Replies

You are incorrect. I don't want government to have broad power. All that I'm doing is pointing out that government does have broad power, legally.

You're so full of it.

Your sorry excuse for an interpretation has been thoroughly thrashed. That's because it was wrong to begin with.

If you will look at the history of our nation, we've had a FOUNDING FATHER create the first federal bank two centuries ago, legally.

Nothing to do with the so called "general welfare clause".

We've had gold confiscated and outlawed up until the mid 1970's. Government programs have grown every year for decades, and the very whining and crying of libertarians illustrates that government is NOT denied of broad power.

First, that has as little to do with the "general welfare clause" as the national bank. Like I said before, amateur big government hacks use the "general welfare clause". The pros use the commerce clause.

You know, the SC once ruled that a man growing crops on his own land for the consumption of his own livestock was interstate commerce. I know, it's an incredibly stupid ruling, but the Court actually made it. More telling for this discussion is that they didn't just say "general welfare" and let it pass. In other words, your position is even more stupid than the one the Court used as justification. You are, in short, full of it. You know nothing.

And second, that stuff is indeed unConstitutional. You types always get back to the position that "it exists, therefore it's Constitutional" even though nobody knew it until the 1930s. This is so stupid I won't bother refuting it. Seriously, anything Congress does is Constitutional because Congress does it? Please. I suppose you think the Alien and Sedition Acts were also Constitutional.

One of the things that is wrong with libertarians is that they consistently misinterpret the Constitution, specifically the general welfare clause. Many of the posts above this one being prime examples of that fact.

You've been PROVEN WRONG ON ALL COUNTS. Every contention you've made on behalf of your idiotic claim has been incorrect, has had no relation to the topic, or has been nothing but sophistry. Sure, we consistently disagree with you, but, as this thread demostrates, that means we consistently GET IT RIGHT.

"Now here's a challenge to you. Tell me why I should pay more attention to some guy on the internet (leaving aside your own demostration that you don't know jack) than to the Federalist Papers.
405 posted on 2/2/02 10:44 PM Pacific by A.J.Armitage"

If I'm so unimportant, inconsequential, and wrong, then why do you keep pinging me? You issue a challenge as to why you should pay attention to me, and then you keep paying attention to me.

You keep spouting off your long-since disproven claims of the general welfare clause having no value, too.

Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

Read my post #11. That's what I think is wrong with Libertarians, per the subject of this thread.

Then stop pinging me, talking about me, or protesting so much. I've stated my views, supported my position (especially that you Libertarians are completely proven wrong by the historical scope of government size and power around you in your backward claims that the "general welfare" clause conveys no power), and yet you keep yapping after me like a scolded puppy.

As I said in post #11, I don't want to debate Libertarians. All of you argue too much, listen too unobjectively, and care too much about getting in the last word to ever have a reasonable debate.