|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted July 09, 2010 08:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
After all, the rather small constitution has to "fit" over the whole reality which is expanding constantly. Moreover, only the mathematic language is precise. A term like "the welfare of the US" has definigtely NO fixed meaning (answering Elodin's absurd post as well).
Sorry, a group of sentences has a fixed meaning.
Sorry, the men who wrote the Constitution said the Constitution is a document designed to limit the power of government, not to grant it broad, expansive powers, and that the term "general welfare" is in fact defined by the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8.
Jefferson said a Constitution with an expansive power of general welfare should be thrown into the fire.
The founding fathers established a LIMITED FEDERAL government, not an all-powerful NATIONAL government. The states and the people retain all powers not SPECIFICLY given to the government.
I will repeat a few of the quotes that prove your position to be lacking of any merit.
Quote:
Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
-Thomas Jefferson
[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, 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.”
-James Madison
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.
- James Madison
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... they may appoint teachers in every state... The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.
- James Madison
James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,
If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.
When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.
-Thomas Jefferson
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 09:33 PM |
|
|
@ Mvass
That's interesting, because in that case the US are no democracy.  Voting for an elector can hardly be called "telling the government what to do", don't you think?
@ Elodin
Quote:
[
Sorry, a group of sentences has a fixed meaning.
No need to apologize. Just because you repeat something doesn't make it true.
Quote:
Sorry, the men who wrote the Constitution said
In this case I am sorry, because what those men SAID is completely irrelevant - they are long dead. Only thing that matters is the written document and not anyone's opinion.
Quote:
that the term "general welfare" is in fact defined by the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8.
Nope, wrong and false. The general welfare point is ONE point in a list of an enumeration. This is made clear by interpunction and by the fact that the list involves things that do not fit into that first point of the enumeration.
Note that if the first clause would be described in detail by the others, it would have been no problem to phrase it so that there would have been no doubt. Since the FFS were not complete fools... well.
Quote:
I will repeat a few of the quotes that prove your position to be lacking of any merit.
IRRELEVANT. What they said and wrote beside the constitution is of no matter.
As a sidenote: don't you see your fundamental contradiction?
On one hand you say, the sentences of the constitution have a fixed meaning. On the other you come up with personal remarks of the FFs to prove - that the constitution was made with a certain purpose.
If there WAS a fixed meaning, the purpose would be obvious and you wouldn't need to cite these remarks.
On the other hand, if that remarks HAD any relevance, they might have phrased the constitution differently...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 10:07 PM |
|
|
No, voting for a representative is telling the government what to do. You're sending the message that out of the presented possibilities, you want the government to do X.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 10:26 PM |
|
|
Ah, but you can only vote for what they offer. when parties don't offer what you want, what can you do? spoiling your paper doesn't help. you can only choose what they have to offer.
for example, if you wanted to have a tax on the top 5% of earners in your country, and if the government or the oppositions don't offer that, then who do you vote for?
if voting is telling the government what you want them to do, the parties invovled have all the power to shift goal posts and present you options that favour them and their central supporters, and not what you want at all.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 10:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, voting for a representative is telling the government what to do. You're sending the message that out of the presented possibilities, you want the government to do X.
doesn't work
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 10:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, voting for a representative is telling the government what to do. You're sending the message that out of the presented possibilities, you want the government to do X.
Not at all. In the US you vote an elector. Voting an elector is DEFINITELY not telling anyone what to do, except electing a president.
Moreover you elect the Congress ... whose members are obliged only to their conscience.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 10:38 PM |
|
|
There's a broad range of candidates that run for office, a lot of them just don't go beyond 2% is all.
Educated and politically aware constituents are invaluable to democracy, so people don't just vote for a party candidate because their parents voted for that party. Although if they apathetically vote that way, then the uncomfortable truth is: they get what they deserve.
"In a Democracy, the people get the government they deserve"
- Alexis de Tocqueville
Except I would expand that to say: In any government, people get the government they deserve, because they're ultimately the force that can change things or keep things the same.
People can tell the government what to do through indirect means, by voting for a candidate that fits pretty well with their beliefs, or not re-electing a person that doesn't do what they said they would, or outright impeaching them if they do something bad enough. Of course, they can't really tell them what to do directly, in the sense that the public pushes a "yes" or "no" button every time a decision needs to be made.
The world is still the same old aristocracy, it's just unofficial instead of official, but it doesn't have to be that way. Education and awareness is necessary.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 10:48 PM |
|
|
I don't know what's so difficult.
You do NOT tell your government anything.
Instead you ELECT the people who tell YOU. (If you don't agree you may elect someone else next time.)
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 11:15 PM |
|
|
Technically Congress has the power to declare war on Canada, but if it ever did there would be an unholy ****storm and probably various commanders going defective.
Sure, the government technically makes decisions without people's consent, but there's a difference between having the power and being able to realistically use it however you want. It's like saying that a medieval king has absolute control of the state. Well, legally he does, but he doesn't actually do whatever he wants, unless he wants the noble's armies to show up and collect his head, only in the modern case, an elected official is scrutinized far more thoroughly and every word they say is recorded for all eternity.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 11:15 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 23:18, 09 Jul 2010.
|
@JJ
Sorry, but written sentences do have fixed meanings.
