The Forgotten Founders

[citizenzen]

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.

Well, now you're just making stuff up. Please show me where I've said this.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

Well, now you're just making stuff up. Please show me where I've said this.

You have repeatedly argued that it is the responsibility of the government as laid out in the constitution to provide for the general welfare of the people of the United States. If this were true, then there are effectively no limits on the power of the federal government. They could outlaw anything they want, and say that it's for our own good. They can tax us as much as they like and provide whatever they imagine that we need from them, because it is all for our own good. If the meaning of the general welfare clause is as you say, then I have described your position accurately. Where is the imaginary line that you think they won't cross? You tell me how far they will go before they stop and say... wait, no, this is to much authority. If there should be universal healthcare, then why not universal nutrition? People need food more than they need medicine. Why not universal shelter? People need a place to live correct? Your position is one of unlimited power in the hands of the federal government, so long as that government is using that power as you think they should. You fail to grasp that if you empower the government to provide everything for you instead of providing it for yourself, you are also empowering the government to take those things away from you. If you want to sell your own freedom to the government in exchange for some worthless promises that they can't keep, I couldn't care less. I have a problem, because you are trying to sell mine as well.

 

[citizenzen]

You have repeatedly argued that it is the responsibility of the government as laid out in the constitution to provide for the general welfare of the people of the United States.

That's because it says so, in the preamble, in the enumerated powers and also in the Declaration of Independence.

I don't need to make it up. I don't need to embellish it. Our Founders used those exact words to describe the responsibility and mission of our government.

 

[citizenzen]

They could outlaw anything they want, and say that it's for our own good. They can tax us as much as they like and provide whatever they imagine that we need from them, because it is all for our own good. If the meaning of the general welfare clause is as you say, then I have described your position accurately. Where is the imaginary line that you think they won't cross? You tell me how far they will go before they stop and say...

Who is this "they" that you keep mentioning?

Since America is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" it must be the people that you're referring to.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

Who is this "they" that you keep mentioning?

Since America is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" it must be the people that you're referring to.

You are aware of the fact that we live in a constitutional republic, and not a "democracy" correct? Under the US constitution there is no tyranny of the 51% over the other 49. We do not have mob rule in America. It doesn't matter if the majority of the American people what belongs to me against my will. The American constitution prevents people like you from banding together and having a vote on who gets my truck. When I say they, I'm talking about YOU, and people like you in positions of authority. You should try answering the questions I ask, instead of pulling back to the tired old liberal defense mechanisms. How much is to much? If you think there is a line they wont cross once you empower them to cross whichever lines they like, where do you imagine that line to be?

 

[Gipper]

You have repeatedly argued that it is the responsibility of the government as laid out in the constitution to provide for the general welfare of the people of the United States. If this were true, then there are effectively no limits on the power of the federal government. They could outlaw anything they want, and say that it's for our own good. They can tax us as much as they like and provide whatever they imagine that we need from them, because it is all for our own good. If the meaning of the general welfare clause is as you say, then I have described your position accurately. Where is the imaginary line that you think they won't cross? You tell me how far they will go before they stop and say... wait, no, this is to much authority. If there should be universal healthcare, then why not universal nutrition? People need food more than they need medicine. Why not universal shelter? People need a place to live correct? Your position is one of unlimited power in the hands of the federal government, so long as that government is using that power as you think they should. You fail to grasp that if you empower the government to provide everything for you instead of providing it for yourself, you are also empowering the government to take those things away from you. If you want to sell your own freedom to the government in exchange for some worthless promises that they can't keep, I couldn't care less. I have a problem, because you are trying to sell mine as well.

Well said CP.

This is exactly what many on the Left believe. They have bastardized the Constitution to the point that it is now meaningless.

We are no longer protected by the Constitution from government tyranny. The consequences of this will be very dire for all Americans.

 

[samsara15]

"[T]he Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution." --Alexander Hamilton

Give us a quote from Aaron Burr. Many of the founders were later discredited, legitimately or not. Some say Aaron Burr was unfairly tarnished.

There were many voices among the founders, and those who fought in the revolution. Quite of few of them believed that the Constitution sold out the Revolution.

 

[samsara15]

Conservatives seem to have selective amnesia when it comes to some of the Founding Fathers

 

[OldTrapper]

Give us a quote from Aaron Burr. Many of the founders were later discredited, legitimately or not. Some say Aaron Burr was unfairly tarnished.

