I think cabrobst inadvertently put his finger on one major problem we have in this country. Economic illiteracy. We all know $100 and even $1000 but when it gets to be a million that is just a word. Juries say give this poor victim $50 million with no understanding what that represents. Obama budgets $1Trillion and the people yawn.
Bottom line cabrobst it was $600 Billion not $600 Trillion.
Stopping welfare would have paid for a lot of USA infrastructure. Stopping anything would free up money for something else. The sole purpose of government is to protect us from force or fraud.
Just think cut Federal taxes by 2/3 and allow the states to tax the money directly. You save the 50% overhead the Feds use up and we get our infrastructure repaired by people who actually know the problems.
No fennec you totally misunderstand Libertarianism. My Bible is our Constitution. It specifically says what the Federal Government can and cannot do. They can only do enumerated actions. If it is not actually written as a permissible action they cannot do it.
The States are different. They can do whatever is in their state constitution. We strongly encourage Federalism. 50 laboratories of actions and let the best man win. So absolutely yes, we are indeed moving government to a different level.
What we want to see is what is happening. Businesses are moving away from high tax NY and California and moving to low tax Texas and Florida. With a state i can vote with my feet which is being done by the millions.
The founders were so brilliant they wrote into the document itself the ways to actually change it. The Constitution has already been amended 17 times. I call the Bill of Rights part of the original.
Not certain what you mean. The constitution can always be amended. I personally would add a balanced budget amendment. Just need the American people to agree. I would add a few words to the 2nd and 10th.
New Amendments are proposed all the time. Very few have the universal approval necessary to pass.
I think that “to promote the general welfare” covers universal health care in this particular time we happen to be living in. Government should be of, for, and by the people who are citizens. If you go by state’s rights the Jim Crow laws would still be on the books.
Regarding how broad “to promote the general welfare” and “interstate commerce” clauses may be read is the sole decision of the 9 members of SCOTUS. They really don’t care what you or I think.
DrCanuck: This is where our bible comes in. Scalia is a strict texturalist. What do the words actually say? Thomas is an originalist. What did the words mean at the original time they were written.
The liberal block says times have changed since the Constitution was written and we will interpret by today’s standards. But to me the problem with that is standards change constantly. So the court decisions would have to change constantly. Therefore what is the basis of law?
Of course if a huge percentage of Americans want to change the bible they should be able to. Clearly the real Bible is reinterpreted constantly. Nobody lives by the 613.
I really don’t but it appears you do. Maybe the word bible has different meanings to us. The Constitution sets the ground rules for everything we do. You cannot violate the Constitution. If one does an act that is in conflict with the constitution it should be prohibited. But, and I think this is where we differ, the constitution is not immutable. It can be changed. Until it is changed you cannot violate it but once it is changed then those are the new permanent ground rules. But it is crucial to actually change the Constitution by Amendment.
Ability to adapt to new situations is a survival skill. When this country started only males that owned property had the right to vote. During Andrew Jackson’s presidency that right was broadened to include all free born males. And so goes history with all the lessons it has to teach us. I believe the nation as a whole would be much better off if universal health care was a right of every citizen. Every other industrialized nation has this right.
DrCanuck: You have asked a question that has been discussed in my legal professor blog for years. Our founding fathers realized that nobody knew what the future would bring so they put into the Constitution the ways to amend it. It is not an easy practice. It is not a simple majority and certainly not a plurality. It requires a vote first by Congress and then it goes to each of the 50 states. Very slow, very methodical, very difficult. Only been done 17 times.
But so as not to be accused of evading your question. If a constitutional amendment were proposed that “excepted gays and Muslims” and was able to survive the many many difficult steps for ratification then yes, that would be the law of the land. It could never happen. How would you get NY, NJ, California etc etc to ratify?
The best thing about moving what the government does down from: fed to state, state, to local is that the closer it gets to you the more influence and effect (control) you can have on it. This is beauty as the left coasts could have all the socialism they want and it would be no skin off the rest of our collective noses. In fact to take that further, the less government takes from me the more empowered I become over my own destiny and the pursuit of my own happiness. That’s what the government is for; to protect us from the harm others would unlawfully do to us (internal and external), and to ensure that we have a rule of law that is consistently applied (not an arbitrary, suddenly shifting interpretation of that law like some activist judges suppose).
People try all of the time to expand the general welfare clause to encompass whatever their cause dejour is (today it healthcare, tomorrow something else), but it is primarily there to make sure there are no abuses, not to redistribute wealth on a mass scale. For instance, if some citizens tax me excessively (say, like now) they are preventing me from pursuing my own happiness – nothing ‘fair’ about that.
There is no history of any of the forefathers advocating using government funds (especially on a NATIONAL scale) to pay individual bills, which is what this suddenly developed ‘right’ to healthcare would do. The first time I ever heard of this healthcare ‘right’ was in a response to a letter I sent to Ted Kennedy maybe 10-12 years ago. I laughed my arse off until I realized that old fat bastarde wasn’t kidding.
GNWachs almost 15 years ago
We budgeted $767B. We have actually spent 8% of that. Wonder what is going to happen to the rest? The pork will flow and flow.
HUMPHRIES almost 15 years ago
GNW pork is when the other districts get the bennies. What’s it called when your congressman delivers to your district ?
Copperdomebodhi almost 15 years ago
ANandy - We’ve tried stimulating the economy by cutting taxes. It doesn’t work as well as the government spending money directly.
Charles Brobst Premium Member almost 15 years ago
The 600 trillion dollar Iraq war is a vastly bigger hole.
