Bush, Republicans destroyed economy

cygo
Science Freak
cygo's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2010-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Bush, Republicans destroyed economy

I am 71 years old, and have voted Republican more times than Democrat. But I believe the Bush administration is responsible for destroying our economy by getting our nation into a war with Iraq and giving tax cuts we could not afford to the rich. It took the Republican administration eight years to destroy our economy and neither President Obama nor any other president can get us out of this mess in 21 months. I believe Obama's policies are working, but it will take time. I also believe if the Republicans take control of Congress in November, it will be just a matter of time before we seniors see Social Security privatized or our benefits cut. Medicare would be next.

~ T.R. Hilleren

 

http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/20100912/OPINION03/9120309

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:"general

atomicdogg34 wrote:

"general welfare" AGAIN?

 

didn't we already go over this and show that "interpretation" to be absolutely untenable?

 

*sigh*

Yeah. Why did those bastards incorporate those absolutely untenable words in the Constitution?

How the fuck dare they?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

"general welfare" AGAIN?

 

didn't we already go over this and show that "interpretation" to be absolutely untenable?

 

*sigh*

Yeah. Why did those bastards incorporate those absolutely untenable words in the Constitution?

How the fuck dare they?

you cannot possibly be this stupid

i mean should i even point out to you again james madison's view on this or what several other people and states thought during the ratifying conventions?

prolly not, youll just ignore it again

 

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

"general welfare" AGAIN?

 

didn't we already go over this and show that "interpretation" to be absolutely untenable?

 

*sigh*

Yeah. Why did those bastards incorporate those absolutely untenable words in the Constitution?

How the fuck dare they?

you cannot possibly be this stupid

i mean should i even point out to you again james madison's view on this or what several other people and states thought during the ratifying conventions?

prolly not, youll just ignore it again

 

I'm aware that Madison was against it.

The words are still there and they mean things.

You remind me of the theist who, when reminded of what their Bible says, responds with "God didn't really mean that".

If you don't like the words, don't you dare pull any strict constructionist bullshit on me. You'd be lying.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
There's only one way to

There's only one way to solve this you two.  A fight to the death?  No....

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

"general welfare" AGAIN?

 

didn't we already go over this and show that "interpretation" to be absolutely untenable?

 

*sigh*

Yeah. Why did those bastards incorporate those absolutely untenable words in the Constitution?

How the fuck dare they?

you cannot possibly be this stupid

i mean should i even point out to you again james madison's view on this or what several other people and states thought during the ratifying conventions?

prolly not, youll just ignore it again

 

I'm aware that Madison was against it.

The words are still there and they mean things.

You remind me of the theist who, when reminded of what their Bible says, responds with "God didn't really mean that".

If you don't like the words, don't you dare pull any strict constructionist bullshit on me. You'd be lying.

 

your comparison is stupid and not remotely similar at all

the theist would have no proof as to what was actually meant, on the other hand i do

 

 

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


El-ahrairah
atheist
El-ahrairah's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2010-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Isn't this the "Rational" Response Squad?

Politics amuse me. They can turn even the most logical, evidence-based atheist into a stubborn adherent to his or her particular ideology. I'm guilty of this too; don't think that I'm being condescending or anything. It's just my opinion based on my experience with lots of online political debates. Does anyone here have any explanation for this? I'm also not saying that this is universally true for every person, but it's just my general observation.

"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)

"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
El-ahrairah wrote:Politics

El-ahrairah wrote:

Politics amuse me. They can turn even the most logical, evidence-based atheist into a stubborn adherent to his or her particular ideology. I'm guilty of this too; don't think that I'm being condescending or anything. It's just my opinion based on my experience with lots of online political debates.

 

i wholeheartedly agree

a point i like to bring up is that if someone is an anti-theist (as opposed to just a regular atheist for various reasons), to be consistent theyd have to be a libertarian of some sort

if you are against the idea of God because of the total lack of freedom the position entails, i dont see how you do yourself any favors by replacing God with govt

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:There's only

mellestad wrote:

There's only one way to solve this you two.  A fight to the death?  No....

 

Fighting to the death isn't worth it.

If I really wanted to die I'd vote for a Libertarian and watch them and the Republicans kill all of us.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:mellestad

jcgadfly wrote:

mellestad wrote:

There's only one way to solve this you two.  A fight to the death?  No....

 

Fighting to the death isn't worth it.

If I really wanted to die I'd vote for a Libertarian and watch them and the Republicans kill all of us.

 

or you can vote democrat and let them assassinate you in your sleep, as president obama seems to think he has the power to do

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


El-ahrairah
atheist
El-ahrairah's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2010-10-21
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:mellestad

jcgadfly wrote:

mellestad wrote:

There's only one way to solve this you two.  A fight to the death?  No....

 

Fighting to the death isn't worth it.

If I really wanted to die I'd vote for a Libertarian and watch them and the Republicans kill all of us.

That's why I wasn't a fan of Bob Barr in the 2008 presidential election. Of course, I was also extremely liberal in the last presidential election...

Oh yeah, that reminds me...THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH!

"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)

"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
El-ahrairah wrote:jcgadfly

El-ahrairah wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

mellestad wrote:

There's only one way to solve this you two.  A fight to the death?  No....

 

Fighting to the death isn't worth it.

If I really wanted to die I'd vote for a Libertarian and watch them and the Republicans kill all of us.

That's why I wasn't a fan of Bob Barr in the 2008 presidential election. Of course, I was also extremely liberal in the last presidential election...

Oh yeah, that reminds me...THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH!

 

that guy is funny, though its not like hed know, he hasnt paid rent since like 1988 or some shit

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

"general welfare" AGAIN?

 

didn't we already go over this and show that "interpretation" to be absolutely untenable?

 

*sigh*

Yeah. Why did those bastards incorporate those absolutely untenable words in the Constitution?

How the fuck dare they?

you cannot possibly be this stupid

i mean should i even point out to you again james madison's view on this or what several other people and states thought during the ratifying conventions?

prolly not, youll just ignore it again

 

I'm aware that Madison was against it.

The words are still there and they mean things.

You remind me of the theist who, when reminded of what their Bible says, responds with "God didn't really mean that".

If you don't like the words, don't you dare pull any strict constructionist bullshit on me. You'd be lying.

 

your comparison is stupid and not remotely similar at all

the theist would have no proof as to what was actually meant, on the other hand i do

 

 

You do realize what your saying, right?

"The constitution is a document that is to be taken literally. I haven't done that in this case but my interpretation is the correct one"

And yes, politics is a crazy business. That's why I had avoided this topic for a bit.

People think their particular candidate is going to magically fix this mess of a country by what they do when they come into office. Not sure how the libertarian view of wrecking the government is going to fix the country..

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


El-ahrairah
atheist
El-ahrairah's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2010-10-21
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:that guy

atomicdogg34 wrote:

that guy is funny, though its not like hed know, he hasnt paid rent since like 1988 or some shit

He hasn't paid it because IT'S TOO DAMN HIGH!

"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)

"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972


El-ahrairah
atheist
El-ahrairah's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2010-10-21
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:People think

jcgadfly wrote:

People think their particular candidate is going to magically fix this mess of a country by what they do when they come into office. Not sure how the libertarian view of wrecking the government is going to fix the country..

 

Well, libertarians think that most government action is harmful, so wouldn't it make sense that they would like to wreck it?

