Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: exDemMom

You sure have a bug up your ass for your favorite unconstitutional program, don’t you?

Here’s what James Madison had to say about the General Welfare clause, when asked if it granted any power to the Federal government:

“If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.”

THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE IS NOT A BLANK CHECK FOR EVERY STATIST SUMBITCH TO USE TO JUSTIFY HIS OR HER FAVORITE CAUSE.

Do you understand yet?

What else do you want the Federal government to regulate? Are you next going to say that they should regulate the types of fast foods which are sold? Are you going to suggest that they ban certain foods because they are too high in fat or sodium?

STAY THE HELL OUT OF MY PANTRY AND MY NEIGHBOR’S PANTRY. WORRY ABOUT YOUR OWN.


84 posted on 01/06/2013 4:31:44 AM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]


To: dinodino
You sure have a bug up your ass for your favorite unconstitutional program, don’t you?

Shall I repost the general welfare clause? Nevermind, here it is: The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "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." It's not even an amendment; it is part of the body of the Constitution *and* placed near the beginning. That's significant. Our founding fathers gave a very clear message that they considered protecting the citizenry from dangers that they do not have the means or resources to protect themselves from is pretty much the purpose of government. And, despite your views colored by your libertarian romanticism, it *is* conservative to believe that the government should fulfil its constitutionally mandated functions.

I should also point out that it's quite clear that, whatever some founding fathers might have written, the general welfare clause still was included in the Constitution. In the same sentence as national defense, even... although I suppose you would say that that's also unnecessary, since you can protect yourself from an invading army just fine on your own.

What else do you want the Federal government to regulate? Are you next going to say that they should regulate the types of fast foods which are sold? Are you going to suggest that they ban certain foods because they are too high in fat or sodium?

STAY THE HELL OUT OF MY PANTRY AND MY NEIGHBOR’S PANTRY. WORRY ABOUT YOUR OWN.

Excuse me? How on earth does making sure the food you buy isn't rotten or adulterated with things like melamine equate to controlling what you choose to eat or where you obtain your food? You keep going on about that, but that's not what food safety is about and it isn't something I have mentioned, even once. So quit bringing it up, already.

88 posted on 01/06/2013 8:59:35 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson