Re: Thought for today

by Aaron Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:40 am

What is the basis or foundation in which our government has a responsibility to ease the burden of poverty on it's citizens?

by ziggy Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:50 am

Cato wrote:Just one last thing, I think it was James Madison who said it was tyranny to make a person support policy to which they were opposed. Most of the policies of the federal government I oppose and yet my tax dollars are taken to support.

Well, Madison and the other Founders left us several remedies to try to ease our discontent- like voting in elections, like challenging the government in the Courts, and like amending the Constitution. Go for it.

We would be a far better nation if the government was limited in scope. Most of the items we pay a ton of money for, like healthcare and education would be less and far more efficient. The business community would certianly be far healthier and we would not have the politicans setting policy that woudl bankrupt the nation.

Should the "business community" fairly be expected to be any "healthier" than the people at large? Why, or why not? As to politicians setting policy- looking at how most election campaigns are financed, and at the hordes of business community lobbyists having their way with Congress and with government agencies, just how would you have the business community be treated any better than it already is?

I agree that defecit spending is bankrupting the nation. And I think that happens because Congress is more beholden to the "business community" and its zillions in campaign contributions than to Joe or Jane Q. Public who have but one vote to offer as their contribution to the election. And as likely as not that vote is based on misinformation delivered via the campaign commercials paid for by, guess who.

by ziggy Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:55 am

Aaron wrote:What is the basis or foundation in which our government has a responsibility to ease the burden of poverty on it's citizens?

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.

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [

by ziggy Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:00 am

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, .............................................

by Aaron Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:08 am

First, the general Welfare clause you refer to was a reason given for raising taxes not for the justification of entitlement programs.

And you're using a present day defination.

The defination from the time of our founding fathers time clearly shows their concern is providing security, as goes with a well defeneded country and not socialist entitlement programs meant for only a few.

WELFARE, n. [well and fare, a good faring; G.]
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.

source

I read an article a few years back and in it, the author said there is one clear easy way to determine if a law meets constitutional requirements or not and that is if it is beneficial to ALL of the citizens. The 'welfare' you refer to is clearly not as it was never the intent of our founding fathers.

There's a reason the government of the 18th and 19th century did not 'ease the burden' of poverty for citizens.

There is NO constitutional authority to do so.

I knew you would fall back on one of the oldest lies in constitutional law though. You have nothing else.

by ziggy Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:18 am

WELFARE, n. [well and fare, a good faring; G.]
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.

OK. It fits either way.

by ziggy Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:26 am

First, the general Welfare clause you refer to was a reason given for raising taxes not for the justification of entitlement programs.

As though to promote the general Welfare couldn't relate to both raising taxes as well as to what those taxes are expended on?

by Aaron Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:40 am

You're wrong about the general Welfare clause, as I told Sherm on another thread. If our founding fathers wanted to give the power to legislate the general 'welfare' of this country to Congress, we would not have an article 1 section 8 which specifically dictates congressional authority.

Here's a decent place to start. If you take the time to look, you'll find plenty that shows the truth.

by Aaron Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:42 am

ziggy wrote:
WELFARE, n. [well and fare, a good faring; G.]
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.

OK. It fits either way.

No it doesn't. Our founding fathers never gave congressional authority to legislate with the purse strings. If a law doesn't benefit ALL of the people, there is no constitutional authority for that law. How does any of your entitlement programs meet that criteria for ALL of the citizens?

by ziggy Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:33 am

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:
WELFARE, n. [well and fare, a good faring; G.]
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.

OK. It fits either way.

No it doesn't. Our founding fathers never gave congressional authority to legislate with the purse strings. If a law doesn't benefit ALL of the people, there is no constitutional authority for that law. How does any of your entitlement programs meet that criteria for ALL of the citizens?

I disagree that there is any requirement that a law must benefit ALL the people to be constitutional.

That is not to say that entitlement programs do not benefit everyone in some way or other. Programs that enable people to have adequate food to eat, adequate shelter, adequate health care and adequate education do allow a healthier and wealthier overall society- of which we all are a part.

by Aaron Sun Feb 08, 2009 4:00 am

You disagree with the intent of our founding fathers.

Yeah, you know more then they do.

You know, you really should read the constitution.

And then you should do some reading on our founding fathers and their intent because you clearly don't have a clue.

by Cato Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:57 am

ziggy wrote:
Cato wrote:Just one last thing, I think it was James Madison who said it was tyranny to make a person support policy to which they were opposed. Most of the policies of the federal government I oppose and yet my tax dollars are taken to support.

Well, Madison and the other Founders left us several remedies to try to ease our discontent- like voting in elections, like challenging the government in the Courts, and like amending the Constitution. Go for it.

NO Ziggy, we have only one remedy, tha tis amending the US Constitution as provided in the constitution itself. All the other ways like appointing judges to the Supreme court who would rather legislate from the bench than treat the US constituiton as the standard, or elected politican who just plain ignore the Constituiton, lead to favortism for some and tyranny for others.

We would be a far better nation if the government was limited in scope. Most of the items we pay a ton of money for, like healthcare and education would be less and far more efficient. The business community would certianly be far healthier and we would not have the politicans setting policy that woudl bankrupt the nation.

Should the "business community" fairly be expected to be any "healthier" than the people at large? Why, or why not? As to politicians setting policy- looking at how most election campaigns are financed, and at the hordes of business community lobbyists having their way with Congress and with government agencies, just how would you have the business community be treated any better than it already is?

They should be left alone to determine their own destiny. That's what hte founders intended. It isn't perfect nor is it pretty, because it holds people accountible, but it is the only fair way.

I agree that defecit spending is bankrupting the nation. And I think that happens because Congress is more beholden to the "business community" and its zillions in campaign contributions than to Joe or Jane Q. Public who have but one vote to offer as their contribution to the election. And as likely as not that vote is based on misinformation delivered via the campaign commercials paid for by, guess who.

Really. What about the people who happen to think the other way, that congress is more beholden to the welfare mommies and ACORN. Is that any different from your analogy? No it isn't. Congress is beholden to the various groups, be they AIG or welfare baby factories, because these groups have learned that they can vote themselves entitlements by voting the right politician into office. That is what your view of the constitution has lead us to.

by Aaron Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:40 am

To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.

The opinion of the father of the constitution.

by ziggy Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:31 pm

The Constitution does not say that questions about the law and the Constitution are to be answered by the Founders' prior individual opinions.

It says:

Article III

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects

by ziggy Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:46 pm

Cato wrote:
ziggy wrote:
Cato wrote:Just one last thing, I think it was James Madison who said it was tyranny to make a person support policy to which they were opposed. Most of the policies of the federal government I oppose and yet my tax dollars are taken to support.

Well, Madison and the other Founders left us several remedies to try to ease our discontent- like voting in elections, like challenging the government in the Courts, and like amending the Constitution. Go for it.

NO Ziggy, we have only one remedy, tha tis amending the US Constitution as provided in the constitution itself. All the other ways like appointing judges to the Supreme court who would rather legislate from the bench than treat the US constituiton as the standard, or elected politican who just plain ignore the Constituiton, lead to favortism for some and tyranny for others.

So when was Article 3, Section 2 amended out of the Constitution?

(Ziggy)- Should the "business community" fairly be expected to be any "healthier" than the people at large? Why, or why not? As to politicians setting policy- looking at how most election campaigns are financed, and at the hordes of business community lobbyists having their way with Congress and with government agencies, just how would you have the business community be treated any better than it already is?

(Cato)- They should be left alone to determine their own destiny. That's what the founders intended. It isn't perfect nor is it pretty, because it holds people accountible, but it is the only fair way.

What held the business community "accountable" before the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, before the Mine Health and Safety act of 1977, and before the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, for example?

