I hear self proclaimed conservative peers of mine singing the same ole' libertarian songs of egoism and individualism. They explain to me that the constitution says they "can do whatever we want". They are in the mindset of using ends to justify means. Am I wrong by saying this conservative interpretation is the complete opposite of what our founding fathers intended the document to mean. Do they skip over the first part that says, "We the People"?
"Renaissance Thinking About the Issues of Our Day"
Comments
Where in the constitution does it say murder is illegal?
What does "the common welfare" mean...
I just don't understand. If it doesn’t subscribe to “my” ideology, it’s not allowed in this country.
Where in the constitution does it say murder is illegal?
We are granted the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life means someone can not kill another.
I hear self proclaimed conservative peers of mine singing the same ole' libertarian songs of egoism and individualism. They explain to me that the constitution says they "can do whatever we want". They are in the mindset of using ends to justify means. Am I wrong by saying this conservative interpretation is the complete opposite of what our founding fathers intended the document to mean. Do they skip over the first part that says, "We the People"?
Most conservatives do not support the Constitution. Especially when it comes to war powers. If they did, they would be supporting Ron Paul. Establishment conservatives like Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. either ignore, marginalize or ridicule him. Which means they're just phonies playing the Left/Right, Red Team/Blue Team game.
Back to the Constitution. The Constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government. Most issues, including crime control, were left to the States. There were only 3 Federal crimes in the original Constitution. "We the People" and the rest of the Preamble states the intentions of the authors but it has no legal meaning. Article 1, Section 8 lists the powers Congress has and I believe Article 1, Section 10 lists to powers the States are restricted by having or what the Fed. Gov't may exclusively do. Don't quote me on the latter because I don't have the Constitution committed to memory.
-point is duly noted. I used a poor example not noting the 5th or 14th on that one.
But the point here is the strong opposition towards State run Heathcare or State run Education or any social program that helps the people. Ya, those programs are not directly written in the constitution, but what IS in there is the 10th amendment, the powers not granted to the United States are reserved to the states and to the people. If the state is told by the people to create State run Healthcare or State run Education it can be done and the State can make us pay for it.
I'm just tired of the egoist, individualist response to state run programs. “The government is not supposed to take care of you or anyone, the government wants us to fend for ourselves.”
And with regards to the Federally Run programs like FAFSA, EPA, USDA- Article 1 Section 8: The Congress shall have Power 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. "Provide for the general Welfare", is not just from the Preamble.
This is too great of a country to not have social programs and State/Federally run departments to take care of the people who reside here.
Why are our programs in such poor shape though? You cannot blame the program itself. How is it executed, who executes it, who corrupts it?
Romneycare didn't violate the Constitution. While I wouldn't support it if I lived in Mass., I wouldn't interfere with Mass. politics if I lived outside the state.
General welfare means general, for everyone. All the programs mentioned are for the individual welfare of some people. If you want them, do them on a state or local level.
Oh yeah, the EPA and USDA only help the select few people who breathe air, drink water and eat food.
Just because a program doesn't help everyone simultaneously doesn't mean it is not available to benefit everyone when needed.
Oh yeah, the EPA and USDA only help the select few people who breathe air, drink water and eat food.
Just because a program doesn't help everyone simultaneously doesn't mean it is not available to benefit everyone when needed.
Pollution is a trespass. It is a violation of property rights. The EPA is unconstitutional because only the Congress has the power to legislate. They can't delegate that power to the executive branch.
Read the following pamphlet (it's short) by Dr. Mary Ruwart, author of Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression. There is a free download of an older edition of her book on the website. It is chock full of solutions. It will appeal to Conservatives and Progressives alike.
Lysander, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the relationship between Congress and the Executive. The Executive branch is charged with "executing" the duties ascribed to it by Congress. If those duties include operating an agency then the Executive is obligated to do so. If Congress objects to the regulations that the agency it created and empowered imposes then Congress can act. If Conservatives don't have enough control to change a certain dynamic then that is because the people did not give it to them. If the EPA is "unconstitutional" then why hasn't our ultra right-wing Court said so? The answer is because it is not unconstitutional.
Lysander, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the relationship between Congress and the Executive. The Executive branch is charged with "executing" the duties ascribed to it by Congress. If those duties include operating an agency then the Executive is obligated to do so.
Article. I.
Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
If all legislative Powers are vested in the Congress, then none are vested in the Executive or Judiciary. Regulations have the force of law. They are legislative. All regulations written by the Executive Branch are unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.
If Congress objects to the regulations that the agency it created and empowered imposes then Congress can act. If Conservatives don't have enough control to change a certain dynamic then that is because the people did not give it to them.
If you assume that the Executive has the power, then it would take a 2/3's majority of Both Houses to overturn a regulation. This puts too much hands in the Executive. The Founders didn't want that. The Executive is supposed to be weak. I also reject the line-item veto supported by so many on the Right. It gives quasi-legislative power to the Executive.
