The Nanny State Strikes Again

Fox News ^ | 12/26/03 | William A. Niskanen

[jimkress]

Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, who must have little else to do, has recently urged state governments to pass "primary" seat-belt laws, which allow police to stop and cite motorists solely for failing to wear a seat belt.

And the Bush administration has proposed a $400 million incentive to reward state governments that pass such laws.

[inquest]

Section. 8. Clause 1: 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;

I'm not sure where you're reading in there any kind of constitutional obligation to provide for the general welfare. In fact, that clause doesn't even grant Congress the power to do so. All it grants it is the power to raise money for that purpose. Spending power, as I said earlier, is granted elsewhere in the document, by clauses granting specific, not plenary, powers.

[dcwusmc]

I am not bashing Bush. He's KIN, for God's sake. I AM, however, pointing out that he is NOT worthy of a second term OR my vote unless he starts making radical cuts, not merely in the rate of growth, but the actual SIZE of FedGov. (He is doing NEITHER, by the way.) I don't hold much with him going down the same road slower than HilLIARy or Dean would... I want him on a whole different road, the one that heads AWAY from the abyss. He's not doing that, so I cannot support him as he is.

[MEG33]

When was the last time you were proud of this country?

[billbears]

4th Amendment. Enough said? I honestly don't see how anyone with even a portion of their sanity left can justify the national government telling the citizens of the respective states that they must wear their seatbelt.

Well Luis, I didn't put it on for Elizabeth Dole's push and I dern sure won't be putting it on for any other politician, be they Democrat or Republican. I feel constricted by the thing.

[Defender2]

#442. I cannot support your view simply because we are in a state of War. And Unfortunately in War, spending has a history of going up. And since we have an enemy now running around with WMD thanks to Mr. Qhaddafi, The War on Terror has just ratcheted up some more notches. Very Best FReegards, Defender2. May God Continue to Bless all of U.S..

[dcwusmc]

Well, since my ancestors were pretty much here from the beginning (at Plymouth Rock), I would have to say that here is where I want to be. However, I would vastly prefer the country to actually honor the Constitution AS THE FOUNDERS INTENDED. The Constitution is a limit on GOVERNMENT which is now ignored so routinely as to be unremarkable even to many who call themselves "conservative." I ask you once more, if you are not willing to go to the mats over those limits and over that document, then just exactly what is it you have that's worth conserving?

[MEG33]

Actually,the federal govt. isn't,only rewarding the states who do.(you would have loved the speedlimit in WW2..35 on the highway!)

[Luis Gonzalez]

Selective reading won't help you here.

The clause grants Congress the power to "provide" for the general welfare of the United States.

[snopercod]

Bush and friends already took away our 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment rights at airports. Why stop there?

Next will come cars, trucks, and boats...then homes.

[dcwusmc]

I am now and have always been proud of my COUNTRY. So much so that I spent the years between 1967 and 1993 in her service in the Marine Corps. It is the GOVERNMENT that I cannot be proud of. And they are NOT one and the same, as you should well know. My COUNTRY was founded as a Constitutional Republic with very strict limits on what government would be allowed to do and very FEW limits on what the individual could do. This arrangement gave us the most prosperous and moral country the world had ever seen. Now, no matter the party label, the politician class is turning us into just another banana republic. And Bush is NOT the exception to that, sad to say.

[Eastbound]

"One of the fallacies of people in this forum, is a dimished attention span."

. . as well as the faculties to understand original intent and how that intent was subverted in the '30's.

[jimkress]

The Constitution Party is the best alternative to the tryanny of the Republicans and Democrats. If you refuse to act, even in the face of the suppression of your liberties (e.g. CFR), then all I can do is share the wisdom of Sam Adams:

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, - go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!

Samuel Adams, "American Independence," 1 August 1776 Occasion: Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia.

[azhenfud]

Now if we can only get helmets and Nomex suits....

[MEG33]

You are on a bender Bashing Bush.

[dcwusmc]

Thing is, Luis, it's not my problem (or yours) to solve. Getting government out of the picture means that those whose problem it IS, can solve it themselves. That's why that is such an unpopular notion, because old folks (and I am becoming ever older, myself) have siezed on the notion that other folks' wallets are theirs to have and to hold. They are dead wrong. They have to solve their OWN problems and wean themselves off the public teats. YOU have to get over the notion that we, the taxpayers, actually owe you something. We do NOT. It is our money, not yours to take. Ours by right of having gone out and busted our butts and backs and all to EARN it. So get your hands OFF my life and out of my wallet.

[inquest]

It's you who's being selective in how you're reading the clause. What you're citing is not an independent grant of power. It's a qualification of the power to tax. The entire clause can be summed up as, "Congress has power to raise money for spending." The actual power of spending isn't granted by the statement. One would have to look elsewhere for it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

That's one man's take, holds, it no more weight than mine.

[billbears]

(you would have loved the speedlimit in WW2..35 on the highway!)

I see the speed limit much as MSRP. If I want to drive it, I will. However it is not the place of the national government to tell me or any other citizen of their own respective state how to use roads built within a state's boundries. If the state chooses, without national government interference to set a limit, I would be much more likely to follow that one than one established by an national government organization that does not know, or even care, what goes on within a respective state's boundries.

[Luis Gonzalez]

These people have been paying all their lives into a system that told them that in return, they would receive a monthly stipend after reaching a certain age.

You want to unilaterally stop these payments, and simply tell people "sorry, we are not going to uphold our end of the deal; you are not getting any money".

This is truly an act of theft.

You would then truly be stealing people's money with the use of force.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The entire clause can be summed up as, "Congress has power to raise money for spending in order to make sure we have a way to defend ourselves, and that the people are taken care of."

You can't just leave out half the statement and expect to put up a decent argument.