(Ziggy)- I agree that defecit spending is bankrupting the nation. And I think that happens because Congress is more beholden to the "business community" and its zillions in campaign contributions than to Joe or Jane Q. Public who have but one vote to offer as their contribution to the election. And as likely as not that vote is based on misinformation delivered via the campaign commercials paid for by, guess who.

(Cato)- Really. What about the people who happen to think the other way, that congress is more beholden to the welfare mommies and ACORN. Is that any different from your analogy? No it isn't. Congress is beholden to the various groups, be they AIG or welfare baby factories, because these groups have learned that they can vote themselves entitlements by voting the right politician into office. That is what your view of the constitution has lead us to.

Then you and those who agree with you can organize for political action, you can challenge the laws of Congress in the Courts, or you can organize to seek to amend the Constitution. But just blaming it all on someone or others' "view of the Constitution" is useless. You have as much power to exercise your view of the Constitution as I have to exercise mine.

by Aaron Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:10 pm

ziggy wrote:The Constitution does not say that questions about the law and the Constitution are to be answered by the Founders' prior individual opinions.

It says:

Article III

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects

So who's should they direct it to, King George's?

For 220+ years our courts have been following precedent once it has been set. It is only when they wonder into political realms that we start having trouble.

The constitution listed a very specific list of responsibilities for each branch of government and when the question arose from the early 1800's on, it was clear legislating with the purse strings was never intended, thus setting precedent. Regardless of the reversal of Owen Black and his succumbing to blackmail, it is to this day, still clearly not the intention of our constitution no many ways you try to rape the general Welfare clause.

You're wrong, plain and simple.

by Cato Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:31 pm

ziggy wrote:
Cato wrote:
ziggy wrote:
Cato wrote:Just one last thing, I think it was James Madison who said it was tyranny to make a person support policy to which they were opposed. Most of the policies of the federal government I oppose and yet my tax dollars are taken to support.

Well, Madison and the other Founders left us several remedies to try to ease our discontent- like voting in elections, like challenging the government in the Courts, and like amending the Constitution. Go for it.

NO Ziggy, we have only one remedy, that is amending the US Constitution as provided in the constitution itself. All the other ways like appointing judges to the Supreme court who would rather legislate from the bench than treat the US constituiton as the standard, or elected politican who just plain ignore the Constituiton, lead to favortism for some and tyranny for others.

So when was Article 3, Section 2 amended out of the Constitution?

The courts have the responsibility to compare law to the stardard of the US Constituiton. They do not have the authority to legislate.

(Ziggy)- Should the "business community" fairly be expected to be any "healthier" than the people at large? Why, or why not? As to politicians setting policy- looking at how most election campaigns are financed, and at the hordes of business community lobbyists having their way with Congress and with government agencies, just how would you have the business community be treated any better than it already is?

(Cato)- They should be left alone to determine their own destiny. That's what the founders intended. It isn't perfect nor is it pretty, because it holds people accountible, but it is the only fair way.

What held the business community "accountable" before the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, before the Mine Health and Safety act of 1977, and before the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, for example? [/quote]

And who holds a black welfare baby factory accountible today? Where is the constitutional authority for either providing for her or making the laws you mentioned.

(Ziggy)- I agree that defecit spending is bankrupting the nation. And I think that happens because Congress is more beholden to the "business community" and its zillions in campaign contributions than to Joe or Jane Q. Public who have but one vote to offer as their contribution to the election. And as likely as not that vote is based on misinformation delivered via the campaign commercials paid for by, guess who.

(Cato)- Really. What about the people who happen to think the other way, that congress is more beholden to the welfare mommies and ACORN. Is that any different from your analogy? No it isn't. Congress is beholden to the various groups, be they AIG or welfare baby factories, because these groups have learned that they can vote themselves entitlements by voting the right politician into office. That is what your view of the constitution has lead us to.