There were many voices among the founders, and those who fought in the revolution. Quite of few of them believed that the Constitution sold out the Revolution.

Is there some reason why you cannot provide a quote? This is a typical left wing ruse to turn the subject from one they feel they are losing, or, simply because they are too lazy to do their own work.

 

[samsara15]

You are not interested in our interpretation anyhow, so why waste any more time on you than a minimum?

 

[samsara15]

Sam Adams

Samuel Adams quotes:
Were the talents and virtues which heaven has bestowed on men given merely to make them more obedient drudges, to be sacrificed to the follies and ambition of a few? Or, were not the noble gifts so equally dispensed with a divine purpose and law, that they should as nearly as possible be equally exerted, and the blessings of Providence be equally enjoyed by all?

 

[Gipper]

For one to believe that the Founders desired a strong centralized overbearing omnipresent federal government such as the one we currently labor under, one must be ignorant of history or a totalitarian.

 

[citizenzen]

How much is to much? If you [they] think there is a line they [you] wont cross once you empower them [yourself] to cross whichever lines they [you] like, where do you [they] imagine that line to be?

Like you I agree that the Constitution must be followed.

Here's an example that you don't wish to acknowledge. The Constitution says that our government [the people] need to "provide for a common defence"...

• To provide and maintain a Navy;
• To provide for calling forth the Militia
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia

And from THAT we know have a standing military force that costs us AS MUCH AS THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED! I ask you, "How much is too much"?

Can you imagine if we spent as much as the rest of the world combined on our social services? Our healthcare? Our welfare system?

So when you ask the question...

If you think there is a line they wont cross once you empower them to cross whichever lines they like, where do you imagine that line to be?​

I know where that line will be crossed and it will result in an obscenely bloated expensive and wasteful military.

You're right CP. What are you going to do about it?

 

[PLC1]

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.

If "this bill", meaning the bill currently being debated somewhat irrationally in Congress, passes, then not much will happen. The unsustainable costs of medical care will continue to increase, fewer and fewer people will be able to afford it, private an public debt will continue to grow.

The reality is that medical care currently accounts for over 17% of the GDP in this country, and that the costs continue to go up faster than the rate of inflation. About half of those costs are currently born by the government. A significant part of government debt is due to medical care, just as a significant number of citizens who are facing economic hardship are doing so due to medical care costs. The reality is that "this bill" will do nothing to stop the runaway cost anyway. The reality is that no one is pushing "socialized medicine in the US anyway, and that few understand what that phrase even means. The reality is that we are facing a crisis, and are busily engaged in a bogus left wing vs right wing debate over nonsense and doing nothing to meet the coming challenge. The reality is that medical care in the past was primitive, but not very costly. Today, modern medicine can work miracles, but at a price.

But, those who see disagreement as mental illness tend to be blind to reality.

 

[OldTrapper]

If "this bill", meaning the bill currently being debated somewhat irrationally in Congress, passes, then not much will happen. The unsustainable costs of medical care will continue to increase, fewer and fewer people will be able to afford it, private an public debt will continue to grow.

The reality is that medical care currently accounts for over 17% of the GDP in this country, and that the costs continue to go up faster than the rate of inflation. About half of those costs are currently born by the government. A significant part of government debt is due to medical care, just as a significant number of citizens who are facing economic hardship are doing so due to medical care costs. The reality is that "this bill" will do nothing to stop the runaway cost anyway. The reality is that no one is pushing "socialized medicine in the US anyway, and that few understand what that phrase even means. The reality is that we are facing a crisis, and are busily engaged in a bogus left wing vs right wing debate over nonsense and doing nothing to meet the coming challenge. The reality is that medical care in the past was primitive, but not very costly. Today, modern medicine can work miracles, but at a price.

But, those who see disagreement as mental illness tend to be blind to reality.

Not at all, however, I do see ignorance as a mental illness. Nto sure if it can be cured.

To the topic at hand, and I see one has not come up with any Aaron Burr quotes surprise, surprise, the left might consider these before suggesting that the Founders agreed with them:

With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798


As with anything else the government has gotten involved in, the costs will naturally rise whether it be for welfare, education, healthcare, or whatever. The desire of others to garner this "free money" for themselves is too much of a temptation for the ever weakening nature of man.