"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)

"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
El-ahrairah

El-ahrairah wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

that guy is funny, though its not like hed know, he hasnt paid rent since like 1988 or some shit

He hasn't paid it because IT'S TOO DAMN HIGH!

 

i dont think thats it

he hasnt paid because the landlord finds his mutton chops sexy

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

"general welfare" AGAIN?

 

didn't we already go over this and show that "interpretation" to be absolutely untenable?

 

*sigh*

Yeah. Why did those bastards incorporate those absolutely untenable words in the Constitution?

How the fuck dare they?

you cannot possibly be this stupid

i mean should i even point out to you again james madison's view on this or what several other people and states thought during the ratifying conventions?

prolly not, youll just ignore it again

 

I'm aware that Madison was against it.

The words are still there and they mean things.

You remind me of the theist who, when reminded of what their Bible says, responds with "God didn't really mean that".

If you don't like the words, don't you dare pull any strict constructionist bullshit on me. You'd be lying.

 

your comparison is stupid and not remotely similar at all

the theist would have no proof as to what was actually meant, on the other hand i do

 

 

You do realize what your saying, right?

"The constitution is a document that is to be taken literally. I haven't done that in this case but my interpretation is the correct one"

And yes, politics is a crazy business. That's why I had avoided this topic for a bit.

People think their particular candidate is going to magically fix this mess of a country by what they do when they come into office. Not sure how the libertarian view of wrecking the government is going to fix the country..

 

i do realize what i was saying, i was saying your comparison was stupid

and its not my interpretation, its the interpretation of the guys who wrote it and ratified it, think they might know something about it

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
El-ahrairah wrote:jcgadfly

El-ahrairah wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

People think their particular candidate is going to magically fix this mess of a country by what they do when they come into office. Not sure how the libertarian view of wrecking the government is going to fix the country..

 

Well, libertarians think that most government action is harmful, so wouldn't it make sense that they would like to wreck it?

Yes but anarchy wrapped in the parts of the constitution they like isn't a substitute.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

"general welfare" AGAIN?

 

didn't we already go over this and show that "interpretation" to be absolutely untenable?

 

*sigh*

Yeah. Why did those bastards incorporate those absolutely untenable words in the Constitution?

How the fuck dare they?

you cannot possibly be this stupid

i mean should i even point out to you again james madison's view on this or what several other people and states thought during the ratifying conventions?

prolly not, youll just ignore it again

 

I'm aware that Madison was against it.

The words are still there and they mean things.

You remind me of the theist who, when reminded of what their Bible says, responds with "God didn't really mean that".

If you don't like the words, don't you dare pull any strict constructionist bullshit on me. You'd be lying.

 

your comparison is stupid and not remotely similar at all

the theist would have no proof as to what was actually meant, on the other hand i do

 

 

You do realize what your saying, right?

"The constitution is a document that is to be taken literally. I haven't done that in this case but my interpretation is the correct one"

And yes, politics is a crazy business. That's why I had avoided this topic for a bit.

People think their particular candidate is going to magically fix this mess of a country by what they do when they come into office. Not sure how the libertarian view of wrecking the government is going to fix the country..

 

i do realize what i was saying, i was saying your comparison was stupid

and its not my interpretation, its the interpretation of the guys who wrote it and ratified it, think they might know something about it

And yet, the government's mission to "promote the general welfare" is still there. I guess they know more than you'd like to give them credit for. They didn't like the wording but they saw the need.

We've already seen how effective "rugged individualism: was.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


El-ahrairah
atheist
El-ahrairah's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2010-10-21
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:El-ahrairah

jcgadfly wrote:

El-ahrairah wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

People think their particular candidate is going to magically fix this mess of a country by what they do when they come into office. Not sure how the libertarian view of wrecking the government is going to fix the country..

 

Well, libertarians think that most government action is harmful, so wouldn't it make sense that they would like to wreck it?

Yes but anarchy wrapped in the parts of the constitution they like isn't a substitute.

Not all libertarians are strict constitutionalists. Some of them find faults with not only certain amendments, but certain sections as well.

"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)

"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

"general welfare" AGAIN?

 

didn't we already go over this and show that "interpretation" to be absolutely untenable?

 

*sigh*

Yeah. Why did those bastards incorporate those absolutely untenable words in the Constitution?

How the fuck dare they?

you cannot possibly be this stupid

i mean should i even point out to you again james madison's view on this or what several other people and states thought during the ratifying conventions?

prolly not, youll just ignore it again

 

I'm aware that Madison was against it.

The words are still there and they mean things.

You remind me of the theist who, when reminded of what their Bible says, responds with "God didn't really mean that".

If you don't like the words, don't you dare pull any strict constructionist bullshit on me. You'd be lying.

 

your comparison is stupid and not remotely similar at all

the theist would have no proof as to what was actually meant, on the other hand i do

 

 

You do realize what your saying, right?

"The constitution is a document that is to be taken literally. I haven't done that in this case but my interpretation is the correct one"

And yes, politics is a crazy business. That's why I had avoided this topic for a bit.

People think their particular candidate is going to magically fix this mess of a country by what they do when they come into office. Not sure how the libertarian view of wrecking the government is going to fix the country..

 

i do realize what i was saying, i was saying your comparison was stupid

and its not my interpretation, its the interpretation of the guys who wrote it and ratified it, think they might know something about it

And yet, the government's mission to "promote the general welfare" is still there. I guess they know more than you'd like to give them credit for. They didn't like the wording but they saw the need.

We've already seen how effective "rugged individualism: was.

 

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

"general welfare" AGAIN?

 

didn't we already go over this and show that "interpretation" to be absolutely untenable?

 

*sigh*

Yeah. Why did those bastards incorporate those absolutely untenable words in the Constitution?

How the fuck dare they?

you cannot possibly be this stupid

i mean should i even point out to you again james madison's view on this or what several other people and states thought during the ratifying conventions?

prolly not, youll just ignore it again

 

I'm aware that Madison was against it.

The words are still there and they mean things.

You remind me of the theist who, when reminded of what their Bible says, responds with "God didn't really mean that".

If you don't like the words, don't you dare pull any strict constructionist bullshit on me. You'd be lying.

 

your comparison is stupid and not remotely similar at all

the theist would have no proof as to what was actually meant, on the other hand i do

 

 

You do realize what your saying, right?

"The constitution is a document that is to be taken literally. I haven't done that in this case but my interpretation is the correct one"

And yes, politics is a crazy business. That's why I had avoided this topic for a bit.

People think their particular candidate is going to magically fix this mess of a country by what they do when they come into office. Not sure how the libertarian view of wrecking the government is going to fix the country..

 

i do realize what i was saying, i was saying your comparison was stupid

and its not my interpretation, its the interpretation of the guys who wrote it and ratified it, think they might know something about it

And yet, the government's mission to "promote the general welfare" is still there. I guess they know more than you'd like to give them credit for. They didn't like the wording but they saw the need.

We've already seen how effective "rugged individualism: was.

 

How do you know what you're making me do?

It's odd when I am forced to take the constitution more literally than an alleged strict constructionist.

The founding fathers understood compromise - why can't you? Oh, yeah, that would involve interpretation and might mean that the constitution is not as dead of a document as you'd like. 

