Who should pay, and how much

[Agnapostate]

It simply means with in the confines of the listed powers the Government can do anything it needs to do that is for the Good of the Country.

Life in an agrarian society did not allow the founding fathers to envision the consequences of industrialization after a primitive accumulation phase by the ancestors of the current financial class. They believed that equality was attainable by effectively every white land-owning male over 21, and could not have predicted the consequences of the establishment of industrial wage labor and the extraction of surplus value (and subsequent capital accumulation), that occurred as a result of that establishment.

Were they alive today, many would be far more "egalitarian" in outlook, and some would probably even be libertarian socialists.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It simply means with in the confines of the listed powers the Government can do anything it needs to do that is for the Good of the Country.

Life in an agrarian society did not allow the founding fathers to envision the consequences of industrialization after a primitive accumulation phase by the ancestors of the current financial class. They believed that equality was attainable by effectively every white land-owning male over 21, and could not have predicted the consequences of the establishment of industrial wage labor and the extraction of surplus value (and subsequent capital accumulation), that occurred as a result of that establishment.

Were they alive today, many would be far more "egalitarian" in outlook, and some would probably even be libertarian socialists.

There is a straight forward and SIMPLE process to AMEND the Constitution. Something the Founding Fathers ensured would be availanle for Future needs or problems.

There is NO excuse to allow the Government to simply IGNORE the Constitution when it suits them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Article I Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Sounds like it does to me.

The "general welfare clause" doesn't give the government the authority to do anything. The powers of the government are explicitly stated in the Constitution, not hidden in double meanings to be "found" by corrupt politicians.

That's just your interpretation. It's clear to me. "The Congress shall have power to .. provide for the ... general welfare of the United States." I don't know how it could be much clearer.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." - James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution"

Providing for the general welfare is not defined, and therefore does not limit the power of the federal government in any way. Therefore, if we take Madison's word, it couldn't possibly have been meant to give the federal government unlimited power, which is essentially what it has been used for.

 

[Agnapostate]

There is a straight forward and SIMPLE process to AMEND the Constitution. Something the Founding Fathers ensured would be availanle for Future needs or problems.

There is NO excuse to allow the Government to simply IGNORE the Constitution when it suits them.

Since, as was noted by Kevin Kennedy, "[p]roviding for the general welfare is not defined," you therefore lack the means to claim that there is any legitimate violation of the Constitution posed by the social programs that you rail against. Even if there were, this would effectively constitute a violation of the document's letter rather than its spirit.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There is a straight forward and SIMPLE process to AMEND the Constitution. Something the Founding Fathers ensured would be availanle for Future needs or problems.

There is NO excuse to allow the Government to simply IGNORE the Constitution when it suits them.

Since, as was noted by Kevin Kennedy, "[p]roviding for the general welfare is not defined," you therefore lack the means to claim that there is any legitimate violation of the Constitution posed by the social programs that you rail against. Even if there were, this would effectively constitute a violation of the document's letter rather than its spirit.

I'm being taken out of context, though I should have stated what I meant clearer. What I should have said is:

"The general welfare clause is not defined..."

 

[Agnapostate]

I'm being taken out of context, though I should have stated what I meant clearer. What I should have said is:

"The general welfare clause is not defined..."

This attempt at disguise does not effectively conceal the double standard involved. The general welfare clause is indeed not defined, but if you want to be an originalist, you'll want to be a consistent one. Do you believe that individual states are permitted to establish religions and restrict free expression?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm being taken out of context, though I should have stated what I meant clearer. What I should have said is:

"The general welfare clause is not defined..."

This attempt at disguise does not effectively conceal the double standard involved. The general welfare clause is indeed not defined, but if you want to be an originalist, you'll want to be a consistent one. Do you believe that individual states are permitted to establish religions and restrict free expression?

While I am not familiar with every state constitution intimately I believe they all protect the freedom of expression, therefore they would need a vote and an amendment to their state constitution to restrict that. However, that is unlikely. The same applies to the a state religion. The U.S. Constitution in no way shape or form is meant to restrict the individual states, only the federal government.

Also, there was no double standard involved. The general welfare clause is not defined, and therefore does not grant any powers to the federal government. The actual powers in the Constitution are defined, and through those powers the federal government was meant to "promote the general welfare."

