Wednesday, December 2, 2009
General Welfare; For the Nation or Individual?
According to Ron Kind, my incumbent democratic opponent, healthcare is important to general welfare, therefore government must get involved. Food, shelter, education, heat, electricity, water and air are of vital interest too. So I guess the Constitution also gives the Federal Government the power to control all aspects of these and supply us with what we need, right? Now, who amongst us thinks this is what the founding fathers had in mind? If healthcare is covered by the Constitution so is all the other stuff. If all the other stuff isn’t covered, then neither is healthcare. It’s a VERY slippery slope Wisconsin!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Considering that many of the founding fathers were slaveowners, it is doubtful that they would believe a Black man is president. Those same Founding Fathers might be shocked that semi-automatic weapons exist and are carried to political rallies where candidates like you speak. The founding Fathers might be shocked that roads have to be pavement. Dirt roads worked pretty well when the Constitution was inked. I'm not sure when the last one who helped write the Constitution died, but my guess is approximately 180 years ago. Between the time the Constitution was implemented and when that person died, I'm certain there was pretty of debate over what that document meant and covered. Looks like the debate continues.
ReplyDeleteDo you think, when the health reform legislation gets singed into law, that the Supreme Court will throw it out? If so, wouldn't this be an example of legislation from the bench?
I find it difficult to imagine how any of your thoughts relate to the topic of this post, but i'll provide some answers for your questions....
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a lack of historical understanding here. Yes, slave owership by the founding fathers existed. In many southern states slaves outnumbered whites. The founders had liberation of the slaves in mind when the constitution was written in that they granted slaves as 3/5 of a person so that those southern states wouldn't usurp undue representative power in keeping slavery legal. Article 1, section 9 keeps slavery legal only for 99 years after the Constitution was ratified-this was done to unify southern with northern colonies...without this concession a united states would have been very difficult to establish. Washington educated his slaves. Your contempt of the founders is unjustified.
As far as semi-autos ANYWHERE...the government should not fear law abiding citizens owning and bearing state-of-the-art weapons. It was common place when the founders were alive and I'm sure the founders carried their own. Citizen owned state-of-the-art armaments are necessary in order for citizens to possess the necessary means to deter tyrannical goverment...the main idea behind the second amendment.
Paved roads are much more advantageous to our high speed modes of transportation...the founders were all for technological development. That is the reason they established a patent office.
One doesn't need to wonder about what the constitution means. It states things very clearly in black and white. If that proves to difficult for some there are vast numbers of articles from the time where the authors make it even more clear. The Federalist Papers are the most prevalent examples. The Constitution does not exist with a lack of supporting documentation penned by the authors themselves.
No, it would be an example of the SCOTUS doing their jobs, and I'd drop over dead in surprise. The SCOTUS better throw it out in a heartbeat. It is obviously unconstitutional. Those members that vote against doing so should be removed from the bench in violation of their oath. If you can't distinguish between the SCOTUS evaluating a law for compatibility with the Constitution, and obvious judical personal bias and governmental process violation in application of law (bench legislation) I don't know what I can do for you.
Basically the American Revolution was engineered by a handful of elites in the business class. Slaves where not considered human beings the farther South you moved. Hence the reason they were give 3/5 status. The power structure couldn't afford to allow them to be humans. The Constitution is all about compromise and TEA Party followers like youself seem to want to return to a conservative fantasy land that never really existed.
ReplyDeleteAs my grandmother used to say, "You can have the good ol' days with a wood stove and root cellar, but don't try to take away my electric stove and refrigerator."
What does "SCOTUS" mean?
"Basically the American Revolution was engineered by a handful of elites in the business class....Hence the reason they were give 3/5 status. The power structure couldn't afford to allow them to be humans."
ReplyDeleteThe best approach here is to strongly encourage you to research this subject through a reputable historical record. You will find a very different picture from the one someone is feeding you. What I told you previously is true and can be easily verified if you would dig into it. You seem like an intelligent person so I encourage you to question what you've learned. Start in the reference below for instance and question what someone has told you..
Federalsit Paper 53, Madison and Hamilton explaining the three-fifths Compromise,
"The Federal Constitution therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixt character of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and it will not be denied that these are the proper criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted that if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants."
Pay special attention to the carefully worded last few sentences...the founders are inferring that slaves had a right to liberty and they (the founders) were hopeful for a time when the laws could be changed to RESTORE liberty to the slaves...but for the greater good those laws wouldn't be challenged at that time.
SCOTUS....Supreme Court of the United States.
Mike: Here's a link to an article about the GOP Senate race in Florida. It compares and contrasts the TEA Party/GOP candidate and the GOP candiate squaring off in the primary.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/magazine/10florida-t.html?scp=4&sq=TEA%20Party&st=cse
It think the comments about "bomb throwers" and "fundementalists" fit the TEA Party perspective to a T.
Mike:
ReplyDeleteWhat did you think about the SCOTUS decision on corporate sponsored political campaign ads? Does you copy of the Constitution say anything about corporations being equal to individual citizens?
Hi Sunny,
ReplyDeleteMy copy of the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...".
Seems pretty cut-n-dry. The Constitution restricts what Congress can do regarding any legislation that abridges the freedom of speech.
Corporations can be huge, or small. Either way they are made up of people who have rights to voice their opinions to a government that has the power of force and law.
ReplyDelete