RK1

By all accounts, and I agree, the Bushes are a loving and supportive family.

Same could be said of the Kennedys. And by all accounts the Reagans were a somewhat dysfunctional family, RR being a somewhat reserved, distant and emotionally uninvolved father.

If the Lord was asking me which family I'd prefer to be born into, I'd take all that into consideration.

If, however, He was asking me who I'd rather have as President of the USA, I'd tell him I'd trade a large truckload of Bushes and several large truckloads of Kennedys for one Ronald Reagan.

VTRsurfer

I agree that the Kennedy's are a loving family....but perhaps too loving
There's Chapaquidick (Ted Kennedy will rot in hell), JFK and RFK boning Marilyn Monroe (not to mention the mystery surrounding her death), various nephews doing rape and drugs....yeah, a fine upstanding American family.

Moto Man

Yeah I figured Obamma as more of Miller MGD64 guy than a Bud light guy.

Hell yes! The Stone brewry is the best brewry on the planet as far as I am concerned. Arrogant Bastard is great, but so is the Smoked Porter, and the Imperial Stout that's over 10% strong! All good stuff.

LineArrayNut

lol

VTRsurfer

Today Obama told anyone with a dissenting view (Mob) to stop speaking out against National Health Care at Town Hall Meetings. Because after all (in his own words) "I am the President", and we need to get this bill through.

So, if you don't want socialized, government run health care just shut the F#@* up.

Well here in America we still (for now anyway) have 1st Amendment rights to free speech, so I say to Obama...

VTRsurfer

Obama's overall approval rating as of today is 47%....I'm just saying.

Randman

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...=f:h3200ih.pdf

nuhawk

This stupid fuckstick wants to run the country like it's a classroom at the university that he used to lecture to. You catch the photo of the finger in the air and the forward posture?

I don't need to be lectured to about what is wrong with this country or how to fix it.

The commercial currently running on TV with divorce court being run by loggers will give you a clue as to how I would run government.

Their payment for their disservice to the country would be serve out the rest of their days on my rock pile for their daily bread. Not me bustin' *** and rock everyday to pay their taxes.

Government would be inverted returning power to local and state goverments. The Federal Government would be disbanded and imprisoned for their deception and mismanagement of the public's funds.

Local mayors would run their cities and up for election every four years by popular vote. Two term limit applies. County representatives would report to the govenor's office and Governors would determine the direction of the country by a direct one state - one vote. New York and Washington are done running the show.

All current military installations could continue at currrent funding levels with the newfound funds from not paying zillions for morons running the show.

These installations would become state entities, under the governors control. Communications channels would tranfer to state control as well. If you look around - most of it is anyway - so keep up the good work.

Damn! You guys get me fired up! WE THE PEOPLE > > >

CentralCoaster

I don't think a state-run military is a good idea. I'd keep some semblance of a federal government at least for that. Pretty much all the other things involving foreign relations is unnecessary. Our foreign trade policy makers would have a small office in Tucson with 3 employees and mini-fridge and their job would be to tariff the hell out of imports.

nuhawk

There's no doubt in what you say. "Some semblance" is the idea. Obviously some dirt worker and rock buster from Central Texas can't envision the whole package but you get my drift.

If we set standards at the state level why do we need the feds to "over-layer" and "over-sight" our efforts? Redundancy in government is what is killing us financially. And despite the over-layering of authority - the job is not being done.

What I am suggesting is a state controlled federal entity (clearinghouse) that delivers the majority state's opinion/rules/military etc. The current feds can go home or go to prison. Or best option - leave the country and see how they are treated in the rest of the world.

We have to elinimate the efforts of federal government to police a peaceful society. That effort is already afoot on our local streets. We don't need the feds to tell how to do it better. We are here - they are in Washington.

Like I said in another thread. You want to squeeze Washington and make them hear your voice? Walk into your Human Services office and change your withholding status to 99 dependants. Keep track of the money and deposit those funds into an account so you can make QUARTERLY payments - not weekly. Totally legal - nobody can stop you.