 

[Agnapostate]

While I am not familiar with every state constitution intimately I believe they all protect the freedom of expression, therefore they would need a vote and an amendment to their state constitution to restrict that. However, that is unlikely. The same applies to the a state religion. The U.S. Constitution in no way shape or form is meant to restrict the individual states, only the federal government.

You're not understanding the nature of an originalist approach, which involves support for the rights of individual states to establish religions or restrictions on free expression because of the fact that the First Amendment relates to Congress rather than the states. This is often tied hand in hand with criticism of the nature of the Fourteenth Amendment's passage (in alleged violation of Article Five), so as to prevent an interpretation that involves application of the First Amendment to individual state legislatures and municipal bodies and such.

Also, there was no double standard involved. The general welfare clause is not defined, and therefore does not grant any powers to the federal government. The actual powers in the Constitution are defined, and through those powers the federal government was meant to "promote the general welfare."

Neither can you claim that the aforementioned federal programs are specific violations of an intent to promote the general welfare, which would seem incumbent upon you considering the fact that a compelling government interest (or at least a state interest), is promoted through the retention of federal welfare programs, considering their role in maintaining the physical efficiency of the workforce and thus upholding capitalism and the U.S.'s economic framework.

An adaptationist approach would also attempt to consider the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law, obviously. Such a perspective would consider the contextual nature of the Constitution's original establishment and the manner in which certain components of the Bill of Rights specifically applied to that contextual nature (such as the Third Amendment, obviously), and would consider what would legitimately satisfy the condition of "original intent" in an industrialized society with all its economic nuances, as opposed to the simpler agrarian society of the Founding Fathers.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

While I am not familiar with every state constitution intimately I believe they all protect the freedom of expression, therefore they would need a vote and an amendment to their state constitution to restrict that. However, that is unlikely. The same applies to the a state religion. The U.S. Constitution in no way shape or form is meant to restrict the individual states, only the federal government.

You're not understanding the nature of an originalist approach, which involves support for the rights of individual states to establish religions or restrictions on free expression because of the fact that the First Amendment relates to Congress rather than the states. This is often tied hand in hand with criticism of the nature of the Fourteenth Amendment's passage (in alleged violation of Article Five), so as to prevent an interpretation that involves application of the First Amendment to individual state legislatures and municipal bodies and such.

Also, there was no double standard involved. The general welfare clause is not defined, and therefore does not grant any powers to the federal government. The actual powers in the Constitution are defined, and through those powers the federal government was meant to "promote the general welfare."

Neither can you claim that the aforementioned federal programs are specific violations of an intent to promote the general welfare, which would seem incumbent upon you considering the fact that a compelling government interest (or at least a state interest), is promoted through the retention of federal welfare programs, considering their role in maintaining the physical efficiency of the workforce and thus upholding capitalism and the U.S.'s economic framework.

An adaptationist approach would also attempt to consider the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law, obviously. Such a perspective would consider the contextual nature of the Constitution's original establishment and the manner in which certain components of the Bill of Rights specifically applied to that contextual nature (such as the Third Amendment, obviously), and would consider what would legitimately satisfy the condition of "original intent" in an industrialized society with all its economic nuances, as opposed to the simpler agrarian society of the Founding Fathers.

I understood quite well, actually. Apparently you're not taking into effect that the states have their own constitutions that they have to follow, just as the federal government must follow the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution does not stop the states from restricting freedom of expression or stop them from establishing a state religion, but their own constitutions may.

I can claim that those programs are violations of the intent to promote the general welfare, because if they were intended to promote the general welfare then they would have been included explicitly in the Constitution. If we feel we need these programs then we must pass an amendment to the Constitution to make them constitutional.

 

[Agnapostate]

I understood quite well, actually. Apparently you're not taking into effect that the states have their own constitutions that they have to follow, just as the federal government must follow the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution does not stop the states from restricting freedom of expression or stop them from establishing a state religion, but their own constitutions may.

That was exactly my point. I'm quite aware that individual states have their own constitutions; I was asking you if the U.S. Constitution prohibited them from establishing state religions or restricting freedom of expression. Now that you have denied this (where you incorporate the Fourteenth Amendment, I do not know, unless you claim that it was passed in violation of Article Five), my next contention involves the degree and nature of "tyranny" allegedly imposed through federal intervention on the state level. Is not a federal intervention to prevent state restrictions of free speech actually a less tyrannical or authoritarian imposition than that state's unrestricted crackdown on free speech would have been? You need to distinguish between the relative effects of ends and means; you may consider the means of federal intervention "tyrannical"; but in such a situation, it would ultimately prevent a more tyrannical end.

