From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

[GenSeneca]

This notion that people should be denied the right to vote by not holding an arbitrary level of wealth, or a close following of the issues, is unconstitutional

So when its Voting, you actually care about it being constitutional and pay close attention to the specific words....

I dont disagree, with the truth behind the statement. I disagree with any notion that the practice of the time was correct. Especially at the expense of everyone else.

But your fine with our current policies that take from the few to provide for the many....

General Welfare Clause.

Specifically the clause states the purpose is to "Promote" the general welfare... it does not say government is to Guarantee or otherwise "Provide" for the general welfare of the nation.

 

[Bunz]

So when its Voting, you actually care about it being constitutional and pay close attention to the specific words....

I dont minimize my application of the Constitution to voting.

But your fine with our current policies that take from the few to provide for the many....

No I didnt say that, I think there need to be some serious limitations.

Specifically the clause states the purpose is to "Promote" the general welfare... it does not say government is to Guarantee or otherwise "Provide" for the general welfare of the nation.

Lets think about this in current practice. Assuming promote means to improve to assume the next step, think about what would happen if those programs were done away with overnight. You think the market is bad now. I am worried we are going backrupt either way

 

[Pandora]

Ill save most of the abortion discussion for other threads. Youd have to ask 100 lawyers and get no straight answers, but I am not sure how the rights of the unborn trump the rights of the born. Someone who is unborn is not exactly a citizen. But I am not a lawyer.

I dont disagree, with the truth behind the statement. I disagree with any notion that the practice of the time was correct. Especially at the expense of everyone else.

sorry but I think its sick and twisted to think anyones life trumps anyones life

 

[BigRob]

The problem with spending is completely across Party lines and has a lot to do with the way our government was set up in the first place. Representatives can't get re-elected if they don't bring money back to their home Districts or States. That's just the way it is. But we're almost in such a terrible spot under this last 8 years of Republican "Borrow & Spend" that it might actually help everyone to be able to think of the big picture.

You understand for Obama to keep any of his campaign promises he will have to "borrow and spend" as well.

The big things have to be funded... the military... Social Security & Medicare/Medicaid things like this. These are only really debatable as far as size & dollar amounts... not if or if not.

I think many people will take issue with that.

The United States gives away a lot money to the rest of the world... an unbelievable amount. As much as I like to help people in need I think sometimes there are economic times here at home when we have to bring the lion's share of that money back in house and work on our own financial problems here at home.

If the government reduced it's foreign aid I really believe churches & charities would focus in on the most needy and there would still be some needed help probably focused to the most needy and most desperate situations.

Well, keep in mind Obama has a bill in the Senate to send 800 billion more overseas. Money that we do not have.

Also, much of the foreign aid that the US gives is not solely for the purpose of helping people. We openly state that we give a lot of aid in support solely of US interests. I am all for giving foreign aid, but we need to ensure that we always get something out of it.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

I will admit the word "requirements" was not the proper one at that moment. The Constitution does lay out the general guidelines of who gets to vote.

The 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments establishes universal suffrage for Americans over 18.

Huh?
The 14th amendment deals with this quite clearly.

The states fall under the feds here.

Obviously the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments make the references to males 21 years or older obsolete, but it says very clearly that US citizens have the right to vote, and it cannot be taken away short of conviction of a crime(felony).

This notion that people should be denied the right to vote by not holding an arbitrary level of wealth, or a close following of the issues, is unconstitutional

And you have FAILED American Civics 101! There is NO absolute Constitutional 'Right' for any American to vote in ANY election. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, you know, the part you conveniently left out, specifically details what will happen if the States DO elect to deny anyone the 'right' of voting, specifically that the number of persons counted toward their representation in Congress shall be reduced by the number of those denied the 'right' of voting.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

The 14th Amendment clearly states that there is no 'Right' to vote, and that it is acknowledged in the Constitution, that it is a privilege, reserved to the states, and that the states may decide for themselves whom they will allow to vote in their state. All the 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendment do is prevent a State from denying anyone the ability to vote based on race, sex, or for being under 18 years of age, BUT if any State were to decide tomorrow morning that in order to vote in that State that you had to be a property owner, or possess a PhD, there's nothing in the Constitution that can prevent them from doing so.

What you have failed to understand is that a 'right' that can be abridged is not a 'right' at all, but merely a privilege, and in this case the circumstances under which the 'right' of voting may be abridged is very clearly laid out. The very fact that it describes what will happen should a state decide to deny or abridge the 'right' to vote creates an "if-then" situation, that exists nowhere as it relates to any of our true Rights. Where is the "if-then" as it relates to the Right of Freedom of the Press? Where is the "if-then" as it relates to the Freedom of Religion? Where is the "if-then" as it relates to the Freedom of Speech? There are none, therefore they are Rights, and not privileges, but this does not apply to the 'right' to vote.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

They also seceded from the union, participated in combat against the United States. One would wonder if you would be able to vote in those days.

