More Chat about Originalism, Constitutionalism and German Liberalism

[uptowngirl]

The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to be in the charity business.

Nor does it have the authority to "bail out" private businesses.

Or "favor" any person or other entity in taxation.

Thus, I am in favor of some version of the "fair tax".

Oh, don't even get me started on the radio personality and dentist dreamed up fair tax nonsense. That would be as bad as having a guy with a degree in monkey business run Jacksonville!!

Fair Tax favors the rich, after all they use a smaller portion of their vast fortunes for consumption thus rendering their tax a lower percentage of their income. No new houses would be build because resales are tax free whereas newly built houses are not. etc, etc, etc


As to the Preamble of our Constitution, none of your selfish babble can be found there ( ah you, uptowngirl, are one of those teenagers who became pregnant eh?):

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As I said to johnyglide, you, uptowngirl and NotNow are not omniscient to determine who is deserving and who is not.

And neither is the government Faye

[finehoe]

As you have pointed out, the Federal Government limited its spending to veterans, widows of veterans, and other Federal matters.  That effort is found within the document.    

And where is this "enumerated" within the document?

[FayeforCure]

The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to be in the charity business.

Nor does it have the authority to "bail out" private businesses.

Or "favor" any person or other entity in taxation.

Thus, I am in favor of some version of the "fair tax".

Oh, don't even get me started on the radio personality and dentist dreamed up fair tax nonsense. That would be as bad as having a guy with a degree in monkey business run Jacksonville!!

Fair Tax favors the rich, after all they use a smaller portion of their vast fortunes for consumption thus rendering their tax a lower percentage of their income. No new houses would be build because resales are tax free whereas newly built houses are not. etc, etc, etc


As to the Preamble of our Constitution, none of your selfish babble can be found there ( ah you, uptowngirl, are one of those teenagers who became pregnant eh?):

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As I said to johnyglide, you, uptowngirl and NotNow are not omniscient to determine who is deserving and who is not.

And neither is the government Faye

Well, THAT is what they are there for. THEY and only they have the staff to find an equitable way to help the unfortunate amongst us. YOU cannot do that by yourself and neither can private charities.

I absolutely abhore private charity organizations, as there is fertile ground for abuse, AND it's hit and miss whether they reach even a sizable portion of those in need.(after all they do not have the staff to reach all those in need). Most just collect names that they in turn use to "show" how many people they've helped.

Plus private charities frequently sustain themselves with government grants..........ie feeding from the government trough.

[NotNow]

We have learned from them.  Have you forgotten how this country was founded?  We have a Constitution, it should be followed.  Are we not a country of laws?  If you want the same social safety net as Germany, it can be done here legally...on a state and local level.  That is part of the genius as well.  We have fifty separate experiments in government, unified in defense and foreign policy.  There is a reason that much of the world has looked to us as the example of government.

[NotNow]

The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to be in the charity business.

Nor does it have the authority to "bail out" private businesses.

Or "favor" any person or other entity in taxation.

Thus, I am in favor of some version of the "fair tax".

Oh, don't even get me started on the radio personality and dentist dreamed up fair tax nonsense. That would be as bad as having a guy with a degree in monkey business run Jacksonville!!

Fair Tax favors the rich, after all they use a smaller portion of their vast fortunes for consumption thus rendering their tax a lower percentage of their income. No new houses would be build because resales are tax free whereas newly built houses are not. etc, etc, etc


As to the Preamble of our Constitution, none of your selfish babble can be found there ( ah you, uptowngirl, are one of those teenagers who became pregnant eh?):

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As I said to johnyglide, you, uptowngirl and NotNow are not omniscient to determine who is deserving and who is not.

And neither is the government Faye

Well, THAT is what they are there for. THEY and only they have the staff to find an equitable way to help the unfortunate amongst us. YOU cannot do that by yourself and neither can private charities.

I absolutely abhore private charity organizations, as there is fertile ground for abuse, AND it's hit and miss whether they reach even a sizable portion of those in need.(after all they do not have the staff to reach all those in need). Most just collect names that they in turn use to "show" how many people they've helped.

Plus private charities frequently sustain themselves with government grants..........ie feeding from the government trough.

You misunderstand the purpose of the Federal Government in the US...with all due respect. 

[uptowngirl]

The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to be in the charity business.

Nor does it have the authority to "bail out" private businesses.

Or "favor" any person or other entity in taxation.

Thus, I am in favor of some version of the "fair tax".

Oh, don't even get me started on the radio personality and dentist dreamed up fair tax nonsense. That would be as bad as having a guy with a degree in monkey business run Jacksonville!!

Fair Tax favors the rich, after all they use a smaller portion of their vast fortunes for consumption thus rendering their tax a lower percentage of their income. No new houses would be build because resales are tax free whereas newly built houses are not. etc, etc, etc


As to the Preamble of our Constitution, none of your selfish babble can be found there ( ah you, uptowngirl, are one of those teenagers who became pregnant eh?):

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As I said to johnyglide, you, uptowngirl and NotNow are not omniscient to determine who is deserving and who is not.

