unless of course you want to say that the federal government is taking away a state's right to limit rights...

Here's a present for you and m-too.
Be prepared for a short quiz.

"Federalism Definition:
A system of government which has created, by written agreement, a central and national government to which it has distributed specified legislative (law-making) powers, and called the federal government, and regional governments (or sometimes called provinces or states) governments to which is distributed other, specified legislative powers."
Federalism Definition

And Federal authority has always trumped state and local; the states are subject to the Federal Constitution, subject to Federal laws, subject to Federal courts:

US Constitution, Article. VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


‘If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would be this -- that the Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action. This would seem to result necessarily from its nature. It is the Government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts for all. Though any one State may be willing to control its operations, no State is willing to allow others to control them. The nation, on those subjects on which it can act, must necessarily bind its component parts. But this question is not left to mere reason; the people have, in express terms, decided it by saying, "this Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof," "shall be the supreme law of the land," and by requiring that the members of the State legislatures and the officers of the executive and judicial departments of the States shall take the oath of fidelity to it. The Government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers, is supreme, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land, "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."’

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

“The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it.”

Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

“The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition, which I take to be beyond dispute, that, though limited as to its objects, the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States. McCulloch affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers. "This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States." Id., at 432. The States have no power, reserved or otherwise, over the exercise of federal authority within its proper sphere.”

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995)

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Jeebus the brainwashed BS is deep. Change the channel. The PPM is totally FOS.

 

[francoHFW]

The total fear mongering bs the RW will resort to to avoid spending some money on education...

 

[Publius1787]

"Conservatism....recognizes the supremacy of the individual."

Is that 'conservatism' as in 'the collected group of humans calling themselves conservatives'?

I found the problem http://www.usmessageboard.com/7088250-post1.html

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Conservatism....recognizes the supremacy of the individual."

Is that 'conservatism' as in 'the collected group of humans calling themselves conservatives'?

They do? Since when?

There’s scant evidence of that.

 

[idb]

"Conservatism....recognizes the supremacy of the individual."

Is that 'conservatism' as in 'the collected group of humans calling themselves conservatives'?

They do? Since when?

There’s scant evidence of that.

Sure they do, as long as you're not asking for "the supremacy of the individual" in your affairs of love, sex or marriage.