Of course they were allowed to vote, because it's the STATE that decides who may and may not vote, NOT the federal government.

General Welfare Clause.

Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about, or are you just pulling this crap out of your butt? The "General Welfare Clause" only refers to those things that are specifically containg in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, or specifically allowed for elsewhere in the Constitution.

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article in the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents..... With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

James Madison, 1791

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."

Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791.

"The construction applied... to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States," and "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof," goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to [the General Government's] power by the Constitution... Words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument."

Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

"I hope our courts will never countenance the sweeping pretensions which have been set up under the words 'general defence and public welfare.' These words only express the motives which induced the Convention to give to the ordinary legislature certain specified powers which they enumerate, and which they thought might be trusted to the ordinary legislature, and not to give them the unspecified also; or why any specification? They could not be so awkward in language as to mean, as we say, 'all and some.' And should this construction prevail, all limits to the federal government are done away."

Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1815.

"Our tenet ever was... that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money."

Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817.

"[We] disavow and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the compact, in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think or pretend would promote the general welfare, which construction would make that, of itself, a complete government, without limitation of powers; but that the plain sense and obvious meaning were, that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others."

Thomas Jefferson: Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825.

"Aided by a little sophistry on the words "general welfare," [the federal branch claim] a right to do not only the acts to effect that which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will be for the general welfare."

Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

James Madison

In his last act before leaving office, Madison vetoed a bill for "internal improvements," including roads, bridges, and canals:

"Having considered the bill…I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling this bill with the Constitution of the United States… The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified…in the…Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers…"
Madison rejected the view of Congress that the General Welfare Clause justified the bill, stating:

"Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms 'common defense and general welfare' embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust."

With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

Letter to James Robertson 1831

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation [drought relief] in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.... The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.... Though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.

Grover Cleveland, 1887

Now, take your childish little "roll eyes", and shove them up your butt, because all you're doing by using it is amplifying your gross, blatant, and complete ignorace of the subject material. Your using them, given your utter ignorance of the subject material reminds me of stupid little girls who roll their eyes when they've just been informed of how silly they're being, and coming off to their mother that "uhh, you don't understand", when it is THEY (and in this case, that would be YOU) who doesn't understand ANYTHING. I feel that it's only prudent to remind you of the age old addage that "it is far better to remain silent and be thought a fool, that to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"....FOOL!

Well Congress does, the 16th amendment

And again you demonstrate your complete ignorance of the meaning of words in the English language. The 16th Amdment merely grants congress the authority to collect taxes from whatever source it may be derived, it does NOT grant them authority to SPEND that money on whatever they will, because as I have already shown, doing so was NEVER to be construed to be the meaning of the "general welfare" clause.

Seriously now, if you're going to express an "opinion" about a subject, it would behoove you to ACTUALLY KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

 

[GenSeneca]

No I didnt say that, I think there need to be some serious limitations.

Such as? I ask because you're supporting Obama and I haven't heard any limitations he plans on putting in place, in fact, he's proposing the opposite.

Assuming promote means to improve

I would say you have assumed wrong:

Promote:
1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.
2. to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc. (opposed to demote).
3. Education. to put ahead to the next higher stage or grade of a course or series of classes.
4. to aid in organizing (business undertakings).
5. to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), esp. through advertising or other publicity.
6. Informal. to obtain (something) by cunning or trickery; wangle.

I have highlighted the ones I feel are most applicable to the word as it appears in our Constitution. Promoting something does not mean that you actually bring it about through action but encourage and/or assist others in doing so.

think about what would happen if those programs were done away with overnight.

Unless I'm mistaken, the ONLY person here advocating such a drastic move is Mr. Carpenter.

I have set forth proposals for PHASING OUT OVER TIME such policies, just as they were phased in and grown over time...

You think the market is bad now. I am worried we are going backrupt either way

I PROMOTE the idea of reversing the trends that are leading to our eventual economic collapse. Failure to reverse course on our current welfare state footing will inexorably lead to the confiscation of property (sacrifice of Individual Rights) from some, in order to provide for others (the Common Good)... which will never solve the problem, just stave it off a little longer.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

Unless I'm mistaken, the ONLY person here advocating such a drastic move is Mr. Carpenter.

There's nothing "drastic" about it GenSeneca, they are unconstitutional on their face, and unless or until We The People decide that we need these programs to the point that we're willing to pass a Constitutional Amendment AUTHORIZING them, they are flat out illegal under the Constitution, and MUST be abandoned.

This is the crux of the problems that we have in this country today. Ever since FDR and his "New Deal", which should have included a BIG tube of KY for every citizen, the government has unconstitutionally abridged, abrogated, and infringed on our rights, and seized entirely too many powers that are not authorized to them by We The People in the constitution. THAT is why we have a $54 Tn debt, THAT is why we have a $100 Bn deficit, and THAT is why we're in the financial mess we're in today. Congress got involved in things they had no Constitutional basis for getting involved with, and too many of the sheeple realized that they could vote themselves someone else's money so long as they kept re-electing the same THIEVES to Congress that stole it for them in the first place.