Then you and those who agree with you can organize for political action, you can challenge the laws of Congress in the Courts, or you can organize to seek to amend the Constitution. But just blaming it all on someone or others' "view of the Constitution" is useless. You have as much power to exercise your view of the Constitution as I have to exercise mine.[/quote]

You what you are saying is that the US Constitution is truly a "Living docurment" that says exactly what you want it so say. If that is the case there is no use to continue this discussion because you have no standard.

by ziggy Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:50 pm

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:The Constitution does not say that questions about the law and the Constitution are to be answered by the Founders' prior individual opinions.

It says:

Article III

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects

So who's should they direct it to, King George's?

For 220+ years our courts have been following precedent once it has been set. It is only when they wonder into political realms that we start having trouble.

The constitution listed a very specific list of responsibilities for each branch of government and when the question arose from the early 1800's on, it was clear legislating with the purse strings was never intended, thus setting precedent. Regardless of the reversal of Owen Black and his succumbing to blackmail, it is to this day, still clearly not the intention of our constitution no many ways you try to rape the general Welfare clause.

You're wrong, plain and simple.

If I am wrong, then the Constitution is wrong. Because it is the Constitution, not Ziggy, that extends the judicial power to all cases, in law and equity, arising under the Constitution.

You don't always like it, and I don't always like it. But it is what the Constitution says.

by ziggy Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:57 pm

You what you are saying is that the US Constitution is truly a "Living docurment" that says exactly what you want it so say.

No, it says what it says. And although I sometimes like the result and sometimes don't like it, I have no more ability to make it say what I "want it to say" than you do.

If that is the case there is no use to continue this discussion because you have no standard.

The "standard" is whatever the judiciary, in the exercise of its constitutionally granted powers, says it is- not what Ziggy or Cato say it is. And that's not from Ziggy- it is from the Constitution.

by Aaron Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:04 pm

You should have been a spin doctor.

Or a fertilizer spreader one.

One thing is for sure, a constitituionalist you clear aren't.

by Cato Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:44 pm

ziggy wrote:
You what you are saying is that the US Constitution is truly a "Living docurment" that says exactly what you want it so say.

No, it says what it says. And although I sometimes like the result and sometimes don't like it, I have no more ability to make it say what I "want it to say" than you do.

If that is the case there is no use to continue this discussion because you have no standard.

The "standard" is whatever the judiciary, in the exercise of its constitutionally granted powers, says it is- not what Ziggy or Cato say it is. And that's not from Ziggy- it is from the Constitution.

Neat, on one hand you say it is the standard and in the next breath you say that standard is whatever the judiciary says it is. It doesn't work both ways Ziggy, it is either one way or the other. I'll give you a int, the framers intended it to be the standard. Men, like you however, have corrupted that by allowing it to be preverted to say what you want.

by ziggy Sun Feb 08, 2009 7:17 pm

Or another way to look at it is that the Founders penned the words that tell us what the Constitution says. And those same Founders recognized the judiciary system branch of government to tell us, when questions about the law and of the Constitution arise, what it means.

by Cato Sun Feb 08, 2009 9:25 pm

ziggy wrote:Or another way to look at it is that the Founders penned the words that tell us what the Constitution says. And those same Founders recognized the judiciary system branch of government to tell us, when questions about the law and of the Constitution arise, what it means.

Which depending on the agenda of the ruling party att he time the justices were appoint could mean anything.

by ziggy Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:42 pm

Cato wrote:
ziggy wrote:Or another way to look at it is that the Founders penned the words that tell us what the Constitution says. And those same Founders recognized the judiciary system branch of government to tell us, when questions about the law and of the Constitution arise, what it means.

Which depending on the agenda of the ruling party att he time the justices were appoint could mean anything.

And don't you think the founders thought of that as a likely human trait?

There are no perfect governments because there are no perfect people.

by Aaron Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:50 pm

ziggy wrote:
And don't you think the founders thought of that as a likely human trait?

I don't know if your dense or dumb.

That is exactly why they came up with a very specific list of enumerated duties.

by Sponsored content