[fporretto]

And wonderful insight also, that anyone [like Jefferson] that disagrees with your purported vast knowledge of our forefather's intent, is an idiot. [palace of reason....hahaha]

You're a real rhetorical muscleman, aren't you? Someone disagrees with you, and you immediately start calling names and putting words into other people's mouths. You must have been a real delight in the schoolyard at recess.

As for your claim that "the basis is on solid ground," I have two suggestions:

• Read Cato's Letters and the Federalist Papers. Don't just make unsubstantiable claims; learn your source material. It will test your intellectual honesty, but then, we're here to learn, aren't we?
• Think hard about this: if some proposed "benefit" or "standard" really was to the benefit of everyone, why would the government have to make it compulsory, such that those who disagree and want no part of it are turned into criminals subject to the force of law?

Of course, it's possible that you've merely misunderstood the impact of the Preamble to the Constitution, which a) awards no powers to any branch of government, b) speaks of a body of general desiderata in extremely flowery language, c) has been deemed by Constitutional scholars throughout history to be merely decorative. You wouldn't be the first.

As for the phrase "general welfare" in Article I, James Madison himself, the Father of the Constitution, wrote that the import of that phrase was circumscribed by the seventeen specifically awarded powers of Section 8. At the time of the Framing, there were no dissents from that view among the Framers. You can look that up too.

It serves only to give "conservatives" the appearance of being self-serving and careless of concern for this Nation's future.

Conservatives careless about the direction of America's future? Are you sure you're on the right discussion board? The URL for Democratic Underground is http://www.democraticunderground.com. Glad to be of service.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[Deep_6]

Re:
"...Think hard about this: if some proposed "benefit" or "standard"
really was to the benefit of everyone, why would the government 
have to make it compulsory, such that those who disagree and 
want no part of it are turned into criminals subject to the force of law?..."

re:
"..Of course, it's possible that you've merely misunderstood the impact
of the Preamble to the Constitution, which a) awards no powers to any
branch of government, b) speaks of a body of general desiderata in
extremely flowery language, c) has been deemed by Constitutional
scholars throughout history to be merely decorative. You wouldn't be
the first....."

re:
"...You're a real rhetorical muscleman, aren't you? Someone
disagrees with you, and you immediately start calling names
and putting words into other people's mouths. You must have
been a real delight in the schoolyard at recess....."

re:
"..Conservatives careless about the direction of America's future? Are
you sure you're on the right discussion board?..."

Let's start with that last one. My comment was:

"...And this continual denouncing of the concept of public schooling;
the concept that all public schools conform to universal standards
of required study to provide each American child with an equal
opportunity to succeed, is ludicrous. It serves only to give
"conservatives" the appearance of being self-serving and
careless of concern for this Nation's future....."

So much for the bullying and putting words in mouths, ehh?

Your comment that the preamble is to be ignored [although echoed in
article 6], is...well... downright humorous. I won't bother arguing with
anyone that attempts to parse our Constitution to fit their specific
needs. I have to argue with the far left daily over that very presumption;
I come here to relax.

Your comment that there should be no need to use force to insure
compliance to law if that law is a fair one, is equally as humorous.

The laws of this Nation are compulsory, until changed. We live
by the law and when we disagree about it's validity, we take the
course of action to resolve it, we do not merely ignore that law or
disobey it at whim. My far left friends suggest the latter approach,
as do those we incarcerate.

You are either very Naive, or being very disingenuous in argument.

I'm truly sorry to see that, you sound like an otherwise well educated individual.

 

Thanks.