PDA

View Full Version : Is it stupidity or deceit?



LWW
06-25-2011, 04:50 AM
It is difficult to believe that a person with the education and background needed to become managing editor of "TIME" magazine could actually be this stupid ... and it's equally difficult to believe that he has an audience stupid enough to believe this lie?

I guess I have to chalk it up to mob psychology, as so many on the left are willing to believe as a group what could never be believed if viewed through the prism of truth.

THE STUPIDITY/LIE: (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/eric-ames/2011/06/23/time-magazine-constitution-doesnt-limit-government-obamacare-constitution)

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so." </span>

THE TRUTH: (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble)

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Section 8 - Powers of Congress ... Section 9 - Limits on Congress ... Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States ...</span><span style='font-size: 17pt'>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.</span><span style='font-size: 14pt'>"</span>

Sev
06-25-2011, 05:48 AM
We have the worst educational system money can buy.

Comprehension def is not taught these days.

Soflasnapper
06-25-2011, 05:13 PM
It's fairly obvious what the man was talking about, and more correctly than not.

The federal government, despite clear restrictions which are far less than its listed powers for Congress in Section 8, has virtually plenary powers with regard to providing for the common defense, and promoting the general welfare, and regulating the commerce between the states. Moreover, they are explicitly granted authority to make legislation as necessary and proper to carry out this extremely broad mandate.

Indeed, by using the 'general welfare' clause, and the 'commerce' clause, and the 'necessary and proper' clause, as is clear, the federal government has greatly expanded its reach under color of law. Was that appropriate or not? Without saying, it's also clear that this expansion began nearly immediately upon the founding of our Constitutional Republic, so that these expansions were done by, and not opposed by, the remaining founding father generation who had been there from the beginning.

Former Judge Robert Bork, supposedly a conservative philosophy jurist, and even perhaps an originalist or textualist akin to how conservative favorite Associate Justice Scalia characterizes himself, has said that in his opinion the 10th amendment is void of meaning or impact, and a mere dead letter that doesn't do a thing.

The way the current conservative theories on the limitations of government work is to deny the general welfare clause, the commerce clause, and the necessary and proper clause, mean what they've been taken to mean from almost the beginning. They concentrate on the common defense clause as the ONLY true meritorious activity of the federal government, and deny they have the roles the documents states as equally the purposes of this form of government (those prior clauses, which appear directly WITH the common defense clause they do accept as a binding legal function for the federal government).

So who is ignorant, and who is misrepresenting? Those who point to these co-equal clauses, both in the preamble and in the Constitution itself as justifications, or those who apparently deny they even exist in the document as explicitly stated powers and goals for which the government is empowered to act?

LWW
06-26-2011, 04:39 AM
There is no such thing as a "GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE" in the COTUS.

There is the opening line of the preamble which says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Any reading of the document itself, US history at the time, the Federalist Papers, the writing of Madison and Jay after the adoption of the COTUS can only lead a person ... other than the most severely brainwashed statists ... to believe that it actually says what it actually says and means what it actually means, that the COTUS was written to promote the general welfare within the strictly defined limits of the COTUS.

Anyone with a shred of a doubt about that can find their answer in the tenth amendment:

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."</span>

llotter
06-26-2011, 09:24 AM
Art I, Sec. 8, in the intro to the listing of the powers of Congress specifies,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; </div></div>

A common sense reading of the Article would be that in order to provide for the common defense and general welfare, the federal government has the power to do the following things, commonly referred to as the Enumerated Powers.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. </div></div>

Note that there are 17 powers, most are dedicated to providing for the general welfare and the rest for the defense of the country.

It wouldn't make sense to make a broad statement that those powers include ANYTHING that could be interpreted as 'general welfare' would be constitutional. i.e. providing education or schools is not mentioned but that could be said to provide or promote the general welfare. Under that concept, ANYTHING could go under that label, even genocide.

LWW
06-26-2011, 11:11 AM
I find it particularly amusing that the left is quoting Bork in a lame attempt to void the COTUS and further empower their beloved state.

Soflasnapper
06-26-2011, 05:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no such thing as a "GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE" in the COTUS.

