They sure scare me... "We've decided to tax this... it's for the general welfare." "We need to control gun ownership.... it's for the general welfare."
Leftists, the general welfare clause applies only to those federal government powers SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED by the Constitution. I know it pains you to realize this, but those dunderhead founding fathers were actually much smarter than you. And they didn't even have I-Phones.
2007-08-12 06:46:40 · 11 answers · asked by RP McMurphy 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Is Coragryph the biggest pompus *** on YA or what? This guy's smug self-satisfaction as he spreads his knowledge from several advanced degrees on the little people is nauseating.
2007-08-12 11:37:46 · update #1
Absolutely but then everyone who thinks the Constitution is a living document scares me. The founder made it say specific things and gave us a way to update it for contempory issues. Just because the process is slow (intentionally) doesnt mean we should allow judges to just make it say things it doesnt say.
2007-08-12 07:39:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Gun control doesn't fall under the "spending for the general welfare clause" -- most attempts at federal gun control actually rely on the Commerce Clause.
You claim to be afraid of people who use the general welfare clause to promote programs that give money to people. Are you equally afraid of the people on the other end of the political spectrum who pass laws regulating medical practice, with no requirement for a health-of-the-patient exception? Or who pass laws throwing out the 4th and 6th Amendments? Or who try to suspend Habeas Corpus in contradiction to Article I Section 9? Or is your fear only when the govt is trying to help people?
And yes, the general welfare clause was originally intended to apply only to the specific enumerated powers -- until the Supreme Court about 80 years ago decided the 10th Amendment was pointless and should be interpreted as "the states get to regulate anything the federal govt doesn't want to control".
NOTE -- I disagree with that ruling. Very strongly.
But it is the current way the Constitution is interpreted.
See US v. Sprague (1931) and US v. Darby(1941).
Try keeping up at least within the past half-century.
2007-08-12 07:05:52 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i think of the different solutions practice you the problem extremely of course. won't be able to even say the notice welfare without getting some knee-jerk reaction that pals it with wealth distribution and fee for the damaging, a extremely restrictive interpretation of the meaning of the notice. And that's the translation of the notice that's on the heart of the problem, does not you assert? according to risk they (the writers of the form) could have used the wide-unfold term "wellbeing", yet that wasn't the user-friendly notice for that distinctive theory lower back then. all human beings is going to interpret what they prefer to make sure. Even the framers observed diverse meanings to the words they signed their names to. No ask your self that problem maintains to the wide-unfold.
2016-10-15 02:05:53 · answer #3 · answered by yau 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both sides use it when it suits their purpose. Requiring congress to include in each act a concise and definite statement of the specific constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that act would be a reasonable approach to limiting the scope of federal legislation -- even better if it were grandfathered.
2007-08-12 07:04:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Hi, which are these?:
"...federal government powers SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED by the Constitution"
Anyway, it never hurt me to have my tax dollars go for welfare - IF - it went to (1) those who REALLY needed it, and (2) those who are in MY country LEGALLY... :o) Adela
2007-08-12 06:55:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I agree..they are hurting the people that they claim to represent..I heard that they want to raise the federal gas tax by 50 cents a gallon..that's only going to hurt the poor
2007-08-12 06:54:42 · answer #6 · answered by John 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If liberals scare you than you will be utterly terrified when they win by a landslide next year. Imagine making progress for once rather than going backward of being stagnant as we have over the last 6 to 8 years.
2007-08-12 07:33:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
The Constitution is a shield. And it can be used as such by anyone who can outsmart the interpreters and enforcers of the Constitution.
2007-08-12 06:56:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Since only rightists begin (unjustified) wars I have nothing to fear of the left.
2007-08-12 06:54:03 · answer #9 · answered by TheMetallian 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
They don't scare me or surprise me by doing this.
2007-08-12 06:51:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