Suddenly, when the feds don't have their weekly "allowance" like you give your kid things start to melt down.

By the third month when your quarterly installment is due these guys are on thin threads. REAL thin threads. The ONLY thing they will understand is taking the money away from their machine.

Of the people, by the people, for the people. Not the ******* that sit at home at 325 pounds and claim disability and those that cost us millions to dole it out to them. This whole thing will cure itself in less than six months.

It takes some ***** but our country needs you now more than ever. The local town halls prove that the people have the power. Now we need to show them their knees.

RK1

Exactly. That is what the Founding Fathers envisioned and is what the Constitution demands.

Article One, Section Eight describes and enumerates the powers of Congress and the FedGov.

Maintain the federal military, secure the borders, enforce immigration and naturalization law. Coin gold and silver money. Catch pirates on the high seas. That's about it.

Everything else was up to the states.

Almost everything the FedGov does is unconstitutional and illegal.

RK1

NO TREATS FROM OBAMA!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XivhwO_zWWg

This dog is smarter than better than half of the US population.

nuhawk

That's kinda my point - there are no treats from the feds only enslavement. The dog is smarter than your average welfare recipient.

RK1

No ****. He's smarter than the average college professor too.

nuhawk

especially the one in the White House.

CentralCoaster

Dave in NY

Article 1, Section 8 reads:

"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;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

(http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8)

First, there's nothing there about "gold and silver" coin, only the coining of money. Second, it says nothing about "securing the borders", the closest phrase would be 'repel an invasion', which implies a military operation, not an immigration issue.

It's dishonest to only pick and choose the words that support one's argument - especially, as in this case, the same source quoted is contradicting the point being made.

Be clear about the facts is all I'm saying...Of course, I'm from New York; I guess that automatically makes me a treehugging hippie liberal, who weighs 325 pounds and is collecting welfare LOL....

RK1

Yeah, it doesn't specifically say gold and silver, but in 1789, money was gold and silver. I suppose you could have pressed coins out of saw dust or oatmeal, but no one would have recognized them as money.

Immigration law is covered by the "uniform Rule of Naturalization". And "calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union" would cover enforcement too. Are you suggesting the Constitution doesn't authorize Congress to pass and enforce immigration law?

The point I was making, and I think you might have missed it;

The Constitutional powers of the federal government are limited to those actually enumerated.

That rules out things like "gun control", national health care, welfare, food stamps, Section 8 housing etc.

The Tenth Amendment;

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Most of the power now exercised by the federal government is an usurpation of power reserved to the states and people.


PS The post of mine you latched onto wasn't intended to be an all inclusive treatise on Article One Section Eight, just a shorthand expression of the fact that the federal government has assumed a great deal of power not authorized by the Constitution.

Redone

The Founding Fathers set up a "Supreme Court" to decide those issues, and it does so routinely. Note that, while they were suspicious of government, they were even more worried about mob rule.

Dave in NY

Re: your PS: let me read your quote back to you.

"Maintain the federal military, secure the borders, enforce immigration and naturalization law. Coin gold and silver money. Catch pirates on the high seas. That's about it."

'That's about it' comes nowhere near describing the rest of what's outlined in this Article - "regulating commerce" alone could be the topic of a whole new thread (and could easily include gun control). The health care industry too could fall under the umbrella of commerce.

As far as things like welfare, food stamps etc... I'd say that might be considered part of the phrase "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" IMO, "General Welfare" is a hell of a broad statement, and allows a lot of leeway as to what it includes (which is why there are scholars that specialize in Constitutional Law).

My point was that there's a lot of latitude in the Article you cited if you really read it. Plus that's just one Article, and there are lots of Amendments other than the 10th.