There is the opening line of the preamble which says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Any reading of the document itself, US history at the time, the Federalist Papers, the writing of Madison and Jay after the adoption of the COTUS can only lead a person ... other than the most severely brainwashed statists ... to believe that it actually says what it actually says and means what it actually means, that the COTUS was written to promote the general welfare within the strictly defined limits of the COTUS.

Anyone with a shred of a doubt about that can find their answer in the tenth amendment:

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."</span> </div></div>

lotter supplies the clause you say doesn't exist directly below your claim, and cites where it appears in the COTUS.

Hard to have an argument with someone who is SO unknowledgeable as to deny that clause is actually in the COTUS.

Soflasnapper
06-26-2011, 05:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Art I, Sec. 8, in the intro to the listing of the powers of Congress specifies,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; </div></div>

A common sense reading of the Article would be that in order to provide for the common defense and general welfare, the federal government has the power to do the following things, commonly referred to as the Enumerated Powers.

[...]

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Note that there are 17 powers, most are dedicated to providing for the general welfare and the rest for the defense of the country.

It wouldn't make sense to make a broad statement that those powers include ANYTHING that could be interpreted as 'general welfare' would be constitutional. i.e. providing education or schools is not mentioned but that could be said to provide or promote the general welfare. Under that concept, ANYTHING could go under that label, even genocide.

</div></div>

Thanks for showing LWW that the general welfare clause exists and where it is located.

It fully authorizes the laws necessary to carry out THOSE enumerated powers AND, it says itself, the OTHER powers the federal government rightfully has, from the Constitution.

That means this enumeration is not the whole listing of the powers it has from direct Constitutional authority, as there are OTHERS.

As for allowing genocide as a 'general welfare' matter, perhaps, although it would be in tension with the 5th amendment's protection that depriving one of life, liberty or property requires due process of law.

It was allowed, and I think passed SCOTUS review, to intern the Japanese and take their stuff, including Japanese American citizens. This was a shameful action, and a shame on the ACLU that they went along with it, but PERHAPS it was legal and bad, as opposed to illegal and bad.

LWW
06-27-2011, 03:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hard to have an argument with someone who is SO unknowledgeable as to deny that clause is actually in the COTUS. </div></div>

Which is why there can be no actual discussion with you, although I continue to attempt to educate you ... and I do apologize for what the public education did to you and so many more.

In closing, there is no "GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE: in the COTUS.

LWW
06-27-2011, 03:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Art I, Sec. 8, in the intro to the listing of the powers of Congress specifies,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; </div></div>

A common sense reading of the Article would be that in order to provide for the common defense and general welfare, the federal government has the power to do the following things, commonly referred to as the Enumerated Powers.

[...]

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Note that there are 17 powers, most are dedicated to providing for the general welfare and the rest for the defense of the country.

It wouldn't make sense to make a broad statement that those powers include ANYTHING that could be interpreted as 'general welfare' would be constitutional. i.e. providing education or schools is not mentioned but that could be said to provide or promote the general welfare. Under that concept, ANYTHING could go under that label, even genocide.

</div></div>

Thanks for showing LWW that the general welfare clause exists and where it is located.</div></div>

You just can't give up your desire to be ruled by an omnipotent oligarchy can you?

Why do you fear liberty so much?

What lotter pointed out is that "GENERAL WELFARE" is a phrase used in part of a definition of the limitations of federal power ... not a grant of unlimited power.

Fear not however ... the rest of the cabal will join you in this intellectual circle jerk.

llotter
06-27-2011, 03:39 AM
You are quite right! You never hear of a 'common defense' clause because the power is derived from those specifically listed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; </div></div>

The general welfare is provided for by most of the other Enumerated Powers listed, like providing for the post office and patents protection. It is NOT a separate grant of power but rather in introductory phrase to show the purpose of those powers that are enumerated.

Marx does make the argument that 'society' is better off when the wealth is redistributed but that could hardly be said of the individuals whose property was confiscated and in a free society, it is really only the individual that counts. There can be no freedom sans free individuals. In fact, assigning rights to groups is nonsensical and defeats the fundamental concept of liberty.