Sorry, but the founding fathers said what they meant by "general welfare," the enumerated powers. Any "interpretation" that does not mesh with what they said it means is in error. They already explained what "general welfare" means, so there is no need for an interpretation. Interpretations are only needed when the meaning is not clear, but in this case, the writers of the words "general welfare" clearly explained that it means the enumerated powers.
The founding fathers are right and you are wrong.
Furthur, the "general welfare" is specificly said to involve the states, not individuals. To say that that means welfare payments to individuals violates the text.
Quote:
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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Providing for the general welfare is things like roads and post offices, like the enumerted powers following the clause say.
Saying the original intent does not matter s quite ludicrous. To say the men who wrote the words of the Constitution lied about what they meant by general welfare would be very bizare.
Quote:
Instead you ELECT the people who tell YOU. (If you don't agree you may elect someone else next time.)
Government is to be "of, by, and for the people." The elected representatives are to represent the people. To do the will of the people.
____________
Revelation
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 11:28 PM |
|
|
but you're main problems with "By the people, of the people and for the people" is that 1) the people won't get what they want, especially if the two parties hold similar values on the same issues like Taxation, education and so on, 2) generally the common man knows tiddlysquat about politics and the issues at hand, and those who do are very selective about their oppinions are often very strongly biased. and hardly anyone knows enough to possible get anywhere internationally, and 3) the government is for those who sponsor them I.E, big business. an example couldn't be more clear than at the moment, with several republican senators in the states coming out against tighter restrictions on off-shore oil drilling due to the fact they are backed by the oil companies.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 11:34 PM |
|
|
"By the people, for the people" is just a bull. In my country, the president, elected by majority, is against death penalty, while those who elected him in 90% are death penalty enthusiasts. By the "representation" logic he should do what those that elected him want. And yet, he doesn't give a damn about their opinions. He is elected to do whatever HE seems fine, and represents only himself and his opinions. Whats more, that seems perfectly ok for all that voted for him. The "democracy" has fallen so low people don't even understand that they elect someone to give him a chance to do what HE desires, not what THEY desire.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 11:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
represents only himself and his opinions
as any good politician should. A politician who claims to do "what the people wants" is infinitely more dangerous than a politician with his own clear agenda who the people elected.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 09, 2010 11:37 PM |
|
|
*offtopic*
I thought Poland can't be in the EU if it has the death penalty? Why do people even bother?
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 10, 2010 01:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
they see the symptoms - the middle class is ruthlessly exploited by taxes and forced insurances that all go the way everything goes - most of it lands in the pockets of the rich and powerful -, while THEY think it's the curse of socialism.
here, sarkozy managed to put the blame on the lower classes that leech the system, nice way to protect the richs.
Quote:
However, as we all also know, in a system where everyone is guaranteed to be economically equal to everyone else, human beings, kind as they are, would all work as hard as they can and wouldn't at all try to leech the system, get demotivated and provide less effort, knowing that everything will be provided by the state.
having everyone work as hard as they can is not a solution. it would lead to at least 2 problems :
-speaking of producing, it would lead to environmental problems
-the work would take the place of all other activities (like politics) as it is already the case for many people who work all day long and are too damn tired to do anything else for example. you could even wonder if it's not done on purpose, to keep most people out of politics.
Quote:
Most people tend to agree that we need to keep the standard of living high for people that earn it
and what do they mean by high standard of living? is it actually possible to provide all people who deserve it with that standard of living?
Quote:
Sure, the government technically makes decisions without people's consent, but there's a difference between having the power and being able to realistically use it however you want
it could just be a matter of time. let's say you want to do something that the people think is unacceptable.
you could just make small reforms that would seem reasonable until you get to what you want, and voila, you've just fooled everyone.
Quote:
general Welfare of the United States
what does that mean? how do you know what is good for a whole population?
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 10, 2010 02:06 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 02:07, 10 Jul 2010.
|
Question number 2.
Elodin, while driving, you notice you're about to hit a woman pushing a baby carriage.
The woman is wearing a "YES WE CAN!" t-shirt and there is a possibility of the child being indoctrinated by the democratic party. It's too late to stop, but you have the following options:
1) Stay on course, hitting the woman and the child
2) Turn left, hitting a middle aged redneck
3) Turn right, hitting a Founding Father
What do you do?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 10, 2010 02:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Sorry, the men who wrote the Constitution said the Constitution is a document designed to limit the power of government, not to grant it broad, expansive powers
There was a reason they wanted the power limited: They looked back at history and saw a lot of cases where too much power alocated at locations had caused major problems.
A good example being rulers who just crushed out civilisation they sat a top of, simply because they had the power among other things. There was nothing to stop them, there was nothing to stop the council who sat there for days talking while hell arose, and there was many other examples.
They wanted to attempt a solution: Separating the power.
Going from history, they thought it would work. Its the same reason the world got a lot of parlamentarism along with democracy back during the time of change.
Also for the sake of nitpicking: "General welfare" is a quite vague term, it can include a full safety net or just the entire barebone basics. What do you have to support your definition?
And then we got this:
Quote:
To say the men who wrote the words of the Constitution lied about what they meant by general welfare would be very bizare.
In best 4chan style:
>Implying there exists absolutism.
____________
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 10, 2010 02:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, legally he does, but he doesn't actually do whatever he wants, unless he wants the noble's armies to show up and collect his head, only in the modern case, an elected official is scrutinized far more thoroughly and every word they say is recorded for all eternity.
Well, by the age of absolutism they had found a great way to deal with unruly nobles: Versailles and its equivalents.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