And neither is the government Faye

Well, THAT is what they are there for. THEY and only they have the staff to find an equitable way to help the unfortunate amongst us. YOU cannot do that by yourself and neither can private charities.

I absolutely abhore private charity organizations, as there is fertile ground for abuse, AND it's hit and miss whether they reach even a sizable portion of those in need.(after all they do not have the staff to reach all those in need). Most just collect names that they in turn use to "show" how many people they've helped.

Plus private charities frequently sustain themselves with government grants..........ie feeding from the government trough.

What?? That is what the government is there for? To help the needy? Please point that out in our constitution?

[NotNow]

As you have pointed out, the Federal Government limited its spending to veterans, widows of veterans, and other Federal matters.  That effort is found within the document.    

And where is this "enumerated" within the document?

Um...Article I, Section 8.  

You can just google "enumerated powers" and you will get to the meat of the matter.  

Again, I am arguing against the abuse of authority by the Federal Government.  Our central government is limited in its powers.  I am not arguing against a social safety net.  It should be done at a state, county, and employer level.

[NotNow]

Well, this is the purpose that my grandfather, Henry Knox intended it for when he signed the Declaration of Independence, and then voted to ratify the Constitution, Notnow.

We tried a government that functioned the way you describe.  It was called the Articles of Confederation, and it didnt work.

I respectfully disagree, and I would point to the reams of documentation that support my view.  It always astonishes me when you argue that our Founding Fathers did not believe in limited Federal power.  To make such an argument is to ignore the complete history and debate of the era.

[uptowngirl]

US Welfare System - Help for US CitizensFederally funded and governed US welfare began in the 1930's during the Great Depression. The US government responded to the overwhelming number of families and individuals in need of aid by creating a welfare program that would give assistance to those who had little or no income.

The US welfare system stayed in the hands of the federal government for the next sixty-one years. Many Americans were unhappy with the welfare system, claiming that individuals were abusing the welfare program by not applying for jobs, having more children just to get more aid, and staying unmarried so as to qualify for greater benefits. Welfare system reform became a hot topic in the1990's. Bill Clinton was elected as President with the intention of reforming the federally run US Welfare program. In 1996 the Republican Congress passed a reform law signed by President Clinton that gave the control of the welfare system back to the states.


Clearly this was not the intent of the founding fathers, like income taxes it was created much later to address a specific situation and well, just stuck around.  Also -it does reside at the state level, not the federal level, although the federal government does supply funds in the form of grants to each state, so to look at just the federal portion of the pie is to ignore the actual spending.

[buckethead]

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

[NotNow]

Generally, the British "poor laws" were copied.  Those that were disabled or unable to work were provided for through local means (sometimes State).  Those that were able bodied yet lacked employment were empolyed in "work houses".

I have shown you the document that states exactly what the Founding Fathers thought the Federal Government had a right to do.  They then clearly stated that all other powers were reserved to the States, or the people.

[uptowngirl]

Stephen, social work programs. Work being the key word. even during the 30's when "social welfare" was actually applied on a large scale the "welfare" was providing JOBS to people, putting people back to work, not just giving them food, housing, and medical for nothing in return. The way welfare is set up today you do not have to work at all and as I said before it can go on for years and years, just ask my neighbor.

[NotNow]

Generally, the British "poor laws" were copied.  Those that were disabled or unable to work were provided for through local means (sometimes State).  Those that were able bodied yet lacked employment were empolyed in "work houses".

I have shown you the document that states exactly what the Founding Fathers thought the Federal Government had a right to do.  They then clearly stated that all other powers were reserved to the States, or the people.

You have presented opinions from the small minority of revolutionaries that supported your point of view.  But there was no homogeneity amongst the revolutionaries, notnow.  Quite the contrary.  Madison believed in State Governments taking precedence over Federal administration.  But his was a minority viewpoint.  Jefferson, his contemporary certainly proved that in his administration.

So Mr. Jefferson advocated a social welfare program outside of Federal service veterans?

[NotNow]

Generally, the British "poor laws" were copied.  Those that were disabled or unable to work were provided for through local means (sometimes State).  Those that were able bodied yet lacked employment were employed in "work houses".

I have shown you the document that states exactly what the Founding Fathers thought the Federal Government had a right to do.  They then clearly stated that all other powers were reserved to the States, or the people.

You have presented opinions from the small minority of revolutionaries that supported your point of view.  But there was no homogeneity amongst the revolutionaries, notnow.  Quite the contrary.  Madison believed in State Governments taking precedence over Federal administration.  But his was a minority viewpoint.  Jefferson, his contemporary certainly proved that in his administration.

Your characterization of "State Governments taking precedence over Federal administration" misstates both mine and Mr. Madison's opinions.  My argument is that the Federal government has LIMITED and ENUMERATED powers.  The States are restricted from certain activities as well.  But the Constitution is clear on those powers and where the authority lies for any other powers.  (The States and the people.)

[tufsu1]

holy hell people....does anyone remember what the thread was about....the last 5+ pages are way off topic!