I know you don't like the Japanese relocation order - good on you. I understand that a lot of libertarians like what's going on with the rendition of Iraqis and Afghans. Do you consider their treatment as acceptable or does skin tone make as much of a difference to you as it does to some of your brethren?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4492
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
jcgadfly wrote:And yet, the

jcgadfly wrote:

And yet, the government's mission to "promote the general welfare" is still there. I guess they know more than you'd like to give them credit for. They didn't like the wording but they saw the need.

We've already seen how effective "rugged individualism: was.

Read Federalist 41, in it Madison explicitly defines what is meant by "general welfare" in the Constitution. Madison was NOT against the wording. He DEFINED what was meant by the wording and EXPLICITLY denounced the interpretation you are giving it as ridiculous. If you read it, it is blatantly clear that your interpretation is not what was intended and ours is. I will even post it here so you don't have to go through the effort of looking it up. Federalist 41 says in part

James Madison wrote:

Some who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded very fierce attack against the Constitution on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the 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," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alledged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labour for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some colour for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so aukward form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.["]

But what colour can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms, immediately follows; and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon. If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded as to give meaning to every part which will bear it; shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent and the clear and precise expressions, be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural or common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars, which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity which as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection, or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears, that the language used by the Convention is a copy from the articles of confederation. The objects of the Union among the States as described in article 3d. are, "their common defence, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article 8th. are still more identical. "All charges of war, and all other expences, that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury&c." A similar language again occurs in art. 9. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify, the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications, which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing ["]for the common defence and general welfare."? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress, as they now make use of against the Convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

 

PUBLIUS.

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

And yet, the government's mission to "promote the general welfare" is still there. I guess they know more than you'd like to give them credit for. They didn't like the wording but they saw the need.

We've already seen how effective "rugged individualism: was.

Read Federalist 41, in it Madison explicitly defines what is meant by "general welfare" in the Constitution. Madison was NOT against the wording. He DEFINED what was meant by the wording and EXPLICITLY denounced the interpretation you are giving it as ridiculous. If you read it, it is blatantly clear that your interpretation is not what was intended and ours is. I will even post it here so you don't have to go through the effort of looking it up. Federalist 41 says in part

James Madison wrote:

Some who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded very fierce attack against the Constitution on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the 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," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alledged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labour for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some colour for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so aukward form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.["]

But what colour can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms, immediately follows; and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon. If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded as to give meaning to every part which will bear it; shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent and the clear and precise expressions, be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural or common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars, which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity which as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection, or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears, that the language used by the Convention is a copy from the articles of confederation. The objects of the Union among the States as described in article 3d. are, "their common defence, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article 8th. are still more identical. "All charges of war, and all other expences, that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury&c." A similar language again occurs in art. 9. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify, the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications, which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing ["]for the common defence and general welfare."? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress, as they now make use of against the Convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

 

PUBLIUS.

Interesting.

According to this, promoting the general welfare is to be provided for from a common treasury. That treasury is filled because the government is allowed to collect taxes.

You don't want the government to collect income taxes (particularly from wealthy people because you think it punishes success). so, how is the treasury to be filled? A sales tax that would be higher than the current income tax?

It also seems that the general welfare is to be provided for only in times of war - is that really the only time that people need to be helped?

Oh, wait. It's not for the people is it? It's for the country and those in the government - damn it's citizens.

No wonder libertarians want to be in office. They want their particular welfare to be promoted.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4492
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
jcgadfly wrote:Beyond Saving

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

And yet, the government's mission to "promote the general welfare" is still there. I guess they know more than you'd like to give them credit for. They didn't like the wording but they saw the need.

We've already seen how effective "rugged individualism: was.

Read Federalist 41, in it Madison explicitly defines what is meant by "general welfare" in the Constitution. Madison was NOT against the wording. He DEFINED what was meant by the wording and EXPLICITLY denounced the interpretation you are giving it as ridiculous. If you read it, it is blatantly clear that your interpretation is not what was intended and ours is. I will even post it here so you don't have to go through the effort of looking it up. Federalist 41 says in part

James Madison wrote:

 

Some who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded very fierce attack against the Constitution on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the 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," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alledged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labour for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some colour for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so aukward form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.["]

But what colour can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms, immediately follows; and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon. If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded as to give meaning to every part which will bear it; shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent and the clear and precise expressions, be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural or common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars, which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity which as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection, or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears, that the language used by the Convention is a copy from the articles of confederation. The objects of the Union among the States as described in article 3d. are, "their common defence, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article 8th. are still more identical. "All charges of war, and all other expences, that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury&c." A similar language again occurs in art. 9. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify, the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications, which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing ["]for the common defence and general welfare."? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress, as they now make use of against the Convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

 

PUBLIUS.

 

Interesting.

According to this, promoting the general welfare is to be provided for from a common treasury. That treasury is filled because the government is allowed to collect taxes.

You don't want the government to collect income taxes (particularly from wealthy people because you think it punishes success). so, how is the treasury to be filled? A sales tax that would be higher than the current income tax?

It also seems that the general welfare is to be provided for only in times of war - is that really the only time that people need to be helped?

Oh, wait. It's not for the people is it? It's for the country and those in the government - damn it's citizens.

No wonder libertarians want to be in office. They want their particular welfare to be promoted.

The Constitution is a very libertarian document. The idea was that all of the things you call "welfare" would be handled at the state and local levels where it is much easier for the people to directly affect things. I don't have a problem if you want your state to have universal healthcare, welfare, social security etc. States are certainly allowed to do so. I will live in a state that doesn't you can live in a state that does. That is how our country was intended. Over the last 100 years we have come to expect the federal government to do everything which it was never intended to do. The main purpose of the federal government was the military and to ensure the states got along and didn't start fighting amongst themselves. 

It isn't "damn the citizens" it is citizens work together locally and govern yourselves. It is very easy for me to get my voice heard by the mayor or to get the mayor thrown out of office if he does something corrupt. I only need to convince the people I live around every day. It is slightly more difficult but not impossible to make real change in my state government. It is virtually impossible for me to make real change at the national level unless I have connections. The founders idea was that as much politics be handled as locally as possible so that the people were not damned. It is to give the people power over their government. Do you feel like you have any power over the federal government?

And yes, I believe it should be filled through a consumption tax. Although the amount of money needed would be substantially lower than we need now if Congress limited their spending powers to those outlined in the Constitution. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
how would the treasury be

how would the treasury be filled without an income tax?

 

the same way it was for the vast majority of this country's existence

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

And yet, the government's mission to "promote the general welfare" is still there. I guess they know more than you'd like to give them credit for. They didn't like the wording but they saw the need.

We've already seen how effective "rugged individualism: was.

Read Federalist 41, in it Madison explicitly defines what is meant by "general welfare" in the Constitution. Madison was NOT against the wording. He DEFINED what was meant by the wording and EXPLICITLY denounced the interpretation you are giving it as ridiculous. If you read it, it is blatantly clear that your interpretation is not what was intended and ours is. I will even post it here so you don't have to go through the effort of looking it up. Federalist 41 says in part

James Madison wrote:

 

Some who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded very fierce attack against the Constitution on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the 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," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alledged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labour for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some colour for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so aukward form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.["]

But what colour can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms, immediately follows; and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon. If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded as to give meaning to every part which will bear it; shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent and the clear and precise expressions, be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural or common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars, which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity which as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection, or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears, that the language used by the Convention is a copy from the articles of confederation. The objects of the Union among the States as described in article 3d. are, "their common defence, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article 8th. are still more identical. "All charges of war, and all other expences, that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury&c." A similar language again occurs in art. 9. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify, the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications, which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing ["]for the common defence and general welfare."? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress, as they now make use of against the Convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

 

PUBLIUS.

