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

To: Veritas et equitas ad Votum

Everyone could live in Kansas, but it doesn't make much sense, does it?

Throughout history folks have lived along coasts, rivers, faultlines, volcanos, etc., yet they continued to live there and risked the dangers. Why? Because it made some kind of sense to them at the time.

Should I be forced to pay for their decisions in increased taxes and insurance rates?

I don't mind it. Coastal communities will add a lot more over time than they ever lose.

Promoting the "general welfare" is a constitutional mandate. There are lots of ways to do that. So long as it gets debated in the legislature, signed by the President, and constitionally enacted into law, then there's no way I can say I didn't have my chance to affect what goes on.

Vote


56 posted on 08/29/2005 1:15:48 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]


To: xzins

James Madison had a very different interpretation of the "general welfare" clause than do you.

Perhaps he was wrong, and you are right.

:-)


351 posted on 08/30/2005 4:40:50 AM PDT by Veritas et equitas ad Votum (If the Constitution "lives and breathes", it dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | 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