Posted on 07/20/2010 3:00:44 AM PDT by Scanian
I’ve only really studied the gun parts of that, so not so much on basic setup. I was going by what’s actual law. Are there any specific quotes that contradict what’s in the constitution as far as spending goes? That might be interesting.
So, the only limit on the government is checks and balances?
Okay, so when a simple majority of the people elects a congress and a president that arer sympathetic to, say, denying a minority segment of the population certain rights - and the courts too are sympathetic - the government can “legally” take away my rights?
You stated repeatedly the French Revolution - then the “theory” of the Revolution.
Sure, they did with prohibition. And it had to be returned via the same method is was installed. Amendments are the ultimate ‘do anything you want’ card.
They can do it other ways as well, try buying a machine gun made since 1986 without a class 3 license for instance.
As soon as it was pointed out I corrected myself.
*sigh*
To quote Rush “Elections matter”.
This is why.
Do you even read before you post - I said SIMPLE majority - not ammendments (the process being a limit on congressional power btw...)
Further, you think that the Amendment process can deny rights?
Also, using examples of government abuses of power does not justify the abuse and/or future abuse.
The basic problem, FWIW, is that extending unemployment benefits reduces pressure on Congress to change their socialistic ways.
Ending them is pro-capitalism.
That’s all any Pubbie with a set of stones and a spine needs to say when the Dry By Media starts to get snippy.
I didn’t say what ‘should’ happen, I was saying what does. And yes, amendments have and in many cases do limit rights.
If the constitution had to amended for every action the government does it would be a 50 million pages long too.
Abuses of power are suppposed to be corrected by elections or the USSC. If not, then ‘we get the government we deserve’.
No, you changed it to "theory" of the revolution. I have have asked what that could possibly be?
I answered you in 99.
You claim there are no limits on congressional power and then ay that abuses of power are to be corrected by the checks and balances system - if there are no limits how can there be abuse?
You’re combing 2 seperate ideas. I said there’s no limit on congressional spending power. Not in the constitution. The congress itself sets those.
By abuses I mean things that are unconstitutional like if they tried to impose slavery again or something.
The Founding Fathers' views didn't contradict the Constitution. They wrote the Constitution. The Federalist Papers, and various letters written by these men, serve to explain more fully what they meant to be the powers reserved to the federal and state governments.
Here is an interesting article with many quotes: http://www.darkcanyon.net/How%20General%20The%20General%20Welfare%20Clause.htm
LLS
OK, I've scoured your post and can't see any data. So, what year was it?
Yeah, I didn’t mean to use ‘general welfare’ to mean what a modern person would mean, I tried to be originalist about it. I know there really shouldn’t be any condradictions per se, but there were a lot of disagreements.
WRONG! This show how screwed up our representation is in Congress. NOTHING is paid for, it's all stolen. Stop dealing in stolen goods!
Send conservatives to Washington, we have precious few there now.
There were certainly disagreements among the Founding Fathers about many things in the Constitution. However, the “modern” (i.e., incorrect) interpretation of the General Welfare Clause is worlds away from what even the most pro-centralized government founders (Hamilton, for instance) intended.
Okay - Art 1. Section 8 limits powers of the congress - EXCEPT the power to raise and spend money, which they can do "as they please". Does that mean that the congress can pass a law which states that all persons who are or have ever been republicans must pay a 95% tax on all earnings, savings, profits etc ... failure to pay is a felony and results in loss of voting rights? Exactly what is meant by "general welfare"? Robbing the rich to help the poor?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.