 

[GenSeneca]

There's nothing "drastic" about it GenSeneca, they are unconstitutional on their face, and unless or until We The People decide that we need these programs to the point that we're willing to pass a Constitutional Amendment AUTHORIZING them, they are flat out illegal under the Constitution, and MUST be abandoned.

The point Bunz and myself are in agreement on is the fact that such action would have devastating effects if abandoned overnight. Is it your opinion that there would be no negative effects to people who depend on those services if we ended them tomorrow? Or what?

And please, stop mentioning the Constitutional Amendment... I don't want us to become a Constitutionally Authorized Welfare State, I want the welfare state to end.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

The point Bunz and myself are in agreement on is the fact that such action would have devastating effects if abandoned overnight. Is it your opinion that there would be no negative effects to people who depend on those services if we ended them tomorrow? Or what?

And please, stop mentioning the Constitutional Amendment... I don't want us to become a Constitutionally Authorized Welfare State, I want the welfare state to end.

OK, in reverse order, I never said that I personally supported such an Amendment, merely that it is the only way to make such expendatures comply with the Constitution, so with all due respect, no, I will NOT stop saying it, and in fact, we should ALL be saying it, at the top of our lungs. MAKE IT LEGAL OR STOP DOING IT!

As to correcting the situation, I would like to see the government simply make an accounting of all monies forceably extorted from We The People, by the Congress, for completely unconstitutional programs, and write each and every one of those people a check for the amount extorted, PLUS 4-6% interest, minus any monies already paid out, over a 10 year period, starting with the eldest, and progressing through those who are just now entering the workforce, and let that be the end of it, BUT they should immediately cease extorting monies from us for those programs, and they should stop adding people to the rolls, excepting those who would already be retiring before they got their check, and ending when they received it.

Phasing it out is the only proper way for it to happen, and I believe a 10 year time frame is more than sufficient for that process, but it needs to be started YESTERDAY.

 

[GenSeneca]

OK, in reverse order, I never said that I personally supported such an Amendment, merely that it is the only way to make such expendatures comply with the Constitution, so with all due respect, no, I will NOT stop saying it, and in fact, we should ALL be saying it, at the top of our lungs. MAKE IT LEGAL OR STOP DOING IT!

And what would happen? They would make it legal... ending the programs would cut off their gravy train, and they don't want that to happen.

 

[Dr.Who]

Two seperate classes of citizens is very un-American I agree. The human beings who have not yet been born or are born via botched abortions are not treated the same as other Americans. and that is very very UN American indeed!

If men and women work hard and by their own efforts some are made rich and some do not build themselves up to the same level there may develop separate classes of citizens. Then again there may just be rich and poor but all will have the same rights and dignities. This situation does not guarantee that classes will arise.

On the other hand if congress recognizes that some are deserving of differing treatment under the law, that some will be taxes more and coincidentally also have more access to meet with congressmen then this guarantees separate classes more than anything else I know.

 

[Dr.Who]

This notion that people should be denied the right to vote by not holding an arbitrary level of wealth, or a close following of the issues, is unconstitutional

I agree. And the notion that some people should be denied the equal protection of their property under the law based on some arbitrary level of wealth is likewise a travesty.

 

[Dr.Who]

I PROMOTE the idea of reversing the trends that are leading to our eventual economic collapse. Failure to reverse course on our current welfare state footing will inexorably lead to the confiscation of property (sacrifice of Individual Rights) from some, in order to provide for others (the Common Good)... which will never solve the problem, just stave it off a little longer.

Here are some interesting statements that support what you say.

"No other rights are safe where property is not safe." -- Daniel Webster

"The right of distribution over private property is the essence of freedom." -- Merrill Jenkins

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government,that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own....

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism."
James Madison

When John Locke wrote of basic rights in his Two Treatises of Government, he emphasized three: Life, liberty, and property. The Founding Fathers used Locke's concepts as the basis of rational government, but in the wake of Britain's prohibitive taxes on rum, tea, and paper, Thomas Jefferson used the more inclusive wording of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. But that was largely a rhetorical flourish; property rights are central to the U.S. philosophy of law. That is why the Third Amendment prohibits the government from forcing citizens to quarter soldiers. That is why the Fourth Amendment--which guarantees citizens "[t]he right ... to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"--prohibits warrantless searches. According to Locke, and the Founding Fathers who used his work as the basis for U.S. law, the legitimate function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property.

 

[chestnut]

Once upon a time only tax payers got to vote... since it was THEIR money, they had the say in how it was used. I think we should go back to that system... People who DON'T pay taxes shouldn't be able to DEMAND money and beneifts from those that do pay.

Here Here!! That sounds like a great idea. That is how it is in business. The owners have the say so because they take the risks, they bear the burden.

Why should it be different in the political arean? Those who don't pay anything aren't taking risks, they are just collecting from those that work hard and make things happen.