CentralCoaster

Here's Dr. Paul and a former IRS employee on the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZl6202HJGQ

RK1

Like I said, the "that's about it" quote (not wanting post and explain the entire Constitution) was shorthand for the FedGov doing many things not authorized.

Re; Commerce clause; Did you miss "among the states"? That means "between" the states, not "within each state".

In the period between the Articles of Confederation and ratification of the Constitution, some states did things like impose tariffs on goods and produce "imported" from other states.

Commerce clause was intended to prevent that.

"Regulate" in 18th century language had nothing whatever to do with Washington, DC dictating the type of light bulb you may screw into your porch light, or the cubic centimeters of water permissible for your per flush toilet tank.

"Regulate" meant to insure smooth running, without interference or impediment. As in a "well regulated" timepiece.

"Gun control". Are you kidding? If you asked the men who wrote and ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they'd tell you the "commerce clause" simply forbade one state from imposing tariffs or other restrictions on guns imported from another state!

Even if you (wrongly) believe that the Constitution allows a state, say NY, to forbid its residents from owning machine guns, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution which empowers the FedGov to forbid a machine gun manufacturer in Montana from selling machine guns to Montana residents. Since it isn't "among the states", its none of Wasnington's business.

Re; "General Welfare"

I don't have the quotes in front of me but the Founders were very clear about this.

General welfare addresses things which benefit everyone. Like post offices and post roads. Like the military.

Taking money from me and giving it in welfare, food stamps etc. to someone who spends their days watching TV, eating Cheese Doodles and drinking malt liquor doesn't qualify as "general welfare" because it doesn't benefit anyone but the recipient.

RK1

Sure, but that doesn't mean they get it right. The Supreme Court decided Dread Scott was a piece of property to be returned to its owner, decided separate but "equal" was Constitutional, approved of Franklin Roosevelt arresting and imprisoning 110,000 American citizens whose only "crime" was being of Japanese ethnicity.

And the "mob rule" the Founders feared was not 50 angry guys with clubs and pitchforks. It was a government of "democracy" (as opposed to small "r" republicanism). "Democracy" being a word not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution or Bill of Rights.

CentralCoaster

I believe the original intent was to have the Federal government fill in the gaps that could not be governed by the states.

At the rate we're going we might as well abolish the state governments, would make Obama's job a helluva lot smoother.

Dave in NY

Okay, taking the last first: "General Welfare" does not refer to Welfare programs. They didn't have those back in the 18th century; this is a misconception like the "Welfare State". Lots of people have trouble grasping the fact that "Welfare State" means that the state's first priority is the well being of it's inhabitants (that includes their mutual defense, a sound and fair economic policy and so on), it has nothing to do with the programs we call today "welfare". As you said the sentence before these are programs that benefit everyone - I would call FDIC insurance on your bank account an example. Unemployment insurance is another. And yes, they extend to (but are not exclusive) to programs like the food stamp and Section 8 housing plans. Believe it or not, there are people who do deserve these programs - I know someone with pretty severe mental illness who would be living on the street now without them (and you should really consider yourself lucky you don't have to rely on these yourself; she's certainly not living the good life). Yes, there are people who abuse these programs, but there are people who abuse Worker's Comp. too, and people that will sue their neighbor at the drop of a hat for nonsense. However, I don't know the abusers are the majority of enrollees in these programs.

Post offices and post roads, and militia, are spelled out clearly in other portions of this Article, that's why I think the phrase "General Welfare" can only be intended to include things other than the postal service and military.

We're looking at gun control from two different angles I think. Your example of a Montana manufacturer selling to local residents is valid, but my point was more along the lines of not allowing Montana Machine Guns, Inc. to sell their product to felons (for example), who might be of a mind to commit a crime with them - keeping weapons out of the easy reach of criminals falls under "general welfare" and "commerce" in my view.