 

Interesting.

According to this, promoting the general welfare is to be provided for from a common treasury. That treasury is filled because the government is allowed to collect taxes.

You don't want the government to collect income taxes (particularly from wealthy people because you think it punishes success). so, how is the treasury to be filled? A sales tax that would be higher than the current income tax?

It also seems that the general welfare is to be provided for only in times of war - is that really the only time that people need to be helped?

Oh, wait. It's not for the people is it? It's for the country and those in the government - damn it's citizens.

No wonder libertarians want to be in office. They want their particular welfare to be promoted.

The Constitution is a very libertarian document. The idea was that all of the things you call "welfare" would be handled at the state and local levels where it is much easier for the people to directly affect things. I don't have a problem if you want your state to have universal healthcare, welfare, social security etc. States are certainly allowed to do so. I will live in a state that doesn't you can live in a state that does. That is how our country was intended. Over the last 100 years we have come to expect the federal government to do everything which it was never intended to do. The main purpose of the federal government was the military and to ensure the states got along and didn't start fighting amongst themselves. 

It isn't "damn the citizens" it is citizens work together locally and govern yourselves. It is very easy for me to get my voice heard by the mayor or to get the mayor thrown out of office if he does something corrupt. I only need to convince the people I live around every day. It is slightly more difficult but not impossible to make real change in my state government. It is virtually impossible for me to make real change at the national level unless I have connections. The founders idea was that as much politics be handled as locally as possible so that the people were not damned. It is to give the people power over their government. Do you feel like you have any power over the federal government?

And yes, I believe it should be filled through a consumption tax. Although the amount of money needed would be substantially lower than we need now if Congress limited their spending powers to those outlined in the Constitution. 

 

eh dont bother, your talking to a guy that doesnt even know that strict construction has to do with original intent and very little to do with the words and every manner in which you can interpret them (which doesnt even make sense to label strict construction that way, if you look at the words without context and can interpret them however you want how is that in any way strict?)

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4492
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
atomicdogg34 wrote:Beyond

atomicdogg34 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

And yet, the government's mission to "promote the general welfare" is still there. I guess they know more than you'd like to give them credit for. They didn't like the wording but they saw the need.

We've already seen how effective "rugged individualism: was.

Read Federalist 41, in it Madison explicitly defines what is meant by "general welfare" in the Constitution. Madison was NOT against the wording. He DEFINED what was meant by the wording and EXPLICITLY denounced the interpretation you are giving it as ridiculous. If you read it, it is blatantly clear that your interpretation is not what was intended and ours is. I will even post it here so you don't have to go through the effort of looking it up. Federalist 41 says in part

James Madison wrote:

 

Some who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded very fierce attack against the Constitution on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the 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," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alledged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labour for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some colour for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so aukward form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.["]

But what colour can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms, immediately follows; and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon. If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded as to give meaning to every part which will bear it; shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent and the clear and precise expressions, be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural or common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars, which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity which as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection, or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears, that the language used by the Convention is a copy from the articles of confederation. The objects of the Union among the States as described in article 3d. are, "their common defence, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article 8th. are still more identical. "All charges of war, and all other expences, that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury&c." A similar language again occurs in art. 9. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify, the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications, which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing ["]for the common defence and general welfare."? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress, as they now make use of against the Convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

 

PUBLIUS.

 

Interesting.

According to this, promoting the general welfare is to be provided for from a common treasury. That treasury is filled because the government is allowed to collect taxes.

You don't want the government to collect income taxes (particularly from wealthy people because you think it punishes success). so, how is the treasury to be filled? A sales tax that would be higher than the current income tax?

It also seems that the general welfare is to be provided for only in times of war - is that really the only time that people need to be helped?

Oh, wait. It's not for the people is it? It's for the country and those in the government - damn it's citizens.

No wonder libertarians want to be in office. They want their particular welfare to be promoted.

The Constitution is a very libertarian document. The idea was that all of the things you call "welfare" would be handled at the state and local levels where it is much easier for the people to directly affect things. I don't have a problem if you want your state to have universal healthcare, welfare, social security etc. States are certainly allowed to do so. I will live in a state that doesn't you can live in a state that does. That is how our country was intended. Over the last 100 years we have come to expect the federal government to do everything which it was never intended to do. The main purpose of the federal government was the military and to ensure the states got along and didn't start fighting amongst themselves. 

It isn't "damn the citizens" it is citizens work together locally and govern yourselves. It is very easy for me to get my voice heard by the mayor or to get the mayor thrown out of office if he does something corrupt. I only need to convince the people I live around every day. It is slightly more difficult but not impossible to make real change in my state government. It is virtually impossible for me to make real change at the national level unless I have connections. The founders idea was that as much politics be handled as locally as possible so that the people were not damned. It is to give the people power over their government. Do you feel like you have any power over the federal government?

And yes, I believe it should be filled through a consumption tax. Although the amount of money needed would be substantially lower than we need now if Congress limited their spending powers to those outlined in the Constitution. 

 

eh dont bother, your talking to a guy that doesnt even know that strict construction has to do with original intent and very little to do with the words and every manner in which you can interpret them (which doesnt even make sense to label strict construction that way, if you look at the words without context and can interpret them however you want how is that in any way strict?)

Yeah I know, but it is mainly for the benefit of the lurkers. JC is a lost cause, but someone out there lurking might learn something. And I know they don't teach the Federalist papers in public school. At least they didn't in mine.

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

And yet, the government's mission to "promote the general welfare" is still there. I guess they know more than you'd like to give them credit for. They didn't like the wording but they saw the need.

We've already seen how effective "rugged individualism: was.

Read Federalist 41, in it Madison explicitly defines what is meant by "general welfare" in the Constitution. Madison was NOT against the wording. He DEFINED what was meant by the wording and EXPLICITLY denounced the interpretation you are giving it as ridiculous. If you read it, it is blatantly clear that your interpretation is not what was intended and ours is. I will even post it here so you don't have to go through the effort of looking it up. Federalist 41 says in part

James Madison wrote:

 

Some who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded very fierce attack against the Constitution on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the 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," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alledged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labour for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some colour for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so aukward form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.["]

But what colour can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms, immediately follows; and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon. If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded as to give meaning to every part which will bear it; shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent and the clear and precise expressions, be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural or common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars, which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity which as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection, or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears, that the language used by the Convention is a copy from the articles of confederation. The objects of the Union among the States as described in article 3d. are, "their common defence, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article 8th. are still more identical. "All charges of war, and all other expences, that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury&c." A similar language again occurs in art. 9. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify, the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications, which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing ["]for the common defence and general welfare."? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress, as they now make use of against the Convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

 

PUBLIUS.

 

Interesting.

According to this, promoting the general welfare is to be provided for from a common treasury. That treasury is filled because the government is allowed to collect taxes.

