tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post3558156516669331135..comments2024-01-01T15:35:12.954-07:00Comments on Simple Utah Mormon Politics: General Welfare Clause: The Constitution's Great LimitationFrank Stahelihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-19557502451459381092010-07-19T11:33:45.723-06:002010-07-19T11:33:45.723-06:00Your supposition that the Article 1, Section 8 mak...Your supposition that the Article 1, Section 8 makes a list of 17 areas where the Congress can lay and collect taxes is wrong. It would be correct if item 1 had a colon at the end thereby defining all items following as being linked to it.<br />It does not, it uses a semi-colon which means it is a separate thought and ends there. To truly understand what is meant in this section, use the phrase "The Congress Shall have the Power," before the "To" in each of the 17 items.<br />That is the Power Congress has, and it does possess the power to pass whatever revenue raising sources and laws that provide for the General Welfare of the populace which it serves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-78531420834297134892009-10-31T17:22:49.106-06:002009-10-31T17:22:49.106-06:00I'm not sure what I meant by that. I can only...I'm not sure what I meant by that. I can only suppose I misread the quote by Edward Walterscheid. Interestingly, it seems that I might have had it exactly backwards. If, as many people think, Hamilton did write the Federalist essay #83, then his about face was from one of strict construction to one of broad interpretation of the General Welfare. In the Federalist 83, it says<br /><br /><i>"A specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals... The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress, or, in other words, the national legislature, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.</i>Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-49336416826241423942009-10-30T23:46:41.672-06:002009-10-30T23:46:41.672-06:00What's your reference for your claim that Hami...What's your reference for your claim that Hamilton once thought the federal government had unlimited powers? The things I've read indicate he understood that the limitations are included in the phrase "general welfare".Price Familyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09725154948527374614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-69815381217044182592009-10-28T13:56:35.156-06:002009-10-28T13:56:35.156-06:00That's just one example of how Glenn says cert...That's just one example of how Glenn says certain things that are true and at the end of the day demonstrates and comes down on the side of the opposite view. The common denominator is extreme emotion. In other words, while he may say at times "The government is in bed with big business", he still glorifies most vehemently, the fruit of that arrangement, which puts him squarely on the side of big business (which, not coincidentally, sign his paycchecks). In other words, by jingoisitically trumpeting America as the greatest engine of wealth creation the world has ever seen, he is trumpeting the corruption that made our multinationals what they are. If he was truly out for the little guy his concept of America would be vastly different and not nearly as triumphal. The nature of the "little guy" is that he works hard for his family and probably distrusts the industrialists and their chess games and could care less about engines of wealth creation. In fact that kind of phony patriotism is a result of propaganda (like the Middleton Family at the New York Worlds Fair video I sent you). If Glenn actually thought about it and realized all that "the government is in bed with big business" means, he could no longer in good conscience participate in an agenda that simultaneously and overwhelmingly promotes the idea that the two are at odds. At that point he would have to align his content with the truth which is that regulation is necessary to keep the market free, consumerism - including sports and the whole media (including him) - are intended to dumb down, distract and divide so that the collusion can continue and our liberties continue to be whittled away. Of course at that point he'd be out of a job.Price Familyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09725154948527374614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-63937884090451922112009-10-28T12:44:18.022-06:002009-10-28T12:44:18.022-06:00"the false dichotomy of commerce=good, govern..."the false dichotomy of commerce=good, government=bad" is a generalization that requires a generalized answer. Glenn Beck does not promote this. If you don't listen to him very often, you should. If you haven't read his book "Common Sense" you should. You'd see that his main point (and for that matter, my main point--we're both Cleon Skousen disciples, you know ;-) )is that it's about liberty, not about "the one with the most toys wins". Big commerce has gotten a bad name for the most part because they have gotten a license from government (a license, mind you, that they would not have if we encforced strict construction of the General Welfare Clause) to stomp on the little guy. That is NOT adherence to free market principles. That is the result of BAD regulation.Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-40336837608239733362009-10-28T06:50:35.668-06:002009-10-28T06:50:35.668-06:00I refer to Glenn, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. and more...I refer to Glenn, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. and more importantly their uncivil disciples who are regular people because our peace ultimately rests with average people. I do believe the government's powers are very limited, but just not to all but one of the enumerated powers in the constitution. The greatest crime of our government is that it has been bought and sold by special interests that have by now successfully socially engineered our society which thing violates the general welfare clause of the constitution. The Glenn Becks out there are the PR wing of this continuing effort and they succeed by promoting the false dichotomy of commerce=good, government=bad so we will be blind to what they do together and continue to worship America's wealth creation abilities and the idea that, as Chomsky puts it, that "somehow private vices yield public benefits".Price Familyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09725154948527374614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-32155673659408116642009-10-27T21:05:36.041-06:002009-10-27T21:05:36.041-06:00I'll take, based on recent prior conversations...I'll take, based on recent prior conversations, that your reference to the "civility wears thin" is aimed at Glenn Beck.<br /><br />I agree with you that compromise for the greater good is best. But the way I see the greater good is the way most of the Founders saw it--that the federal government's powers were very limited. It's not hard to see, by skyrocketing social welfare costs and debts so burgeoning that they are incomprehensible, that the greater good is NOT for the Federal Government to solve every problem. In most cases, local governments can solve the problems much more effectively and much less costly than governments further distanced from the problem.Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-10723405134773359572009-10-27T14:07:14.280-06:002009-10-27T14:07:14.280-06:00Certainly we will remain friends, if I have anythi...Certainly we will remain friends, if I have anything to say about it. Having said that it is a lot more fun to be friends with someone who agrees with me on the rules of the debate rather than says I'm breaking all the rules of that debate. Within the scope set forth by the constitution it is perfectly valid to argue that things are done better on a smaller scale AND to argue that government can and must have the power (and yes even "grow") to protect our liberties from the powers that would take them from us. Debate is how good decisions are made, when the people debating are wise enough to know when to compromise for the greater good, as the founders were. Once one side or the other attempts to re-brand the debate rule book itself as supporting only their side, the well is poisoned, civility wears thin and our peace and union are threatened. This is at least part of why the constitution hangs by a thread.Price Familyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09725154948527374614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-35844367808093262372009-10-27T12:57:12.552-06:002009-10-27T12:57:12.552-06:00It doesn't matter which way the wedge goes, I ...It doesn't matter which way the wedge goes, I suppose, if you want to look at it as a wedge. A significant portion of the population will be seen as less American. I, for one, don't see someone such as yourself as any less American for disagreeing with me. I do hope, though, through debate and clarification, to get you to come around to my point. However, if that doesn't happen, I'll be fine, and we can still be fellow Americans, and--I hope--friends.<br /><br />I suppose the perspective that "the founders said" has been rendered fairly moot, because most Americans don't know enough about what they said to even give a crap. What I'm trying to show is that it has to matter what they said. From a spiritual (I'm entitled to it, so gimme, gimme, gimme) and from an economic perspective (deficits and debts do matter) we are headed straight for "hell" in a very speedy "hand basket". That's the inspiration that I see from the Founders--that they preponderantly realized that the federal government cannot do it all, because some things are much more efficiently done at the state and local levels, and, therefore the enumeration in the general welfare clause.Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-59762920285988973352009-10-27T12:31:13.814-06:002009-10-27T12:31:13.814-06:00I'm glad that the game has changed and now &qu...I'm glad that the game has changed and now "the constitution and the founders said so" has become "a majority of the founders said so". The mask is off now. The meaning of the constitution cannot be limited to a math equation. It's being inspired means that it is more than the sum of it's parts, particularly if some of those parts are being used as a wedge to render the other half of the population as less American, essentially treasonous, and thereby stifle debate.Price Familyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09725154948527374614noreply@blogger.com