I can claim that those programs are violations of the intent to promote the general welfare, because if they were intended to promote the general welfare then they would have been included explicitly in the Constitution. If we feel we need these programs then we must pass an amendment to the Constitution to make them constitutional.

I have already addressed this.

The original Constitution must be considered in its appropriate historical and situational context. Since the writers of the Constitution incorporated certain specific facets and elements that were clearly intended to apply to their specific historical situation (the Third Amendment is the most obvious example), it's necessary to consider their original intent as it would apply to our current situational context. Most importantly, we might consider the fact that they had a general interest in promoting equality (or at least equity), but did not incorporate specific clauses to this effect into the Constitution because they could not have conceived of the rapid intensifications of inequality that an industrialized society and economy would later bring about. We can therefore interpret and adapt their intent as behooving the establishment of specific federal programs that have the effect of promoting greater equality or equity. There's nothing especially complex about this, really. It's a very basic adaptationist approach.

Moreover, we could refer to the fact that there is a compelling government interest in the maintenance of economic stability, and since welfare programs ensure the physical efficiency of the workforce and therefore uphold capitalism, the government therefore has an interest in promoting the expansion of welfare programs.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I understood quite well, actually. Apparently you're not taking into effect that the states have their own constitutions that they have to follow, just as the federal government must follow the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution does not stop the states from restricting freedom of expression or stop them from establishing a state religion, but their own constitutions may.

That was exactly my point. I'm quite aware that individual states have their own constitutions; I was asking you if the U.S. Constitution prohibited them from establishing state religions or restricting freedom of expression. Now that you have denied this (where you incorporate the Fourteenth Amendment, I do not know, unless you claim that it was passed in violation of Article Five), my next contention involves the degree and nature of "tyranny" allegedly imposed through federal intervention on the state level. Is not a federal intervention to prevent state restrictions of free speech actually a less tyrannical or authoritarian imposition than that state's unrestricted crackdown on free speech would have been? You need to distinguish between the relative effects of ends and means; you may consider the means of federal intervention "tyrannical"; but in such a situation, it would ultimately prevent a more tyrannical end.

I can claim that those programs are violations of the intent to promote the general welfare, because if they were intended to promote the general welfare then they would have been included explicitly in the Constitution. If we feel we need these programs then we must pass an amendment to the Constitution to make them constitutional.

I have already addressed this.

The original Constitution must be considered in its appropriate historical and situational context. Since the writers of the Constitution incorporated certain specific facets and elements that were clearly intended to apply to their specific historical situation (the Third Amendment is the most obvious example), it's necessary to consider their original intent as it would apply to our current situational context. Most importantly, we might consider the fact that they had a general interest in promoting equality (or at least equity), but did not incorporate specific clauses to this effect into the Constitution because they could not have conceived of the rapid intensifications of inequality that an industrialized society and economy would later bring about. We can therefore interpret and adapt their intent as behooving the establishment of specific federal programs that have the effect of promoting greater equality or equity. There's nothing especially complex about this, really. It's a very basic adaptationist approach.

Moreover, we could refer to the fact that there is a compelling government interest in the maintenance of economic stability, and since welfare programs ensure the physical efficiency of the workforce and therefore uphold capitalism, the government therefore has an interest in promoting the expansion of welfare programs.

I've not heard of any states passing laws restricting free speech, or passing any amendments to their constitutions to even make such a law possible.

If you want to look at original intent lets, again, look at the quote by James Madison.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." - James Madison

The programs we are discussing are not defined in the Constitution, therefore they are not a legitimate power of the federal government. Now you claim that they couldn't have foreseen such and such, which is correct. However, they foresaw that they couldn't foresee future developments and gave us a mode of amending the Constitution to make that which is unconstitutional, constitutional. They can't simply pass a law that is not authorized by the Constitution, but they can attempt to amend the Constitution to authorize that law.

 

[Ravi]

I understood quite well, actually. Apparently you're not taking into effect that the states have their own constitutions that they have to follow, just as the federal government must follow the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution does not stop the states from restricting freedom of expression or stop them from establishing a state religion, but their own constitutions may.

Wuh? That's just silly, Kevin. The states cannot restrict freedom of expression or the right to bear arms or anything else that can be construed as a civil right. If that were true, each and every state could deny guns to their citizens.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I understood quite well, actually. Apparently you're not taking into effect that the states have their own constitutions that they have to follow, just as the federal government must follow the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution does not stop the states from restricting freedom of expression or stop them from establishing a state religion, but their own constitutions may.