You don't want the government to collect income taxes (particularly from wealthy people because you think it punishes success). so, how is the treasury to be filled? A sales tax that would be higher than the current income tax?

It also seems that the general welfare is to be provided for only in times of war - is that really the only time that people need to be helped?

Oh, wait. It's not for the people is it? It's for the country and those in the government - damn it's citizens.

No wonder libertarians want to be in office. They want their particular welfare to be promoted.

The Constitution is a very libertarian document. The idea was that all of the things you call "welfare" would be handled at the state and local levels where it is much easier for the people to directly affect things. I don't have a problem if you want your state to have universal healthcare, welfare, social security etc. States are certainly allowed to do so. I will live in a state that doesn't you can live in a state that does. That is how our country was intended. Over the last 100 years we have come to expect the federal government to do everything which it was never intended to do. The main purpose of the federal government was the military and to ensure the states got along and didn't start fighting amongst themselves. 

It isn't "damn the citizens" it is citizens work together locally and govern yourselves. It is very easy for me to get my voice heard by the mayor or to get the mayor thrown out of office if he does something corrupt. I only need to convince the people I live around every day. It is slightly more difficult but not impossible to make real change in my state government. It is virtually impossible for me to make real change at the national level unless I have connections. The founders idea was that as much politics be handled as locally as possible so that the people were not damned. It is to give the people power over their government. Do you feel like you have any power over the federal government?

And yes, I believe it should be filled through a consumption tax. Although the amount of money needed would be substantially lower than we need now if Congress limited their spending powers to those outlined in the Constitution. 

 

eh dont bother, your talking to a guy that doesnt even know that strict construction has to do with original intent and very little to do with the words and every manner in which you can interpret them (which doesnt even make sense to label strict construction that way, if you look at the words without context and can interpret them however you want how is that in any way strict?)

Yeah I know, but it is mainly for the benefit of the lurkers. JC is a lost cause, but someone out there lurking might learn something. And I know they don't teach the Federalist papers in public school. At least they didn't in mine.

theres alot of history people are missing out on, real american history, stuff that should be celebrated (principles oh 98 anyone?)

love this speech by tom woods

 

 

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4492
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
atomicdogg34 wrote:theres

atomicdogg34 wrote:

theres alot of history people are missing out on, real american history, stuff that should be celebrated (principles oh 98 anyone?)

love this speech by tom woods

In my American history class we mostly studied different Indian tribes and how great life was before the white man came. Deer were hopping in the woods, buffalo roamed the plains and clear streams bubbled an unblemished landscape. Indians lived as one with nature and it was a regular garden of eden. They skipped the part about all the wars Indians had among one another or the little detail that the reason most tribes moved a lot was because the literally destroyed the ecosystem to the point it couldn't support them. Those great environmentalists....

 

I think we spent one or two days on the revolution, a week on the Civil War (which mostly consisted of memorizing Lincoln's speech) a week on WWII, and a week on MLK (which mostly consisted of memorizing his speech). Ah, you have to love the publick edumacashun sistum. Fortunately I developed a love of historical fiction which led to a fascination of history to figure out how much of the historical fiction was accurate.

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

theres alot of history people are missing out on, real american history, stuff that should be celebrated (principles oh 98 anyone?)

love this speech by tom woods

In my American history class we mostly studied different Indian tribes and how great life was before the white man came. Deer were hopping in the woods, buffalo roamed the plains and clear streams bubbled an unblemished landscape. Indians lived as one with nature and it was a regular garden of eden. They skipped the part about all the wars Indians had among one another or the little detail that the reason most tribes moved a lot was because the literally destroyed the ecosystem to the point it couldn't support them. Those great environmentalists....

 

I think we spent one or two days on the revolution, a week on the Civil War (which mostly consisted of memorizing Lincoln's speech) a week on WWII, and a week on MLK (which mostly consisted of memorizing his speech). Ah, you have to love the publick edumacashun sistum. Fortunately I developed a love of historical fiction which led to a fascination of history to figure out how much of the historical fiction was accurate.

the indian thing reminds me of some stuff dr. woods talked about, not sure if its in this particular speech but it might be

various indian tribes came up with varying property rights in order to help protect certain ecosystems and game

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


El-ahrairah
atheist
El-ahrairah's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2010-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The

Beyond Saving wrote:

The Constitution is a very libertarian document.

...Except for Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 18; Article 1, Section 9, the second half of Clause 2; Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1; and Amendments 11, 16, 18. To be honest, and I'm not exaggerating here, the U.S. Constitution when originally written was just another increase in the power of the national government in response to an economic recession.

"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)

"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
El-ahrairah wrote:Beyond

El-ahrairah wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

The Constitution is a very libertarian document.

...Except for Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 18; Article 1, Section 9, the second half of Clause 2; Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1; and Amendments 11, 16, 18. To be honest, and I'm not exaggerating here, the U.S. Constitution when originally written was just another increase in the power of the national government in response to an economic recession.

 

Mistakes were made but not by me

Beyond Saving and Atomicdogg haven't bothered to read it.  I can tell.

Making Americans Healthier: Social and Economic Policy as Health Policy and I can tell they haven't looked at this book, either.  Which ties into these articles I saw the other day -

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20101022/bs_bw/1044b4201008238184

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/22/income-inequality-america_n_772687.html

Yeah, yeah - it's Huffington and so it is the devil.  And no, the articles and books don't give answers, they ask questions.  Which is a good thing.  We should all question ourselves and try to learn more.

The two books are available on Amazon and they were at my local library, so you should be able to find a copy somewhere.

And guys?  Which amendments to the constitution would you like repealed?  And are amendments somehow less sacred than the rest of the document?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4492
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
El-ahrairah wrote:Beyond

El-ahrairah wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

The Constitution is a very libertarian document.

...Except for Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 18; Article 1, Section 9, the second half of Clause 2; Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1; and Amendments 11, 16, 18. To be honest, and I'm not exaggerating here, the U.S. Constitution when originally written was just another increase in the power of the national government in response to an economic recession.

 

So government shouldn't be allowed to collect taxes, conduct trade, create money, protect copyrights, declare war, pass laws, put down rebellion, and the President should have no power? (But you apparently don't have a problem with them raising an army, which seems pointless if you can't declare war.) So who should create money? Should we just barter and/or use foreign money or should each state create their own money? Who should conduct wars? We can throw out the amendments for the purposes of this discussion since they weren't in the Constitution when it was originally written. And thankfully, we already took care of 18 and some of us are working on 16.

 

Of course the Constitution was an expansion of federal power. It was written to create a federal government to solve many of the problems that were occurring within the confederacy. The goal was to create a federal government that would tie the states together economically and militarily to give them a more powerful footing on an international level. 

 

So while I would agree with you the Constitution is not PURELY libertarian it certainly has many libertarian ideals in it as it sought to get the economic and military benefits required to create a country that could be a world player while attempting to limit its powers to infringe on individual rights. Are you saying we should (or it would have been better) ditch the Constitution and stick with the Articles of Confederation or some other system?

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4492
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
cj wrote: Mistakes were

cj wrote:

 

Mistakes were made but not by me

Beyond Saving and Atomicdogg haven't bothered to read it.  I can tell.