GNWachs almost 15 years ago
I think cabrobst inadvertently put his finger on one major problem we have in this country. Economic illiteracy. We all know $100 and even $1000 but when it gets to be a million that is just a word. Juries say give this poor victim $50 million with no understanding what that represents. Obama budgets $1Trillion and the people yawn.
Bottom line cabrobst it was $600 Billion not $600 Trillion.
deadheadzan almost 15 years ago
Bottom line that $600 Billion would have paid for a lot of USA infrastructure.
GNWachs almost 15 years ago
deadheadzan
Stopping welfare would have paid for a lot of USA infrastructure. Stopping anything would free up money for something else. The sole purpose of government is to protect us from force or fraud.
Just think cut Federal taxes by 2/3 and allow the states to tax the money directly. You save the 50% overhead the Feds use up and we get our infrastructure repaired by people who actually know the problems.
GNWachs almost 15 years ago
No fennec you totally misunderstand Libertarianism. My Bible is our Constitution. It specifically says what the Federal Government can and cannot do. They can only do enumerated actions. If it is not actually written as a permissible action they cannot do it.
The States are different. They can do whatever is in their state constitution. We strongly encourage Federalism. 50 laboratories of actions and let the best man win. So absolutely yes, we are indeed moving government to a different level.
What we want to see is what is happening. Businesses are moving away from high tax NY and California and moving to low tax Texas and Florida. With a state i can vote with my feet which is being done by the millions.
GNWachs almost 15 years ago
The founders were so brilliant they wrote into the document itself the ways to actually change it. The Constitution has already been amended 17 times. I call the Bill of Rights part of the original.
Buzzy-One almost 15 years ago
Anandy says it’s so because “he” said so in most of his postings but look at him pull our the proof card, just like him calling others a “racist”.
GNWachs almost 15 years ago
@DrCanuck
Not certain what you mean. The constitution can always be amended. I personally would add a balanced budget amendment. Just need the American people to agree. I would add a few words to the 2nd and 10th.
New Amendments are proposed all the time. Very few have the universal approval necessary to pass.
deadheadzan almost 15 years ago
I think that “to promote the general welfare” covers universal health care in this particular time we happen to be living in. Government should be of, for, and by the people who are citizens. If you go by state’s rights the Jim Crow laws would still be on the books.
GNWachs almost 15 years ago
@deadhead
Regarding how broad “to promote the general welfare” and “interstate commerce” clauses may be read is the sole decision of the 9 members of SCOTUS. They really don’t care what you or I think.
DrCanuck: This is where our bible comes in. Scalia is a strict texturalist. What do the words actually say? Thomas is an originalist. What did the words mean at the original time they were written. The liberal block says times have changed since the Constitution was written and we will interpret by today’s standards. But to me the problem with that is standards change constantly. So the court decisions would have to change constantly. Therefore what is the basis of law?
Of course if a huge percentage of Americans want to change the bible they should be able to. Clearly the real Bible is reinterpreted constantly. Nobody lives by the 613.
GNWachs almost 15 years ago
I really don’t but it appears you do. Maybe the word bible has different meanings to us. The Constitution sets the ground rules for everything we do. You cannot violate the Constitution. If one does an act that is in conflict with the constitution it should be prohibited. But, and I think this is where we differ, the constitution is not immutable. It can be changed. Until it is changed you cannot violate it but once it is changed then those are the new permanent ground rules. But it is crucial to actually change the Constitution by Amendment.
deadheadzan almost 15 years ago
Ability to adapt to new situations is a survival skill. When this country started only males that owned property had the right to vote. During Andrew Jackson’s presidency that right was broadened to include all free born males. And so goes history with all the lessons it has to teach us. I believe the nation as a whole would be much better off if universal health care was a right of every citizen. Every other industrialized nation has this right.
GNWachs almost 15 years ago
DrCanuck: You have asked a question that has been discussed in my legal professor blog for years. Our founding fathers realized that nobody knew what the future would bring so they put into the Constitution the ways to amend it. It is not an easy practice. It is not a simple majority and certainly not a plurality. It requires a vote first by Congress and then it goes to each of the 50 states. Very slow, very methodical, very difficult. Only been done 17 times.
But so as not to be accused of evading your question. If a constitutional amendment were proposed that “excepted gays and Muslims” and was able to survive the many many difficult steps for ratification then yes, that would be the law of the land. It could never happen. How would you get NY, NJ, California etc etc to ratify?
ynnek58 almost 15 years ago
GNW – nice
The best thing about moving what the government does down from: fed to state, state, to local is that the closer it gets to you the more influence and effect (control) you can have on it. This is beauty as the left coasts could have all the socialism they want and it would be no skin off the rest of our collective noses. In fact to take that further, the less government takes from me the more empowered I become over my own destiny and the pursuit of my own happiness. That’s what the government is for; to protect us from the harm others would unlawfully do to us (internal and external), and to ensure that we have a rule of law that is consistently applied (not an arbitrary, suddenly shifting interpretation of that law like some activist judges suppose).
People try all of the time to expand the general welfare clause to encompass whatever their cause dejour is (today it healthcare, tomorrow something else), but it is primarily there to make sure there are no abuses, not to redistribute wealth on a mass scale. For instance, if some citizens tax me excessively (say, like now) they are preventing me from pursuing my own happiness – nothing ‘fair’ about that.
There is no history of any of the forefathers advocating using government funds (especially on a NATIONAL scale) to pay individual bills, which is what this suddenly developed ‘right’ to healthcare would do. The first time I ever heard of this healthcare ‘right’ was in a response to a letter I sent to Ted Kennedy maybe 10-12 years ago. I laughed my arse off until I realized that old fat bastarde wasn’t kidding.