LWW
06-27-2011, 04:14 AM
Actually it would be the "common defence" clause as it was written ... and it's simply a matter of time before a statist uses the "common defence" clause to argue that all border fencing must be removed.

LWW
06-27-2011, 04:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are quite right!
</div></div>

Thank you.

What is truly amazing is that there are people who are so spoon fed that they believe in a "GENERAL WELFARE" clause.

Especially since what the COTUS actually says in the preamble is "promote the general Welfare" which most certainly demonstrates that the federal gubmint should be promoting private sector solutions as opposed to getting it's tentacles around every niche of society.

Sadly, we will never have a shortage of statists who will either lie about the content and intent of the COTUS, or pontificate about what has been spoon fed to them ... even though they have never bothered to study the document on their own.

Madison, Jay, and Hamilton would be horrified at what their work has became to be interpreted as.

llotter
06-27-2011, 05:58 AM
A good link for anyone interested in how we got to where we are, an all powerful government unlike anything the Founders imagined.

http://constitutionalawareness.org/genwelf.html

Qtec
06-27-2011, 06:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is truly amazing is that there are people who are so spoon fed that they believe in a "GENERAL WELFARE" clause. </div></div>

Did they make it up?

Its in there you know.

Bush invaded Iraq for the general welfare, that's his excuse anyway.

Q

Qtec
06-27-2011, 06:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Marx does make the argument that <u>'society' is better off when the wealth is redistributed</u> but that could hardly be said of the individuals <u>whose property was confiscated and in a free society, it is really only the individual that counts.</u> </div></div>

Dog eat dog. How civilised.

Q

llotter
06-27-2011, 07:11 AM
you are acting silly again. You should learn something for the main author of our Constitution, John Adams.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. </div></div>

We should depend on our Christian moral code to civilize our behavior but those on the Left insist on cleansing that from our culture, thus inviting in a police state to keep the dogs separated.

Qtec
06-27-2011, 07:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We should depend on our Christian moral code to civilize our behavior </div></div>

LMAO. Tell that to the 'bought and paid for' GOP, Wall St and the Banks.

Q

llotter
06-27-2011, 08:16 AM
After generations of attacks on Christianity, it us no wonder that our traditional values no longer guide our behavior. Surprise, surprise, neither can the police. And who will protect us from the police?

LWW
06-27-2011, 09:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did they make it up?

Its in there you know.

Q </div></div>

Then why don't you quote it for us, in it's entirety?

LWW
06-27-2011, 09:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush invaded Iraq for the general welfare, that's his excuse anyway.

Q </div></div>

You do know you are an embarrassment to your cause, don't you?

LWW
06-27-2011, 09:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you are acting silly again. You should learn something for the main author of our Constitution, John Adams.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. </div></div>

We should depend on our Christian moral code to civilize our behavior but those on the Left insist on cleansing that from our culture, thus inviting in a police state to keep the dogs separated. </div></div>

Actually James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton were the intellects truly behind the COTUS ... although Gouverneur Morris actually dictated most of the final verbiage, to appease all sides, to Jacob Shallus who actually penned the historic document.

That being said, the quote you posted is dead nuts on the money as to the thinking and intent of the founders.

LWW
06-27-2011, 09:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We should depend on our Christian moral code to civilize our behavior </div></div>

LMAO. Tell that to the 'bought and paid for' GOP, Wall St and the Banks.

Q </div></div>

If the GOP bought and paid for them, why did they back the democrooks?

llotter
06-27-2011, 10:14 AM
yes, I was only testing you and you passed.

Soflasnapper
06-27-2011, 05:44 PM
You are quite right! You never hear of a 'common defense' clause because the power is derived from those specifically listed

Hard to get authorization for the Air Force and ballistic missiles out of the enumerated powers there.

Those are indeed allowable because they comport with the idea of the common defense.

Phrase, clause, what argument is being made here?

Soflasnapper
06-27-2011, 06:01 PM
The general welfare is provided for by most of the other Enumerated Powers listed, like providing for the post office and patents protection. It is NOT a separate grant of power but rather in introductory phrase to show the purpose of those powers that are enumerated.


