OT: r - I thought you should see this

Page 4 of 11  


Read the constitution, the federal government should provide for the common defense and support interstate commerce.
Bombs & roads is all they should be doing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The constitution also says blacks are 3/5ths of a person or whatever. Fortunately, the Framers provided the mechanisms necessary to change their intent. If a successful challenge is mounted to non-bomb and road appropriations bills, then I'm pretty confident we'll be able to pass the necessary amendment. Frankly, I doubt such a challenge would ever make it to the SCOTUS.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff wrote:

That mechanism for change does indeed exist. It is called an *Amendment* to the Constitution and requires a supermajority of States to approve. Short of that, there is no enumerated power for the Feds to be in the healthcare business. The courts, of course, have arrogated power to themselves over the past several hundred years and now routinely grant power to the Feds that isn't actually Constitutional. So much for rule of law ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not a lawyer so you may be right. The courts may be wrong. The legislature may be wrong. Most Americans may be wrong. That might be true, but this much I'm certain: President Bush is *always* wrong.
The Constitution vested power in the appropriate place, we the people. If government has no business in health care, then we'll eventually yank that service. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff wrote:

I don't see it that way, and I think history will judge him far more kindly than his ranting opponents do. OTOH, I also think history will not canonize him the way his supporters do. He was stuck in a tough moment in U.S. history and - no matter what calls he made - his political opponents were going to rip into him regardless. Me? I give him a 'C'.

Therein lies the rub. The real villains in this are not the politicians. The villains are *the people*. It is the American public that wants "free" stuff like healthcare and retirement, and it is they who've empowered the politicos do break the law. We've become so debauched as a culture that stealing is now OK, so long as we steal from someone who has more money than we do. But this fleecing the rich / high income groups has a limited horizon. Sooner or later the geese that lay the golden eggs will all be dead ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is widely reported that the US helped to negotiate the return of Banizir Bhutto to Pakistan, which has been a catalyst for the resurgence of Democracy in Pakistan.
It's not the only thing he's done right, but the most recent thing for which he deserves credit.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The Bush administration was trying to arrange a marriage from hell. Certainly you can persuade me with evidence to the contrary but based on what I know thus far, the resurgence seems to be in reaction to a recent power grab by the man Bush looked in the eye and declared good. Cos that lookin in the eye thing works so well for him. Just ask Pooty- Poot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

A supreme court decision could also do it, and has. It has interpreted the constitution to mean that the federal government has jurisdiction and that congress has the power to enact laws to provide for the general welfare. It is law. No matter how much you argue that the framers "did not intend" to do it. It is done. Live with it.
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Allison wrote:

All Juden have to wear yellow stars. It's the law. It is done. Live with it.
Sorry, but the fact that something is "the law" or "done" doesn't mean that one should just accept it.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Allison wrote:

Cite one U.S. Supreme Court decision, just ONE, where the SCT has held that "Congress has the power to enact laws to provide for the general welfare." I bet you can't. The SCT has permitted the expansion of federal power mostly through an expansive interpretation of the clause in Article I Section 7 giving Congress power to regulate interstate commerce. ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I M Curious wrote:

Helvering v. Davis (1937)
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Allison wrote:

Helvering didn't hold that. You need to read the case more closely. Helvering dealt with Article I section 8 of the Constitution, granting Congress the power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the common defense and general welfare. Neither Article I section 8 nor Helvering uses the phrase "provide for the general welfare" as a grant of federal power to enact laws in general to provide for the general welfare. Helvering dealt with "general welfare" as a modification of the grant to Congress of the power to lay and collect taxes.
Most people who think the federal government has a general power to "promote the general welfare" come to that conclusion by reading the Preamble to the Constitution, as to which the Supreme Court said in Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1905), "Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States ..." ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I M Curious wrote:

This is from the decision:
Begin quote:
Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle ground, or certainly a penumbra, in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law.
End quote
Sure sounds like they decided it. But, I could be wrong.
When the justice says that congress may spend money in aid of general welfare, it seems that it has ruled on that clause.
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Allison wrote:

There IS a difference between the limited "spending power", which is what Helvering refers to, and a more general "power to enact laws to provide for the general welfare," which Helvering does NOT recognize. ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I M Curious wrote:

OK, you are right. The government does not have unlimited power. It is limited to spending power to aid in the general welfare.
Happy?
How does any of this affect the reality of what the government can do? Has done?
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Allison wrote:

The reality is that federal power has expanded through a broad application of the commerce clause to situations it was never intended to cover. Example: the federal government has no constitutional power over education. But it does have power to regulate interstate commerce. Solution? Offer federal money to state and local governments to use in education in ways that affect interstate commerce, then regulate the use of that money. As a result, the feds now have their size 13's in state and local education issues, not as a means to provide for the general welfare, but as a means to regulate interstate commerce. The same thing occurs with health issues, environmental issues, and on and on ad nauseum. That's why so much federal legislation includes "having an effect on interestate commerce" as part of its requirements. If Congress could simply enact laws that "provide for the general welfare" it would not have to go through the legal gynastics needed to invoke the commerce clause. You can thank FDR and his court-packing scheme for the result. ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I M Curious wrote:
> The reality is that federal power has expanded through a broad

And I do. Thank him for providing the impetus for the courts to do the right thing, that is. And every court since then has upheld those decisions.
The fact is that the court and litigants in cases before the court have tried to use every means possible to use the commerce clause to justify there actions. It is easier to do because if the court can be shown that it affects interstate commerce, then the court has jurisdiction. Usually one of the hardest barriers to getting the court to hear the case at all.
Helvering v. Davis was not about commerce, but about the governments power to spend for the general welfare. In this case the Court sustained the old‐age benefits provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935. Writing for the majority, Justice Benjamin Cardozo adopted an expansive view of the federal taxing and spending power. He judged the old age benefits provisions of the Social Security Act constitutional pursuant to Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
The part that you are referring to was that the 10th amendment did not apply because it was not a power that the states COULD use, due to the inequality between regions if one state used the power and the adjacent states did not, therefore it was a federal problem, thus a power relegated to the federal gov't.
Judge Cardozo also said that the power to determine what was the general welfare did not lie with the court, but that: "discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power."
Clearly, it was a decision on the general welfare clause.
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:41:48 -0800 (PST), Limp Arbor

Hi again,
I had written:

I've read the Constitution, but was trying to find out something about your views, not those of the founders.
So, from your comment above, I take it that you do favor having a socialized road system.
Would that be correct?
Thanks again,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kenneth wrote:

There are two reasons why interstate highways are legitimately the purview of the Federal Government:
1) There is a Constitutional enumerated power to "to establish post offices and post roads". To the extent that roads are needed to move mail, having the Feds build and maintain them is legit.
2) There is a Constitutional enumerated power to "provide for the common defense" [of the several States]. The U.S. interstate system as we know it today was originally built as a part of the Cold War defense machinery. Parts of it were poured extra thick so that a B-52 bomber could land on them in time of national emergency. To the extent we need interstate highways to defend the nation, having the Feds build and maintain them is legit.
By contrast, there is NO Constitutional enumerated power for the Feds to be involved in many (financially speaking, *most*) of the things they do today:
Retirement funds Healthcare Elder care Social services for the impoverished Education
It makes no difference how "good" or "desirable" or "humane" such activities might be, the Constitution does not give the Feds permission to do these things. Such activities are left to "the States and the people".
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.