Making Americans Healthier: Social and Economic Policy as Health Policy and I can tell they haven't looked at this book, either.  Which ties into these articles I saw the other day -

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20101022/bs_bw/1044b4201008238184

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/22/income-inequality-america_n_772687.html

Yeah, yeah - it's Huffington and so it is the devil.  And no, the articles and books don't give answers, they ask questions.  Which is a good thing.  We should all question ourselves and try to learn more.

The two books are available on Amazon and they were at my local library, so you should be able to find a copy somewhere.

And guys?  Which amendments to the constitution would you like repealed?  And are amendments somehow less sacred than the rest of the document?

Yeah, I think I saw the first one recommended somewhere else. I'll add it to my list and get there eventually. The second one is ridiculously overpriced. If I'm spending $25 on a book it is going to be something I like so much I keep it. So any relevant points in that one you'll have to paraphrase. Although reading the description it seems irrelevant to my arguments. It might be possible that there is some government policy that will make people healthier. So what? My goal isn't to make everyone healthy. I don't believe the governments goal should be to make everyone healthy. And I hope when you said haven't bothered to read it you meant the books, not leveling the accusation we haven't read the Constitution. 

 

For starters I would like to see the 16th go and the 14th really should be amended because it is so unclear in legal practice. I believe it should be rewritten so that courts have less freedom to make up whatever the heck they feel like. The whole document, amendments and all, should be treated the same legally. We should follow the damn thing. And if there is anything, in the amendments or the original document you don't like try to change it with a new amendment. I have no problem with anyone suggesting any new amendment, I will side with it or fight against it. I have a big problem with our government choosing to flagrantly ignore the Constitution and then turn around and try to legalese around SCOTUS and am disturbed by the tendency of Supreme Court Justices to be chosen by their political positions on issues rather than their expertise on the Constitution. 

So if El-ahrairah wants to repeal most of Article 1 section 8 I would like to hear his argument. He sounds kind of like me in my "why don't we just ditch the whole damn government" days. 

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

El-ahrairah wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

The Constitution is a very libertarian document.

...Except for Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 18; Article 1, Section 9, the second half of Clause 2; Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1; and Amendments 11, 16, 18. To be honest, and I'm not exaggerating here, the U.S. Constitution when originally written was just another increase in the power of the national government in response to an economic recession.

 

So government shouldn't be allowed to collect taxes, conduct trade, create money, protect copyrights, declare war, pass laws, put down rebellion, and the President should have no power? (But you apparently don't have a problem with them raising an army, which seems pointless if you can't declare war.) So who should create money? Should we just barter and/or use foreign money or should each state create their own money? Who should conduct wars? We can throw out the amendments for the purposes of this discussion since they weren't in the Constitution when it was originally written. And thankfully, we already took care of 18 and some of us are working on 16.

 

Of course the Constitution was an expansion of federal power. It was written to create a federal government to solve many of the problems that were occurring within the confederacy. The goal was to create a federal government that would tie the states together economically and militarily to give them a more powerful footing on an international level. 

 

So while I would agree with you the Constitution is not PURELY libertarian it certainly has many libertarian ideals in it as it sought to get the economic and military benefits required to create a country that could be a world player while attempting to limit its powers to infringe on individual rights. Are you saying we should (or it would have been better) ditch the Constitution and stick with the Articles of Confederation or some other system?

 

If we did say that we would be taking the purely libertarian position so...no.

would I be correct in assuming that you don't object to taxation but where the taxes are taken from, i.e, tax food but not income, tax people (ok you call them user fees) but not businesses/corporations?

 

 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:Beyond

atomicdogg34 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

And yet, the government's mission to "promote the general welfare" is still there. I guess they know more than you'd like to give them credit for. They didn't like the wording but they saw the need.

We've already seen how effective "rugged individualism: was.

Read Federalist 41, in it Madison explicitly defines what is meant by "general welfare" in the Constitution. Madison was NOT against the wording. He DEFINED what was meant by the wording and EXPLICITLY denounced the interpretation you are giving it as ridiculous. If you read it, it is blatantly clear that your interpretation is not what was intended and ours is. I will even post it here so you don't have to go through the effort of looking it up. Federalist 41 says in part

James Madison wrote:

 

Some who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded very fierce attack against the Constitution on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the 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," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alledged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labour for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some colour for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so aukward form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.["]

But what colour can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms, immediately follows; and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon. If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded as to give meaning to every part which will bear it; shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent and the clear and precise expressions, be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural or common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars, which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity which as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection, or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears, that the language used by the Convention is a copy from the articles of confederation. The objects of the Union among the States as described in article 3d. are, "their common defence, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article 8th. are still more identical. "All charges of war, and all other expences, that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury&c." A similar language again occurs in art. 9. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify, the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications, which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing ["]for the common defence and general welfare."? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress, as they now make use of against the Convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

 

PUBLIUS.

 

Interesting.

According to this, promoting the general welfare is to be provided for from a common treasury. That treasury is filled because the government is allowed to collect taxes.

You don't want the government to collect income taxes (particularly from wealthy people because you think it punishes success). so, how is the treasury to be filled? A sales tax that would be higher than the current income tax?

It also seems that the general welfare is to be provided for only in times of war - is that really the only time that people need to be helped?

Oh, wait. It's not for the people is it? It's for the country and those in the government - damn it's citizens.

No wonder libertarians want to be in office. They want their particular welfare to be promoted.

The Constitution is a very libertarian document. The idea was that all of the things you call "welfare" would be handled at the state and local levels where it is much easier for the people to directly affect things. I don't have a problem if you want your state to have universal healthcare, welfare, social security etc. States are certainly allowed to do so. I will live in a state that doesn't you can live in a state that does. That is how our country was intended. Over the last 100 years we have come to expect the federal government to do everything which it was never intended to do. The main purpose of the federal government was the military and to ensure the states got along and didn't start fighting amongst themselves. 

It isn't "damn the citizens" it is citizens work together locally and govern yourselves. It is very easy for me to get my voice heard by the mayor or to get the mayor thrown out of office if he does something corrupt. I only need to convince the people I live around every day. It is slightly more difficult but not impossible to make real change in my state government. It is virtually impossible for me to make real change at the national level unless I have connections. The founders idea was that as much politics be handled as locally as possible so that the people were not damned. It is to give the people power over their government. Do you feel like you have any power over the federal government?

And yes, I believe it should be filled through a consumption tax. Although the amount of money needed would be substantially lower than we need now if Congress limited their spending powers to those outlined in the Constitution. 

 

eh dont bother, your talking to a guy that doesnt even know that strict construction has to do with original intent and very little to do with the words and every manner in which you can interpret them (which doesnt even make sense to label strict construction that way, if you look at the words without context and can interpret them however you want how is that in any way strict?)

So how in the hell does "original intent" not have to do with what is written? Do words not mean what they say anymore?My definition of "strict constructionist" comes mostly from the justices  who call themselves that while re-interpreting what they think the original intent was.

As most of those rulings go your way, I can see why you'd have no problem calling them strict constructionists,

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

And yet, the government's mission to "promote the general welfare" is still there. I guess they know more than you'd like to give them credit for. They didn't like the wording but they saw the need.

We've already seen how effective "rugged individualism: was.