Not a bad argument or position, but one for which there is no textual evidence, per the layout. It would appear a special pleading based on ideology rather than the facts.

Soflasnapper
06-27-2011, 06:05 PM
What is truly amazing is that there are people who are so spoon fed that they believe in a "GENERAL WELFARE" clause.

Odd that even the sources that dispute what it means refer to it as the welfare clause.

"There is no sanity clause."

Chico Marx

LWW
06-27-2011, 06:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are quite right! You never hear of a 'common defense' clause because the power is derived from those specifically listed

Hard to get authorization for the Air Force and ballistic missiles out of the enumerated powers there.</div></div>

Why?

LWW
06-27-2011, 06:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The general welfare is provided for by most of the other Enumerated Powers listed, like providing for the post office and patents protection. It is NOT a separate grant of power but rather in introductory phrase to show the purpose of those powers that are enumerated.


Not a bad argument or position, but one for which there is no textual evidence, per the layout. It would appear a special pleading based on ideology rather than the facts. </div></div>

Might I suggest that you read the Federalist Papers?

llotter
06-27-2011, 06:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are quite right! You never hear of a 'common defense' clause because the power is derived from those specifically listed

Hard to get authorization for the Air Force and ballistic missiles out of the enumerated powers there.

Those are indeed allowable because they comport with the idea of the common defense.

Phrase, clause, what argument is being made here? </div></div>

That might have been the reason that it was originally the Army Air Corp and it wouldn't surprise me if there still remains a technical connection if it was required but you are arguing a distinction without a difference. You seem to be saying that the Constitution forbids modernizing the military. Do I understand you correctly?

Soflasnapper
06-27-2011, 11:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are quite right! You never hear of a 'common defense' clause because the power is derived from those specifically listed

Hard to get authorization for the Air Force and ballistic missiles out of the enumerated powers there.

Those are indeed allowable because they comport with the idea of the common defense.

Phrase, clause, what argument is being made here? </div></div>

That might have been the reason that it was originally the Army Air Corp and it wouldn't surprise me if there still remains a technical connection if it was required but you are arguing a distinction without a difference. You seem to be saying that the Constitution forbids modernizing the military. Do I understand you correctly? </div></div>

Absolutely not.

I'm putting your framework back on you.

You've said the general concept of raising taxes and doing spending for (both) the common defen[s]e and the general welfare mentioned in the first part of that section do NOT create a general Constitutional authority to do that, other than the specifics to which they are limited by the following list of 17 things. Those include providing for a navy and an army.

OF COURSE, providing for the general defense is a broad mandate, and I have no problem in my construction with EXTENDING that list to include things never imagined in the day, that relate to providing for the common defen[s]e.

Your alternative says that there is no general grant of powers and authority to stray beyond that list, so that whereas my position acknowledges the grant of authority to provide for the common defense MEANS getting an air force if that does that function, you should say, to be consistent, that it does not-- just the navy and army.

Of course we may both agree that is silly, and of course an air force provides for the common defense as is empowered by the beginning phrase. However you then pivot to say, although the phrases are entirely parallel in the first sentence, as to common defense and general welfare, no difference in mention other than position, only the specific limited grants concerning the items listed are actually authorized when it comes to providing for the general welfare.

By contrast to your stated position, I think many federal government activities, including building the interstate highway system, providing educational and home owning subsidies through the GI Bill, and etc., do provide for the general welfare, and are thus Constitutional, including raising taxes for those purposes, and spending that money thusly. This or that proposed taxing or spending may or may not be a good idea, which is where political arguing comes in. But they'd pass the broad Constitutional muster of that first sentence if colorable as providing the general welfare.

LWW
06-28-2011, 04:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;</div></div>

To settle the COTUS and Obamacare, Obamacare will be struck down because it requires a private citizen to buy a product from a private owned but state licensed industry.

It is fascist economics at it's purest.

Had they passed a full blown state ran health care plan funded by tax dollars ... it would almost certainly have passed the smell test.

As an addendum, as I have said here before ... if there is a leftist idea that I could get behind, guaranteed health care would be it. This plan however fixes none of the problems it was supposed to fix ... and creates several more.