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.
Law is a very simple matter: it's a statement of what justifications will be used to unleash the force of the State. Legislation -- the process by which law is made -- varies from place to place, but here in the United States it's supposed to be bounded by Constitutional grants of power and the rights of the individual. No legislature is supposed to pass laws that exceed its Constitutional powers, or that invade, nullify, or infringe any man's rights.
The whole "general welfare" or "universal benefit" idea you've been trumpeting is an attempt to circumvent those protections. It's been used that way for thousands of years, it will likely be used for thousands more, and it will never amount to anything else. It's the argument for activist government, a State that decides "what's good for you" and them rams it down your throat. It's the argument of the social engineers, the Left, the Marxists and fascists.
Let's imagine for a moment that someone could prove, by incontrovertible means, that everyone would benefit from the execution of all Muslims. Well, everyone who was left, that is. Would that make it acceptable for any legislature to pass a law decreeing their execution? I recall that the Nazis did something along those lines. They had quite a popular support base, too.
Or how about this one: Since essentially all violent crime and crime against property is committed by males between the ages of 14 and 40, why not pass a law that deeds $100 billion a year to a study of how to pre-identify potential criminals in those age ranges, so that they can be incarcerated and reeducated before they commit their offenses against the rest of us? I mean, if it worked, it would solve the crime problem forever, wouldn't it? No criminals ===> no crime! Of course, the young men thus identified and incarcerated for psychological reprogramming wouldn't actually have done anything yet, nor could we prove that they ever would, but that's just a detail, a mere blot on this otherwise admirable "universal benefit."
Still with me? Then try this: How about a law that steals some modest amount of everyone's income, to confer universal education on the children of the nation? Amazing! Buying education for one's children! Who'd have thought of it? Oh, only everyone who's lived since the birth of Christ, but we can pass over that for now. And as to the actual "education" aspects of it, it turns out that there's no way to guarantee that. All the State can really do is expropriate us and turn the proceeds over to "educators," who are thereafter indemnified against any consequences of their decisions and actions. Meanwhile, parents who could have bought their children a real education, using their market power to see to it that the school they chose delivered the goods, are deprived of some thousands of dollars per year for government-run schools that indoctrinate the young in political correctness and foster every kind of vice and crime.
The State is an instrument of coercion. Coercion is only good for a very few legitimate things, and all of them have to do with the pursuit, apprehension, and punishment of real criminals: those who have invaded our lives, liberties, or properties. Quoth Frederic Bastiat:
You say, "There are persons who lack education," and you turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning that shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where some citizens need to learn and others can teach. In this matter of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this transaction of teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by taking from some enough to pay the teachers who are appointed by the government to instruct others, without charge. But in this second case, the law commits legal plunder, violating liberty and property. [from The Law, 1850.]
That's a sentence of death for the "universal benefit" notion of education... especially in light of the colossal failures of government-run schools.
Finally, we have the following:
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.
Too late, Bubba. Your colors are already on display.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com