If the EPA is "unconstitutional" then why hasn't our ultra right-wing Court said so? The answer is because it is not unconstitutional.
Just because right-wing Justices don't declare the EPA unconstitutional, doesn't mean that it is. The "even right-wingers support it argument" doesn't hold any sway for me. I'm not a conservative and I'm not a right-winger. I happen to think the conservative Justices on the Court are just as bad as the liberal ones. History is replete with the Supreme Court upholding things that today many would consider unconstitutional. The reason they haven't said anything is probably because they are neocons and support a strong Executive. In addition, I believe the EPA was created by Executive Order by Nixon. I hope this answers your questions.
Just to rap on this theme, How was the FBI created? In congress? Executive order?
Just to rap on this theme, How was the FBI created? In congress? Executive order?
If you follow it all the way back. Article I & III. "nessesary and proper" branch to "regulating intrastate commerce"
Same pseudo religions that ad leaven to the prince of peace to justify killing & Murder are in the treasury sucking it all up & preaching Jim Jones Koo-laid type dogma ; Except even worse .
Pursuit of happiness should allow prostitutes and pot, but somehow it doesn't.
/is_america_a_failing_state. is a question easily answered. The peak was 1970 according to the author. I think it was 1980, before Reagan started running it into the ground.
Consider my very crude, edited, back-of-the-envelope take on a few of the criteria outlined in the Failed States index, one by one. Uneven, stratified, exclusionary economic development, accompanied by economic flatlining? Sounds familiar. Mounting demographic pressures, including slum creation? Just tour Baltimore. Widespread corruption and kleptocracy? Yep — for just one example, see then-Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson tipping off his hedge fund buddies about Fannie and Freddie. Delegitimization of the state? What else does a Congressional approval rating in single digits suggest to you? Progressive deterioration of public services? Just look at JFK airport. Widespread violation of human rights? Finally, here's one I can't automatically check off the list--but still, one of the year's most viral photos was Officer Pike calmly pepper-spraying college kids in the face. Reverse brain drain? Not yet — but not hard to imagine, if we keep harassing bright students.
I think a better question would be "Do conservatives read?"
I think we all should provide a lot of important to the Constitution and i think the most important Amendment is the 14th Amendment.. Check Summary of the 14th Amendment Find out more about Mayflower Compact & Compromise of 1850
The 14th Amendment was never properly ratified and therefore is not part of the Constitution. But for sake of argument, let's say it was. There are legal scholars who don't subscribe to the incorporation doctrine, i.e that the 14th applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
I think we all know what "the common welfare" means; I don't think that is the serious issue.
If conservatives have a serious argument it is that the "common welfare" clause appears in the preamble of the constitution in the context that providing for the common welfare is one of the handful of reasons why a government was needed. In other words, one of the main reasons for the constitution was to provide for the general welfare. However, when the powers of government were enumerated in the body of the constitution there is no specific mention of providing for the general welfare and so government is not allowed to provide for the general welfare.
In summary then, conservatives note that providing for the general welfare is not in the enumerated powers of government and so government can't do that. However, moderates, liberals and socialists might note that it is very odd that the founders would prohibit the government that they constructed from fulfilling one of its primary objectives. Some oversight that was!
I think we all know what "the common welfare" means; I don't think that is the serious issue.
If conservatives have a serious argument it is that the "common welfare" clause appears in the preamble of the constitution in the context that providing for the common welfare is one of the handful of reasons why a government was needed. In other words, one of the main reasons for the constitution was to provide for the general welfare. However, when the powers of government were enumerated in the body of the constitution there is no specific mention of providing for the general welfare and so government is not allowed to provide for the general welfare.
In summary then, conservatives note that providing for the general welfare is not in the enumerated powers of government and so government can't do that. However, moderates, liberals and socialists might note that it is very odd that the founders would prohibit the government that they constructed from fulfilling one of its primary objectives. Some oversight that was!
Ah.. There are Two references to General Welfare in the constitution. First in the preamble, The other is in Art 1, Sec 2, Clause 1. aka Tax and Spend Clause.
Your summery may be a tad off. Although, I am guessing your and my definition of what "General Welfare" is, is quite different.
We are granted the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Our rights preexist. The Constitution merely enumerates the above three rights. Never accept the pretense that a government or legal system grants you rights. The People precede and create governments and laws. To assert that a government can grant you rights is to place yourself in the position of a slave. A slave has only the rights given to him by his master. It is entirely irrelevant whether a government is elected or rules by force majeure. If you accept the claim that the government gives you your rights you are merely a chattel of others. It is one thing to freely accept limitation of your rights as the price of living in a civilized society, it is quite another to be a beggar, hoping that by subservience, one will receive from his rulers a few crumbs from the feast.
Thank you for that. It appears that conservatives don't have any serious argument then.
