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?

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

 

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.

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

 

 

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..

 

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..

 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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?

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 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?

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?

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. 

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

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:

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. 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?