Read Federalist 41, in it Madison explicitly defines what is meant by "general welfare" in the Constitution. Madison was NOT against the wording. He DEFINED what was meant by the wording and EXPLICITLY denounced the interpretation you are giving it as ridiculous. If you read it, it is blatantly clear that your interpretation is not what was intended and ours is. I will even post it here so you don't have to go through the effort of looking it up. Federalist 41 says in part

James Madison wrote:

 

Some who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded very fierce attack against the Constitution on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the 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," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alledged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labour for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some colour for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so aukward form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.["]

But what colour can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms, immediately follows; and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon. If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded as to give meaning to every part which will bear it; shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent and the clear and precise expressions, be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural or common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars, which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity which as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection, or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears, that the language used by the Convention is a copy from the articles of confederation. The objects of the Union among the States as described in article 3d. are, "their common defence, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article 8th. are still more identical. "All charges of war, and all other expences, that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury&c." A similar language again occurs in art. 9. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify, the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications, which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing ["]for the common defence and general welfare."? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress, as they now make use of against the Convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

 

PUBLIUS.

 

Interesting.

According to this, promoting the general welfare is to be provided for from a common treasury. That treasury is filled because the government is allowed to collect taxes.

You don't want the government to collect income taxes (particularly from wealthy people because you think it punishes success). so, how is the treasury to be filled? A sales tax that would be higher than the current income tax?

It also seems that the general welfare is to be provided for only in times of war - is that really the only time that people need to be helped?

Oh, wait. It's not for the people is it? It's for the country and those in the government - damn it's citizens.

No wonder libertarians want to be in office. They want their particular welfare to be promoted.

The Constitution is a very libertarian document. The idea was that all of the things you call "welfare" would be handled at the state and local levels where it is much easier for the people to directly affect things. I don't have a problem if you want your state to have universal healthcare, welfare, social security etc. States are certainly allowed to do so. I will live in a state that doesn't you can live in a state that does. That is how our country was intended. Over the last 100 years we have come to expect the federal government to do everything which it was never intended to do. The main purpose of the federal government was the military and to ensure the states got along and didn't start fighting amongst themselves. 

It isn't "damn the citizens" it is citizens work together locally and govern yourselves. It is very easy for me to get my voice heard by the mayor or to get the mayor thrown out of office if he does something corrupt. I only need to convince the people I live around every day. It is slightly more difficult but not impossible to make real change in my state government. It is virtually impossible for me to make real change at the national level unless I have connections. The founders idea was that as much politics be handled as locally as possible so that the people were not damned. It is to give the people power over their government. Do you feel like you have any power over the federal government?

And yes, I believe it should be filled through a consumption tax. Although the amount of money needed would be substantially lower than we need now if Congress limited their spending powers to those outlined in the Constitution. 

 

eh dont bother, your talking to a guy that doesnt even know that strict construction has to do with original intent and very little to do with the words and every manner in which you can interpret them (which doesnt even make sense to label strict construction that way, if you look at the words without context and can interpret them however you want how is that in any way strict?)

So how in the hell does "original intent" not have to do with what is written? Do words not mean what they say anymore?My definition of "strict constructionist" comes mostly from the justices  who call themselves that while re-interpreting what they think the original intent was.

As most of those rulings go your way, I can see why you'd have no problem calling them strict constructionists,

 

simple, you say "general welfare" (based on the words) means something other than what was originally intended, as has been shown numerous occassions, you can basically put all the other clauses that have been used improperly into this argument: supremacy, commerce, etc

im no shill for the SCOUTUS, most of the time they rubber stamp what the federal govt does and they go after the states

you'll have to be more specific when you say "most rulings", because i certainly dont agree with what alot of the SCOTUS says

i'm a big advocate of Nullification

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


El-ahrairah
atheist
El-ahrairah's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2010-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: So

Beyond Saving wrote:

 So government shouldn't be allowed to collect taxes, conduct trade, create money, protect copyrights, declare war, pass laws, put down rebellion, and the President should have no power? (But you apparently don't have a problem with them raising an army, which seems pointless if you can't declare war.)

Oh wait, yeah, I do have a problem with them raising an army. Forgot that. And yes, I have a problem with a government that collects taxes, regulates trade, holds a monopoly on the creation of money, protects copyrights (although that's a point of dispute among libertarians; I side with the anti-IP side), declare war, pass laws that extend its power beyond basic protection, suspend habeas corpus, and gives a single man (nowadays) executive power.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So who should create money? Should we just barter and/or use foreign money or should each state create their own money?

A medium of exchange always develops among people who trade with each other, and historically this has usually been gold or silver. It kills inflation because the supply remains relatively steady (depending on what the money is), it allows for proper price signals, and helps us avoid these boom-and-bust cycles so common when the government is allows to regulate interest rates and the value and supply of money.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Who should conduct wars?

The particular individuals involved in them. Conscription is a blatant violation of liberty If I got into a fight with someone else, would it be right for me to coerce you into fighting for me? Wars themselves are costly, kill far too many people, and set a terrible standard for how we as civilized people should be solving disputes. I'm not saying we shouldn't defend ourselves, but what was the last defensive war we've fought?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Of course the Constitution was an expansion of federal power. It was written to create a federal government to solve many of the problems that were occurring within the confederacy. The goal was to create a federal government that would tie the states together economically and militarily to give them a more powerful footing on an international level.

Not quite. The main goal in creating a stronger federal government was so that they could regulate interstate commerce, tax the entire country, and empower the nation to be more aggressive militarily. The only good thing I could say for this gross expansion of government power would be that it granted the federal courts more power to protect civil rights, even though many of the states already had bills of rights in their state constitutions. Under the Articles, the states had a dramatic increase in democracy and liberty inspired by the Declaration of Independence (even though this only applied to white males, which is the only thing that pisses me off about state's rights), adopted bills of rights, abolished religious qualifications for holding office, and made requirements for voting more liberal. Government was more responsive to the people, the middle class gained power, and Americans were steadily becoming very republican-minded. There was nothing wrong with the country except for a minor economic recession that was clearing up on its own by the time the old colonial elite overreacted to it (and Shay's rebellion, which was entirely legitimate) and created the Constitution.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So while I would agree with you the Constitution is not PURELY libertarian it certainly has many libertarian ideals in it as it sought to get the economic and military benefits required to create a country that could be a world player while attempting to limit its powers to infringe on individual rights.

I agree that it's got some libertarian aspects to it, but only because of Madisonian checks-and-balances and through the intercession of the Anti-Federalists. It also leaves the government open to powerful special-interest lobbying groups, which we've seen over the country's history.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Are you saying we should (or it would have been better) ditch the Constitution and stick with the Articles of Confederation or some other system?

I'm saying that the Articles of Confederation could have been reformed, such as allowing for certain majority of states for decisions rather than unanimous consent, or apportioning the debt from the Revolutionary War among the states according to their population, and allowing for more power for civil rights legislation, but otherwise I think that the Constitution has allowed for many of the same British problems that the Revolutionary War was against: political corruption, perpetual debt, debilitating taxation, consolidated power, and a global empire.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So if El-ahrairah wants to repeal most of Article 1 section 8 I would like to hear his argument. He sounds kind of like me in my "why don't we just ditch the whole damn government" days. 

Well, I would, but only because I stubbornly stick to my principles. Sticking out tongue For all practical intents and purposes, I'm a minarchist libertarian. All of this is just intellectual bullshitting; there's no way the Constitution is going away in my lifetime. I'm not saying that there's any possible way to "just ditch the whole damn government" all at once, but if there was...*sigh* a man can dream, can't he?