The 14th Amendment was never properly ratified and therefore is not part of the Constitution. But for sake of argument, let's say it was. There are legal scholars who don't subscribe to the incorporation doctrine, i.e that the 14th applied the Bill of Rights to the States.
Source?
This isn't a direct source but here is a youtube with an explanation by Historian Thomas Woods. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5WwMREdcvc&feature=player_embedded#! It's only about 8 minutes. At least one of his books discusses the improper ratification.
Thank you for that. It appears that conservatives don't have any serious argument then.
Argument for what?
I'll have to admit that the original claim seems to have evaporated, but what I thought I was responding to was the conservative claim that there is no justification in the Constitution for many of the programs that liberals favor: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, etc.
I'll have to admit that the original claim seems to have evaporated, but what I thought I was responding to was the conservative claim that there is no justification in the Constitution for many of the programs that liberals favor: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, etc.
While many conservative do in fact claim that many of those programs are Unconstitutional. None of those programs have ever been tested in Court and very much doubt they ever would be. I guess it depends on your understanding of "General Welfare" Madison or Hamilton. Of course Hamilton being a coward and general shitbag, never opined upon the clause until AFTER it was done. But somehow His interpretation reigns supreme. Convenient
A freeway is built for the General Welfare. Anybody from anywhere for any reason can use the road for their pursuit of happiness. The Programs you list are narrow and specific and canter to minority segments of the population. It has been argued that those programs are not for the General welfare of the Country. That since these programs were not explicitly stated as a Federal responsibility like Defense, Post Office, etc… or even fit into the Held understanding that Federal Government handles things the States simply can’t do. That they should be left up to the States to administer.
Essentially, less federal taxes and power transferred to more state Taxes and Power.
It has been argued that those programs are not for the General welfare of the Country.
Which is a clear demonstration that you can argue anything. Alternatively you can argue that any part of the safety net serves the general welfare. It is like insurance - you hope you don't need it but you buy it for the peace of mind that it gives you.
Which is a clear demonstration that you can argue anything. Alternatively you can argue that any part of the safety net serves the general welfare. It is like insurance - you hope you don't need it but you buy it for the peace of mind that it gives you.
To be fair, It's not entirely my argument. It's James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and a whole host of people's arguments and the United State Legal doctrine prior to the Supreme Court Shift in 1937, amid the FDR Court Packing Scandal. At the same time a begin, descriptive passage in the Constitution become the all powerful Constitutional granting power that allows congress to do anything it wants. The Ultimate Power granting passage became known as “the General Welfare clause”
"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." - James Madison, 1794
I'm cetainly not a constitutional scholar, nor do I pretend to be. But, it seems to me that it comes down to the limited government concept. Would that be a decent reading of the situation?
That said, it also seems a little late in the game to change the basic rules of the game. I.E., "Entitlements", etc. That would call for a ripping apart of the fabric of the country 230 some years into nationhood, hence, is not workable.
Or am I wrong?
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
What you have to realize is that there are just as many authoritarian-conservatives as there are authoritarian-liberals.
America is fortunate enought to be full of libertarian-conservatives and libertarian-liberals.
You have to add that second dimension ( y-axis ) distinction before you say "all liberals or all conservatives" I myself am a left-libertarian. http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-4.62&soc=-4.56
fascism - right wing authoritarianism
socialism - left wing authoritarianism
if you think about it that's true , that's why democracy is so important .
You are right the two most abused parts of the constitution are the commerce clause and necessary and proper clause. If its not mentioned in the constitution it goes to the states, 10th amendment is our our friend people. And before you start with the whole well the constitution is a living document and no one knows the intention of the founders let me tell you your wrong on both accounts. 1 while the constitution is a changing document it does not change through congressional order or judges creating new rights, it is changed by the amendment process nothing else. 2 We do know the intent of the founders its called the federalist papers their are 40 of them maybe yall should read them.
ok the collage conservative guy is pretty cool for that , is there anyway he could be converted to activist - or the left side . seriously dude the left is way cooler . we have cookies
Ha i couldnt join i like my guns and 10th amendment too much.
Ha i couldnt join i like my guns and 10th amendment too much.
i think that's the only thing holding back the left from a landslide victory and forcing republicans to change some of their polatics ... unfortunately it has little to do with economics ... but how can i hunt with out a gun , sticks and rocks that's like 3rd world country , the stone age ... i love liberals but doing away with the 2nd amendment is just ... aaahhhhh !!!! really , really
Ha i couldnt join i like my guns and 10th amendment too much.
i think that's the only thing holding back the left from a landslide victory and forcing republicans to change some of their polatics ... unfortunately it has little to do with economics ..
so if more liberals were for gun rights , would you change sides
no im small government all the way
You should read this blog by Mitchell –You never will know what you have lost « #Monetary Sovereignty – Mitchell athttp://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/you-never-will-know-what-you-have-lost/
which describes the pleasures of a small govt.