Wuh? That's just silly, Kevin. The states cannot restrict freedom of expression or the right to bear arms or anything else that can be construed as a civil right. If that were true, each and every state could deny guns to their citizens.

We were speaking hypothetically. The state Constitution would have to authorize the state government to restrict those freedoms, and I doubt there are any state Constitutions that do that and I doubt that the citizens of the states would vote to amend their Constitution to do so.

However, the United States Constitution does not apply to the states whatsoever. It only applies to the federal government.

 

[Ravi]

I understood quite well, actually. Apparently you're not taking into effect that the states have their own constitutions that they have to follow, just as the federal government must follow the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution does not stop the states from restricting freedom of expression or stop them from establishing a state religion, but their own constitutions may.

Wuh? That's just silly, Kevin. The states cannot restrict freedom of expression or the right to bear arms or anything else that can be construed as a civil right. If that were true, each and every state could deny guns to their citizens.

We were speaking hypothetically. The state Constitution would have to authorize the state government to restrict those freedoms, and I doubt there are any state Constitutions that do that and I doubt that the citizens of the states would vote to amend their Constitution to do so.

However, the United States Constitution does not apply to the states whatsoever. It only applies to the federal government.

Actually it applies to the citizens of the country.

Did you miss the DC gun ruling?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Wuh? That's just silly, Kevin. The states cannot restrict freedom of expression or the right to bear arms or anything else that can be construed as a civil right. If that were true, each and every state could deny guns to their citizens.

We were speaking hypothetically. The state Constitution would have to authorize the state government to restrict those freedoms, and I doubt there are any state Constitutions that do that and I doubt that the citizens of the states would vote to amend their Constitution to do so.

However, the United States Constitution does not apply to the states whatsoever. It only applies to the federal government.

Actually it applies to the citizens of the country.

Did you miss the DC gun ruling?

No, the U.S. Constitution restricts only the federal government, not the states and not the citizens of the states.

 

[slackjawed]

This one always goes downhill. It really looks to me like most people want to cut taxes and cut spending.
They just can't agree on how to do it.

 

[Iriemon]

Get out of Iraq. Saves about $125 billion a year. Reduce military spending to 2000 GDP adjusted levels. We don't need to spend as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. Saves another $150 billion a year.

The Warren Buffets don't need to be on the SS dole. Make SS means tested and phased out for those who have more than $100k of income. Overhaul health care. Tighten up wasteful spending in Govt.

Repeal the Bush tax cuts. That will provide another $200-250 billion a year. Add a debt reduction surcharge tax up to 50% on those making over $1m a year.

Aside from temporary anti-recession stimulus spending, that should get us back into a surplus budget. Or pretty close.

I hope that I misread this and you meant it all out of sarcasm. If not reality is so far from your grasp that to you neverland is a vacation option.

Insightful analysis.

 

[Iriemon]

You make the fatal flaw of assuming the government can create jobs. it can't

I made no such assertions or assumptions.

YES you did, you claimed Clinton had something to do with 22 million new Jobs.

That would be very astute comment, if it had anything to do the posts about assuming the Govt can create jobs.

 

[Iriemon]

Gee, I wonder why you parced out non-government employees from NOT recieving welfare?

What a tool.

But at least you understand what side of the bread your slice is buttered.

Let me guess, he's on the dole of some sort with a govt pension, so *that* spending is OK?

Lots of Cons rail about spending, until it comes to their "entitlements".

You are as DUMB as Editec, I have a MILITARY Disability, which is COVERED by the Constitution, one I EARNED via the CONTRACT that I enlisted and reenlisted under. You may want to read the rest of your Constitution on Powers granted the Federal Government.

The Federal Government has the power to pay such compensation to people they employ or employed. They do NOT have the power to do the same for people not employed by the Government.

Like I said, another Con who rails about Govt spending, except when it comes to *his* gravy. I see them all the time.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I made no such assertions or assumptions.

YES you did, you claimed Clinton had something to do with 22 million new Jobs.

That would be very astute comment, if it had anything to do the posts about assuming the Govt can create jobs.

Dumb ASS you claimed Clinton created 22 million jobs. Last I checked he was President dumb fuck. SO you claimed the Government created 22 million jobs because Clinton did something to make it happen.