svede
-
Posts
197 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by svede
-
-
thanx for replying, Eken (at last someone does!!!)
Yea, I admit my comments werent that well written but I was tired and just wanted a skeleton to present my evidence through....its a future project of mine to write it up in detail
I know its a tight argument but was hoping for at least SOME debate.
-
-
Eken is right....I should make a post for this when i have LOTS of time....
my basic point is that i believe the pen and spirit of the constitution support what we have been saying...
-
Why Welfare is Unconstitutional
Svede's Article #1
In the constitution, it simply gives congress the power to “Promote the General Welfare,” not give welfare to the poor, especially by means of taxing the wealthier.
Although, that reason for the constitution, stated in the Preamble, I find quite clear, I do admit one might find some good debates and arguments on it, if ONLY looking at the wording. However, for that very reason courts examine the pen/letter AND SPIRIT of the constitution and other founding documents.
I now bring your attention to a founding Father by the name of James Madison, known as “The Father of The Constitution” for being the primary “scribe,” writing the ideas and intents of the Constitutional Convention into words.
Therefore, would it not be fair to trust James Madison’s view of the Constitution for the understanding the intent and spirit of it? I would say so. Here is what he had to say:
In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying:
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents....[T]he government of the United States is a definite government' date=' confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.[/quote']------------------------
I feel that they make it clear that if Welfare is to take place it should be on a local level, where it can be regulated more thoroughly and cheaper, while also allowing the people to choose if they want to spend their hard-earned money on those less fortunate. They state that it is not a power of the Federal Gov’t (whose power is simply to promote not take it into their own hands). I personally feel it is better handled by private charities or food-basket type donations, supervised by local govt (already done my small towns [local govt]).
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.With respect to the two words "general welfare' date='" 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. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.[/quote']Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare' date=' but only those specifically enumerated.[/quote']In a famous incident in 1854, President Franklin Pierce was pilloried for vetoing an extremely popular bill intended to help mentally ill. The act was championed by the renowned 19th century social reformer Dorothea Dix. In the face of heavy criticism, Pierce countered:
I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for the public charity.To approve such spending' date=' argued Pierce,[/i']
would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.------------------------
Now for everyone’s favorite quotes on how welfare ‘robs paychecks’:
As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is sage in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement' date=' where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?[/quote']A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on' date=' the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.[/quote']We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry' date=' and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute.[/quote']When men get in the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they cannot easily be cured of it.------------------------
And lastly, I’d like to close with a beloved quote of mine:
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.I think that’s all I have time for in this post…I’m tired of writing this.
And just remember that I’m arguing against it based upon the constitution…later I’ll make a post about why it’s wrong anyways.
NOTE: Italicized text is not my own writing, but found with the quotes.
-
In any case, despite what the Founding Fathers said outside the Constitutional Convention, it's the actual document itself that matters!
Wrong. The document is the most important part but the courts are to look to evidence surrounding it for proof too. Ever heard of the pen (or letter) AND spirit of the constitution?? The Spirit is referring to this and is quite often used as precedents by courts (especially supreme court) and used to intepret the meaning of the documents..
-
All those quotes are all well and good, but luckily those men didn't decide our form of government;We do not stake our future on this Constitution, but to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. - James Madison
Altho I could use other quotes from founding fathers as well on this issue, this guy does enuf. Known as "The Father of the Constitution" for being the primary author of it (or more specifically, writing the ideals and views of the constitutional convention members into well written wording), JAMES MADISON quite obviously knew what type of govt it was (played a MAJOR role in deciding) - and no offence intended in any way whatsoever, but id trust his view on what type of govt it is and what it was founded upon than what you say it is.
-
lol....sounds like you really had it with em, notpete
-
I wanna post a lot on this subject altho this post might be a bit too crowded for me to do it.
Ill just state one thing:
A nation, such as the USA, is not founded to defend the rights of the world or work to better the world itself.
It is founded to secure the rights of its citizens and protect them from the world.
-
this is my keyboard....love it and would recommend (even has cheat info on keys for MS word, etc
)http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/mouseand...ls.aspx?pid=021
-
i see now....makes sense
im glad i was on right track but that one is quite good...I had actually been wondering if it was something that when n was 6 or less a term was 0...just could think of what
-
ACLU = American Criminal Liberties Union.
-
Here's one I like:
a(0) = 0
a(1) = 1
a(2) = 2
a(3) = 3
a(4) = 4
a(5) = 5
a(6) = 6
Hint 1: a(7) is not 7.
Hint 2: a(10) = 604810
Hint 3: a(x) is independent of a(x-1)
Edit, couple more hints:
Hint 4: It's all about multiplying together lots of stuff. Plus one addition.
Hint 5: Multiplying any number by 0 gives 0. Obvious, but it's fairly crucial to obtaining the sequence.
im stuck, but still working on it...
here is what i have so far:
a(0) = ?? = 0
a(1) = ?? = 1
a(2) = ?? = 2
a(3) = ?? = 3
a(4) = ?? = 4
a(5) = ?? = 5
a(6) = ?? = 6
a(7) = ?? = ??
a(10) = 10!/3! + 10 = 604810
or = 10!/6 + 10 = 604810
a(n) = ?? -
Borders:
I DO have RoN and can explain a little more about it. The effect on units is not based upon distance but simply whether you're in your land or the enemies.
If the enemy has attrition research done (different levels of it), then your units lose HP (can be fast) when in enemy lands...to prevent this you bring a supply wagon with you (this unit also heals units for French civ)
It is pretty cool and can be fun, but IMO could use a lot of tweaking...I also dont like seeing a color instead of greens etc on minimap and stuff...
And yes it does slow rushing down a bit further in RoN...
Roads:
In RoN and the Empires demo, when you get to a certain age roads will appear automatically to connect your buildings and trade routes....very fun and cool altho no advantage in those games.....could this be useful??
Safety Zones:
I agree this should be something set up by the rms and not on every map.
thx
Svede
-
Germans...cuz they have
-
XP Pro, altho I have Linux access at college..
Why Welfare Is Unconstitutional
in Hall of Intellectuals
Posted
thanx for the replies:
@Johnl:
Like I said I dont wanna debate the correctness of Welfare in this (will do later....plenty of proof about it being wrong), but i do want to correct you on one thing.
Please NEVER use stereotypes like this, saying that most conservatives come from a "certain class or way of life." Also, please note that I come from a very poor lower class family and we, too, have used aspects of welfare before....in fact we could have used full-out welfare, but dont agree with it and thus have struggled a lot.....but this is what spurs me on to work harder and get higher.
As for the limited interpretation, this is the interpretation of those who wrote it...therefore obviously the intended interpretation. I dont care iif we have abbandoned this...two wrongs dont make a right....altho in truth that is only true for moderates and liberals..
As far as the open interpretation goes, Ive heard it before and its garbage. Not only does it go against the intended interpretation, but it allows the politicians to come up with ANYTHING they want to do in order to get elected....most commonly giving money or "being bought" as many Democratic candidates sadly do (note: Im not saying all do this). Note some of my quotes for more reference on this.
@Av Nefardec:
exactly, but again, i wanna debate the constitutionality only in this forum...dont want it too crowded
My whole point is that "Promoting the General Welfare" is NOT the same as welfare. Again, like i showed in my original post, welfare that came later IS NOT constitutional, because the founders did not intend that to allow such welfare assistance....they meant a more general idea.
I could even go as far as to argue this promotion is to promote morals, etc in society, due to their positive effect on the population.
Could I also not say that it is not my general welfare and happiness to have my money used for others when I would prefer to discern who it goes to if at all???
thanx again
svede