Trickle? IF the Dems get control of the Congress AND the presidency, it
won't be a trickle.
I hear McCain made the mistake of actually calling himself a liberal
Republican. I am beginning to think that conservatism died with Buckley.
The press has never really liked Hilliary as a person, and I think that
she has also made a lot of Dem enemies. But she was the leading (or at
least A leading) Democrat so she got nothing but good press. But now
with the ascension of the messiah . . .
My only hope is that if the Dems take control of the House, that the
Reps can maintain control of the Senate (or vice versa). A deadlocked
Congress would be better than either party having control. This, of
course, is also hoping that the Reps would finally get some balls.
Schwarzenegger has always been a RINO. His latest project seems to be
another "peripheral canal" project that the voters of California have
rejected three times already. And like Bush, he seems to be spending
money faster than a drunken Democrat. When he was elected, he was one
of the most popular governors the state has ever had. I would say that
was mostly because he was a famous actor, but who am I to say. But ever
since, his popularity has been declining. Just not enough to do
anything about it. I think he may be in for a fight when it comes time
for his re-election.
Now the messiah has come.
But with our presidential choices, that will happen regardless of which
party you vote for.
Same here. Just don't know what I can do about it. A vote for
President seems kinda useless at this point. Choosing between a bowl of
cat shit or a bowl of dog shit isn't much of a choice. I'll have to
agree that the only thing we can do now is work more on House and Senate
If it is real, it would be amazing that the press printed it. Even with
the coming of the messiah. Maybe . . .just maybe. . .someone in the
press has a sense of humor. Maybe just didn't catch it? Or maybe it
was totally on purpose.
I am old and cranky, but each of us will have to define "mean" in our
own way. Some will think that the socialist leanings of the left are
mean while others will think that the "anti-socialist" leanings of the
right (if there is still such a thing) are mean.
Well, my grand daughter is screaming for me to come to her birthday
party so I gotta go. (She's 4).
You gotta be kidding me. You think W and the Republic-controlled
legislature didn't already bequeath us with a *deluge* of statist
actions, spending, and so forth? I'm not talking about the Iraq
war here, either. I'm talking about the execrable "Drug Benefits
Program", the similarly vile "No Child Left Behind" nonsense,
the funding of "Faith Based Charities" and a host of other Statist /
Collectivist programs that are neither sane nor Constitutional.
The next election will have a statist in some form as President of
the U.S. We have the Republicans to thank for that - they proved
that fiscal restraint is now irrelevant - now it's just a race to
the bottom of the socialist sewer..
Tim Daneliuk email@example.com
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:34:50 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Tim, your constant use of "socialist" reminds me of Joe McCarthy. Perhaps
you aren't aware that labor unions were once considered"socialist" if not
"communist". As were the FDA, the minimum wage, and a host of other
things. It has forever been the cry of the ruling classes to anything
they, and those they have fooled, think threatens them.
And have you forgotten "and provide for the common welfare"?
Perhaps you have a better definition for the currently advocated policies
of "redistributing wealth". i.e. the government taking something from the
productive in society and giving it to others who didn't work for it? Or,
the act of the government completely taking over 1/7 of the US economy in
the form of national health care. Seems socialism describes the situation
pretty well. As well as Hillary's comments regarding how she is going
to "take those oil company profits" and invest them in ...
That phrase has been abused and misused by statists for the past 6 decades
that it has lost its original meaning. Nowhere in the federalist or
anti-federalist papers would you find anything supporting the idea that
providing for the common welfare meant wealth re-distribution.
LBJ did good, by calling his program "welfare", he gave it the aura of
constitutional approval despite the fact it flies in the face of the
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
So does shared liability, but that just isn't scary enough is it?
Are you also opposed to insurance plans?
Rigid people require rigid reasons, I guess.
Here is a quote for you from the Constitutional Conventions
general instructions to the midsummer Committee of Detail, which
took upon itself the task of translating these instructions into
the specific enumerations of Article I, Congress was to enjoy
authority to "legislate in all Cases for the general Interests of
the Union, and also in those Cases to which the States are
separately incompetent, or in which the Harmony of the United
States may be interrupted by the Exercise of individual Legislation."
That became the general welfare clause. I think that that is
evidence of the general intentions. And it was used by the
supreme court in deciding that, indeed, congress has the power to
enact laws for the general welfare.
Just can't get over it can you?
Which has nothing to do with entitlement programs. Remember that the
constitution was formulated after the original approach failed because
states were taxing commerce between themselves in the same manner of
countries and were enacting legislation that was endangering the harmony of
Which has zip to do with wealth re-distribution and entitlement programs.
Can't get over the fact that people have used this term to abuse the
intent of the founders and the federal republic form of government? Nope.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Just one other thought. I assume by the reasoning you provide, and since
the general welfare clause is in the preamble, you wholeheartedly support
Bush's terrorist surveillance program. After all, it is being done to
promote the general welfare and ensure peace and domestic tranquility (if
you are not a terrorist). Should fit completely within your definition of
the scope of the federal government.
One other thought, given your rationale above, is there *anything* that
Congress could not do if they used the argument it was being done for
the "general welfare"?
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
The violations in the patriot act are enumerated in our bill of
rights, so they are expressly prohibited.
Sure. Anything that is NOT for the general welfare or otherwise
violates the constitution. We have that nasty old USSC to watch
out for that, plus numerous groups whose sole purpose in existing
is to watch for stuff like that.
Are you really sure that was the intent of those who wrote the bill of
rights? After all, your perceived violations in the patriot act are really
there for the general welfare and are not directed at "we the people" of
the US, but at foreigners.
That's what I thought. Anything someone can wrap a "general welfare"
claim around is pretty much allowable. Kind of like the Clinton
administration attempt at gun control near schools under the interstate
commerce clause. The argument they made was that since educated citizens
were vital to interstate commerce, the ability of the federal government to
enforce gun-free areas around schools was a reasonable application of the
interstate commerce clause. The judge who heard the case laughed them out
of court asking, "with that rationale, is there *anything* that would not
fit into that clause?"
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Do you discount the Declarations words that say "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
Not all americans, but all men.
"We, the people" describes the ones writing the Constitution and
the people of the new country. Its predecessor stated that all
men have certain rights. Liberty is one of them. The
constitution then states that liberty cannot be deprived without
due process of law. If liberty is an unalienable right of men,
and it cannot be deprived of them without due process, then why
does the patriot act suspend habeus corpus, even for US citizens?
It does the general welfare of the US no good to deprive the
citizens of the rights guaranteed by the constitution. So, in
answer to your question; no, the general welfare clause cannot be
used to justify the patriot act.
Exactly! You can see that the limits are still there and must be
justified. You can try anything you want, and the lawyers and
legislators do. But they usually do not get through, or they are
overturned on appeal. See how great the system works?
What provision of "the patriot act" that has not been overturned by
the Supreme Court suspends habeas corpus for US citizens?
Incidentally the Declaration of Independence has little force in law,
quoting from it is irrelevant.
Of what specific rights guaranteed by the Constitution have citizens
Or the court gets threatened with packing, which is how Social
Security was forced through--Roosevelt threatened to double the number
of Justices and make sure that all the new ones agreed with his
program and the Court caved. One mistake the Founders made was not
specifying the number of Justices or providing some limit on changes
in their number intended to prevent such activity.
I meant the paper prescedant to the Constitution; The
Declaration of Independence. Not the system of governance.
I did not say that the provision had not been overturned, I said
the patriot act suspended it. Nonetheless, our President, with
consent of his Counsel Mr. Gonzales, has locked people up, "per
speciale Mandatum Domini Regis." Some of their names are familiar
to us - US citizens Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, for example -
but there are hundreds whose names we are not even allowed to
know. Perhaps thousands. It's a state secret, after all. Per
speciale Mandatum Domini Regis.
Ask Mr. Padilla if he thinks that his rights as a US citizen have
been deprived. According to the patriot act, if you are
suspected of terrorist activities, you may be detained
indefinitely, without charges, without trial, without
representation, regardless of whether you are a US citizen or
not. Is that enough for you?
Have their decisions been overturned? FDR is dead. There is no
further threat from him and I think the justices made the right
decision. Why have the incorrect decisions not been overturned
by subsequent courts if they are so egregious? I think it is
because the decisions were correct and needed. FDR just provided
the leverage the court needed to do the right thing.
Don't pay your taxes and claim that the law is illegal when it
compels you to pay for services provided under the general
welfare clause. Take it all the way to the USSC. Stand up for
your beliefs! Or do you just like to argue?
So what? If the provision you find objectionable has been overturned
by the courts then what are you whining about?
Yes, they have locked people up. What of it? Quite frankly, the
"rights" of noncitizens who attempt to cause trouble for the US are a
matter of crashing indifference to me. Most of them don't have any
such "rights" in whatever country they came from, so why should we
treat them any differently?
I figured you were going to try that.
The system worked, the law was overturned, is that enough for you?
Now, for bonus points find the appropriate section of the US Code
(don't anybody help the boy, wading through the US Code will do him
good) and read it and tell us what it says.
You really should do your own research instead of just regurgitating
whatever your master says.
There are still provisions that provide for suspension of habeus
corpus in the current version that has not yet been overturned.
Any whining that you are hearing is coming from your end, not mine.
Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi are US citizens. Perhaps you should
take the time to read before you respond.
And you should defend the destruction of our civil liberties by
presidential decree in Cuba. You would be more popular there.
Americans don't like it much, when you start taking away our rights.
Here is the appropriate code for the above reference:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.
And this one (the one you hate so much)
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand
Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in
the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public
danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to
be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled
in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
Can you show me a declaration of war that exempts the government
from the fifth amendment?
Those men were held for years while the Bush administration
stalled in the courts. That, despite the fact that the matter
has been settled law for over two hundred years and no
USSC has ever ruled in favor of a President unilaterally
suspending habeas corpus,.
Padilla and Hamdi are not noncitizens. The only reason
anyone outside of the Administration even knew that Padilla
was in custody was because they bragged about it. We
have no way of knowing how many citizens the may
still be holding.
All innocent people have the same right to defend
themselves from accusation that they 'cause trouble'.
Because we are Americans.
He should have been free while the government appealed. If the
government can keep a man imprisoned for years while appealing
habeas, the writ is rendered ineffective.
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.