Regulate: Dictionary.com has 4 definitions, your opinion is that of the third one below, where I see it as being more like #1:

1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

As far as the commerce clause, here's the wikipedia entry for simplification- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause and here again I think your interpretation is way too simplified - refer to "Interstate Commerce Act in 1887 and the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890" - these are obviously far past the "period between the Articles of Confederation and ratification of the Constitution".

The Wiki article does go on to say that this is a contentious point as to where Federal powers should end, but that doesn't mean that this somehow invalidates the entire federal government. (The tone of your posts makes it sound like you're about ready to secede....)

RK1

Dave;

I didn't say "general welfare" was limited to post office and military, includes similar things, those which benefit the general population.

As far as people who "deserve" welfare assistance? That's fine for state government (none of the FedGov's biz), and a role for the church, synagogue, charity and individual. There is no authorization for it in the U.S. Constitution.


Gun control again? It's one thing to tell Montana Machine Guns Inc. that they can't sell mail order to somebody in Brooklyn, or they can't sell to felons.

It's another thing to forbid them (as currently is federal law) to manufacture or sell to anyone other than U.S. military and police agencies.

What Wiki says "regulate" means in 2009 doesn't concern me. What it meant 220 years ago to the guys who used the word in the Constitution is all that matters. The goal is to understand and honor the intent of the framers, not play games with words.

Dave in NY

So now you're saying you know what the intent of Jefferson, Franklin, et. al. was. You were around back then? All we have are the documents they left behind. I've been including them verbatim as I've found them in the interest of fairness.

I'm not harping on the gun control, it's merely an example of an issue which does affect the general welfare of the population, and can be an interstate commerce issue. Personally I don't agree that you need an assault rifle to go deer hunting, unless you're a truly pathetic excuse for a hunter, and if you have fantasies about rising up against the federal gummint with them, I suspect they would be of limited use against say, an M1 tank. But hey, whatever floats your boat...

The definition of 'regulate' came from the dictionary. Look it up if you don't believe me. Again, unless you're Methuselah you can't say you know any more than anyone else what the intent of that single word was. All I've been trying to say is that I think you're presenting a very narrow interpretation of the document that you cited.

CentralCoaster

I agree, you don't need an assault rifle for hunting.

Do you need a '99 stealthy black Superhawk with K&N/Dynojet, Yosh slipons, smoke double bubble, CF rear hugger, comp. werkes fender eliminator w/led signals, TRex frame sliders, Ohlins shock and RaceTech fork springs, to get to work? A moped would do you just fine. A sport bike that can do 160+ mph and pull wheelies was clearly designed for putting people's lives in danger. So the federal government should regulate it's HP to protect the general welfare of our country.

RK1

I've read enough of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, Tench Coxe etc. that yeah, I think I have a really good idea of what they intended.

I know your definitions of "regulate" come from the dictionary, I believe you.

What matters is what they meant 220 years ago. What else could matter?

Look up 'gay" in a dictionary from 1899 vs. a modern dictionary. Get it?

If there is no legitimate "need" for "assault rifles", why does every police dept. in the U.S. (including yours) have a pile of them? Are the New Paltz and Poughkeepsie PD expecting an invasion by the North Koreans? (New Paltz would probably like that!, but that's beside the point!)

I don't think anyone "needs" a 160 H.P. sport bike, but If you want one, it's OK by me.

And I mean the following in a friendly, respectful, one American to another way;

Unless and until I personally am actually harming you/infringing upon your rights, what I "need" is for me to decide and for you to mind your own business about.

Dave in NY

No, the VTR is for fun on the weekends, I commute more on the Nighthawk...both of which are highly unlikely to kill large amounts of people in the hands of a lunatic. Further, they both use less fuel than the average car, making either one a cost-effective means of getting to work. In fact, you could make the argument that commuting to work on a motorcycle is less hazardous to other commuters, and in fact safer for the people around me as any bike is going to do less damage than a typical car, if involved in an accident. And motor vehicles are regulated, in that you need to be licensed to operate one, a license that can be revoked.