"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)

"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
El-ahrairah wrote:Beyond

El-ahrairah wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 So government shouldn't be allowed to collect taxes, conduct trade, create money, protect copyrights, declare war, pass laws, put down rebellion, and the President should have no power? (But you apparently don't have a problem with them raising an army, which seems pointless if you can't declare war.)

Oh wait, yeah, I do have a problem with them raising an army. Forgot that. And yes, I have a problem with a government that collects taxes, regulates trade, holds a monopoly on the creation of money, protects copyrights (although that's a point of dispute among libertarians; I side with the anti-IP side), declare war, pass laws that extend its power beyond basic protection, suspend habeas corpus, and gives a single man (nowadays) executive power.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So who should create money? Should we just barter and/or use foreign money or should each state create their own money?

A medium of exchange always develops among people who trade with each other, and historically this has usually been gold or silver. It kills inflation because the supply remains relatively steady (depending on what the money is), it allows for proper price signals, and helps us avoid these boom-and-bust cycles so common when the government is allows to regulate interest rates and the value and supply of money.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Who should conduct wars?

The particular individuals involved in them. Conscription is a blatant violation of liberty If I got into a fight with someone else, would it be right for me to coerce you into fighting for me? Wars themselves are costly, kill far too many people, and set a terrible standard for how we as civilized people should be solving disputes. I'm not saying we shouldn't defend ourselves, but what was the last defensive war we've fought?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Of course the Constitution was an expansion of federal power. It was written to create a federal government to solve many of the problems that were occurring within the confederacy. The goal was to create a federal government that would tie the states together economically and militarily to give them a more powerful footing on an international level.

Not quite. The main goal in creating a stronger federal government was so that they could regulate interstate commerce, tax the entire country, and empower the nation to be more aggressive militarily. The only good thing I could say for this gross expansion of government power would be that it granted the federal courts more power to protect civil rights, even though many of the states already had bills of rights in their state constitutions. Under the Articles, the states had a dramatic increase in democracy and liberty inspired by the Declaration of Independence (even though this only applied to white males, which is the only thing that pisses me off about state's rights), adopted bills of rights, abolished religious qualifications for holding office, and made requirements for voting more liberal. Government was more responsive to the people, the middle class gained power, and Americans were steadily becoming very republican-minded. There was nothing wrong with the country except for a minor economic recession that was clearing up on its own by the time the old colonial elite overreacted to it (and Shay's rebellion, which was entirely legitimate) and created the Constitution.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So while I would agree with you the Constitution is not PURELY libertarian it certainly has many libertarian ideals in it as it sought to get the economic and military benefits required to create a country that could be a world player while attempting to limit its powers to infringe on individual rights.

I agree that it's got some libertarian aspects to it, but only because of Madisonian checks-and-balances and through the intercession of the Anti-Federalists. It also leaves the government open to powerful special-interest lobbying groups, which we've seen over the country's history.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Are you saying we should (or it would have been better) ditch the Constitution and stick with the Articles of Confederation or some other system?

I'm saying that the Articles of Confederation could have been reformed, such as allowing for certain majority of states for decisions rather than unanimous consent, or apportioning the debt from the Revolutionary War among the states according to their population, and allowing for more power for civil rights legislation, but otherwise I think that the Constitution has allowed for many of the same British problems that the Revolutionary War was against: political corruption, perpetual debt, debilitating taxation, consolidated power, and a global empire.

 

im too lazy to comment on all of this but as for the money issue, the constitution clearly states ONLY gold and silver to be legal tender, and congress cant make money but coin it

the congress illegally delegated its responsibilities away to the Fed

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


El-ahrairah
atheist
El-ahrairah's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2010-10-21
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:im too

atomicdogg34 wrote:

im too lazy to comment on all of this but as for the money issue, the constitution clearly states ONLY gold and silver to be legal tender, and congress cant make money but coin it

the congress illegally delegated its responsibilities away to the Fed

The federal government shouldn't even be coining money in the first place. That was originally the responsibility of the states, and they were doing a fine job of it, ignoring the worthless Continentals and taking advantage of the abundant specie in the country left over from French and British disbursements, the Havana trade, and French and Dutch hard-money loans. The merchants were the only ones still screwing around with the easier-to-circulate paper money, shipping most of their specie abroad and tapping out the American consumer, which left the merchants with lots of worthless capital and merchandise.

"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)

"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
El-ahrairah

El-ahrairah wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

im too lazy to comment on all of this but as for the money issue, the constitution clearly states ONLY gold and silver to be legal tender, and congress cant make money but coin it

the congress illegally delegated its responsibilities away to the Fed

The federal government shouldn't even be coining money in the first place. That was originally the responsibility of the states, and they were doing a fine job of it, ignoring the worthless Continentals and taking advantage of the abundant specie in the country left over from French and British disbursements, the Havana trade, and French and Dutch hard-money loans. The merchants were the only ones still screwing around with the easier-to-circulate paper money, shipping most of their specie abroad and tapping out the American consumer, which left the merchants with lots of worthless capital and merchandise.

 

not sure what your exact issue is with it, unless you misunderstand me when i say they have the power to coin money, by that i dont mean just create new money out of thin air, but actually mint the coins and such

but i think we are atleast in agreement over the fact that we shouldnt have the Fed or another system that allows politicans to just create new money and credit out of nothing, im glad you see the issues with that

 

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4492
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
El-ahrairah wrote:A medium

El-ahrairah wrote:

A medium of exchange always develops among people who trade with each other, and historically this has usually been gold or silver. It kills inflation because the supply remains relatively steady (depending on what the money is), it allows for proper price signals, and helps us avoid these boom-and-bust cycles so common when the government is allows to regulate interest rates and the value and supply of money.

True, but if you have each state minting its own money you create exchange problems. For example, a coin from California might be less valuable than a coin from Texas. The reason they gave the Federal government the power to coin money was to make trade among the states easier. It is much easier and more efficient to trade with someone using the same money you are using. Of course, the founders never imagined we would leave the gold standard.

 

El-ahrairah wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Who should conduct wars?

The particular individuals involved in them. Conscription is a blatant violation of liberty If I got into a fight with someone else, would it be right for me to coerce you into fighting for me? Wars themselves are costly, kill far too many people, and set a terrible standard for how we as civilized people should be solving disputes. I'm not saying we shouldn't defend ourselves, but what was the last defensive war we've fought?

But as far as the Constitution is concerned we are not really talking conscription. Congress is given the power to raise and support armies and to declare war. So do you have a problem with them raising armies in general or only in the case of involuntary conscription?  

 

El-ahrairah wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

So if El-ahrairah wants to repeal most of Article 1 section 8 I would like to hear his argument. He sounds kind of like me in my "why don't we just ditch the whole damn government" days. 

Well, I would, but only because I stubbornly stick to my principles. Sticking out tongue For all practical intents and purposes, I'm a minarchist libertarian. All of this is just intellectual bullshitting; there's no way the Constitution is going away in my lifetime. I'm not saying that there's any possible way to "just ditch the whole damn government" all at once, but if there was...*sigh* a man can dream, can't he?

Gotcha,

Lol, yes a man can dream. Your dreams are slightly more ambitious than mine. I just dream that the government only does what it was specifically given power to do. Even that much would be a massive cutback on what it actually does. Of course that probably won't happen in our lifetime either. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson