-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
The Forgotten Founders
- Thread starter Gipper
- Start date
Werbung:
Modern medicine did not even exist back in the 19th. century. There was no need for government subsidized health care, as what care was available was quite inexpensive.
I suppose that when we get to the point that only an elite few can afford health care, maybe the rest of us can go back to leeches and sawing off limbs when gangrene sets in. That would solve the health care problem.
citizenzen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2010
- Messages
- 444
From dictionary.com...
pro·mote
1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish;
1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish;
Sounds like the Founders had the right idea. I'm not sure where you get the idea that it's at the expense of others. I've always believed in the rising tide lifts all ships. But I'm a glass half-full kind of guy.
And also from dictionary.com...
gen·er·al
1. of or pertaining to all persons or things belonging to a group or category: a general meeting of the employees.
2. of, pertaining to, or true of such persons or things in the main, with possible exceptions; common to most; prevalent; usual: the general mood of the people.
3. not limited to one class, field, product, service, etc.; miscellaneous: the general public; general science.
4. considering or dealing with overall characteristics, universal aspects, or important elements, esp. without considering all details or specific aspects: general instructions; a general description; a general resemblance one to another.
1. of or pertaining to all persons or things belonging to a group or category: a general meeting of the employees.
2. of, pertaining to, or true of such persons or things in the main, with possible exceptions; common to most; prevalent; usual: the general mood of the people.
3. not limited to one class, field, product, service, etc.; miscellaneous: the general public; general science.
4. considering or dealing with overall characteristics, universal aspects, or important elements, esp. without considering all details or specific aspects: general instructions; a general description; a general resemblance one to another.
I think that's where the the idea of "all" comes from.
citizenzen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2010
- Messages
- 444
Gipper
Well-Known Member
And conversely, when government wastes the labors of the people to take care of them as is done today, we are most unhappy.
This is something liberals will never understand.
citizenzen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2010
- Messages
- 444
Capitalist Pig
Well-Known Member
The phrase "Promote the general welfare" was never intended to be a green light to ignore everything else the constitution says. It is pretty ridiculous to listen to the left patiently explain to us knuckle dragging conservatives how the elastic clause was put into the constitution to override the enumerated powers, rather than to work within them, despite the fact that the constitution specifically says that that is what it is for. I suppose I must not be smart enough to deliberately misunderstand the obvious meaning of phrases written in my native tongue.
Of course the medicine of the day was not as advanced as our medicine now. But they still had doctors didn't they? They went to those doctors when they were sick didn't they? They must have believed that those doctors had some knowledge that could be helpful in curing the sick and healing the wounded. Therefore I believe that the choice to not empower the federal government to give to some the right to access the labor of another at no cost to themselves was not an oversight. I believe that the founders knew the difference between rights and needs. If only more Americans today could be so educated.
Of course the medicine of the day was not as advanced as our medicine now. But they still had doctors didn't they? They went to those doctors when they were sick didn't they? They must have believed that those doctors had some knowledge that could be helpful in curing the sick and healing the wounded. Therefore I believe that the choice to not empower the federal government to give to some the right to access the labor of another at no cost to themselves was not an oversight. I believe that the founders knew the difference between rights and needs. If only more Americans today could be so educated.
OldTrapper
Well-Known Member
More stupid remarks from the mentally ill I see.
Germany had universal haelath care in 1883, Sweden in 1891, Denmark in 1892, etc. Teddy Roosevelt tried to get it done in 1903, and in 1914 the AAL tried as did FDR in 1935, or so.
So, it wasn't from a lack of Progressives trying, it was from the people's lack of wanting it just as it is today.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/a_brief_history_universal_health_care_efforts_in_the_us.php
BTW, if this bill is passed it will be the elites who will be the only ones who can afford it. The rest of us will just have to accept what crumbs are leftover.
OldTrapper
Well-Known Member
Still can't see the word provide in the definition.
When you force another to pay for it is it not at their expense, not yours? Is that beyond your comprehension?
Hmmmm, and where is this "all" at in the preamble?
Websters Definition of "all": The whole quantity of; the whole sum or number of.......
citizenzen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2010
- Messages
- 444
Oh, you mean these enumerated powers?
The Congress shall have Power to...
• Lay and collect Taxes
• Provide for the general Welfare of the United States
• To regulate Commerce
• Provide for the general Welfare of the United States
• To regulate Commerce
Seems to me that these powers enumerated in the Constitution are the ones conservatives today like to complain the most about.
citizenzen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2010
- Messages
- 444
Maybe you can see it in the U.S. Constitution...
Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;;
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;;
That dovetails quite nicely with the mission statement the preamble lays out, don't you think?
Capitalist Pig
Well-Known Member
I have certainly not argued that there should be no power of the Congress to levy taxes. Perhaps if I post the entire statement as it reads from the constitution, we can clear up our misunderstanding. I have underlined the relevant portion in order to more easily facilitate this meeting of minds.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
If this line means what those of you on the left imagine it to mean, then it invalidates nearly everything else in the constitution. Since that would be obviously ridiculous, and believable only to those who have no true interest whatsoever in the actual meaning of the constitution beyond what they can twist and misrepresent in support of their agenda, we'll just assume that the framers of the constitution were not contradicting themselves. It's probably safe to assume that they meant that it should be the duty of Congress to pass laws that are in the best interest of the nation WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE ENUMERATED POWERS that they then proceeded to painstakingly lay out.
The intent here is to prevent trade wars between the states. Any other interpretation runs into that same old problem of contradicting everything else written in the constitution.
Article I, Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
Liberals are big fans of this last bit, so I thought I'd separate it from the whole, and discuss it specifically.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The so called elastic clause grants congress the power to make any law necessary IN THE EXECUTION OF THE ENUMERATED POWERS. The "elastic" clause is therefore not a blank check of unlimited power to "improve" our lives. It is specifically limited in its scope. If it was anything else, then why would they have bothered specifying the powers granted to Congress. If the constitution reads the way you seem to want to believe it does, then why would the framers have bothered with being so specific? Why indeed follow up that specificity with statements which clearly limit deviation from those powers enumerated?
Capitalist Pig
Well-Known Member
Funny, to me it seems that the constitution specifies that it is the general welfare of The United States, and not the general welfare of the people of The United States, that congress is empowered to provide for. Somehow I doubt that the framers intended to provide congress with the unchecked authority to raise taxes for the purpose of essentially anything they want so long as they can say it is for the general welfare. Since this statement in the constitution is followed IMMEDIATELY by a list of the things congress is allowed to do, I find it very difficult to accept your broader interpretation of the constitutional authority given to congress.
My feeling is essentially this. If you don't like the limits the constitution places on the federal government, that's fine. You live in a nation where at the moment free speech is tolerated. You can hold any opinion you like, and come to places like this to argue vociferously in favor of those opinions. What irks me is the way some people try to twist the obvious intentions of the framers of the constitution into supporting positions which they in fact directly contradict. If you think the constitution should be modified, then make your case. But don't try to tell me that it need not be modified, since it already supports a federal government with unlimited power.
citizenzen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2010
- Messages
- 444
Please note again the preamble...
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.
The Constitution makes it clear that this is about the people and not some abstract nation, state or motherland... other wise they would have said...
We the nation 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 the motherland and her Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Check out this passage from the Declaration of Independence...
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
The clear message is that the role of government is to effect the people's safety and happiness. This is not about the sea, the animals, the rivers, the land or the riches lying beneath it or the borders that delineate it... it is about the people.
No contradictions there, my friend.
Werbung:
Capitalist Pig
Well-Known Member
The government of the United States was formed to protect the rights (as laid out in the constitution) of the citizens of the United States. The charter of that government gives congress the (limited) responsibility to make law to the benefit of the nation. This argument is quite clearly supported by the text of the constitution. Your interpretation that the US government is empowered by the constitution to do essentially anything it likes so long as it is willing to claim that it is doing it for the benefit of "the people", is not supported anywhere in the constitution. Only someone deliberately trying to misrepresent the obvious intent of the framers could manage to come up with such an idea. You can't seriously believe that the framers would have bothered specifically laying out the individual powers of congress, and then making a note specifying that any new laws must be in support of those powers specified, if they meant for it to all just be pointless in the face of the so called general welfare clause. It couldn't be more clear that our founders intended to create a government with very limited powers. To suggest that they intended anything else is foolish at best, and at worst deliberately misleading. You can try to obfuscate all you like by taking specific statements out of context, but in reading the entire text you can come to no other conclusion than that the constitution's primary role is to tell the federal government what it may not do to us, rather than what it must do for us. Even our current leader admits that the constitution is a charter of negative liberties. He sees it as an oversight, essentially arguing that the constitution needs to be modified for government to truly take on the role that he imagines it should have. At least he knows enough however to not make the ridiculous claim that the constitution as it is currently written supports his agenda.
