|
DesideriScuri -> RE: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes..." Any questions? (4/6/2012 7:26:20 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The General Welfare clause was not intended to mean what liberals are claiming, so PPACA isn't a Constitutionally enumerated power of the Federal Government. And, since it's not an enumerated power (nor is it a necessary and proper extension of an enumerated power), the Feds can't lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.
And the 2nd Amendment was never intended to allow crazy lunatics free and uncontrollable access to muskets that could fire 30 musket balls in under 3.4 seconds and being reloaded with another 30 musket balls 8 seconds later. In fact, they never intended anyone to have access to a musket; only those that belonged to 'A well regulated militia...' whose purpose was "...to the security of a free state..."; not for some phony 'neighborhood watch' idiot wasting a teenager with a bag of skittles and a can of ice tea!
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html
quote:
With the historical context set above, a look at the current interpretations of the 2nd Amendment are appropriate.
These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias...
Both contemporary interpretations are correct, in a way. As illustrated in the first section, the amendment does appear to have been designed to protect the militias, and it was also designed to protect an individual's right to own and bear a gun. The question, then, is do we have to adhere to both tenets of the amendment today? If we decide to do away with the individual ownership aspect of the Amendment, reinterpreting the amendment to allow highly restricted gun ownership, we seem to open the door to radical reinterpretation of other, more basic parts of the Constitution. If we decide to do nothing, and allow unrestricted gun ownership, we run the risk of creating a society of the gun, a risk that seems too great to take. So the real question seems to be, can we have the a constitutional freedom to bear arms, and still allow restriction and regulation?
quote:
If conservatives are going to be 'liberal' with the viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment, Liberals can be 'liberal' with the ACA. One thing the founding father did understand is that as the country grew, so to should the constitution. As we better understood ourselves, the land beneath our feet, and what it meant to be a free nation....the constitution would grew with the nation. If we applied your view point that the constutution is unable to change and it is in fact, set in stone, then we have created 17 amendments that shouldnt be there. Why not go tell all the women they are now second class citizens and the blacks they are 3/5th of a white person.
Seeing how the US Constitution provided a way for it to be updated (you know, the Amendment Process?), changing the interpretation according to the current trend is dead ass wrong. The US Constitution didn't set the modification process based on the changing meanings of words. You want something in the Constitution that isn't currently there? Amend the Constitution. Thus sayeth the Founders. lol
quote:
The goverment back in the late 18th century was to be a limited goverment for two reasons: 1) They didnt like goverments in Europe lording over the peons without mercy and 2) The USA wasn't exactly sitting on any huge deposits of gold, silver or precious stones (aka, they were dirt poor). Compare that to the USA of 2012, and it has a budget worth $3.2 trillion dollars. More than any nation in Europe's budget. Bigger than....ANY....other nation on the planet! If the foundering fathers were alive today, would they wish to see fellow Americans suffer when there was an easy solution at hand? They were God fearing men (well, most of them) that believed fellow Americans should take care of one another as per the 'Good Book'. The founding fathers didn't believe in a standing army for the country, and yet, we have the world's most ass-kicking military for the last seventy years!
The USA was founded on principles so totally different from the prevailing governments at the time. Pretty much everywhere else, all individual rights emanated from the government. Kings could do as they please (As Mel Brooks put it, "It's good to be the King!") and individual peons had no rights unless the King granted them. Flip over to the US, and all rights exist within the Citizenry. Only from the Citizens and the States did the Federal Government get any authority. Any added powers the Federal Government assumes can only come from the Citizens or the States. Putting Government in charge of determining the extent of Government's reach is essentially creating similar styles of Government that were in Europe. You know, the ones they were trying to prevent?
quote:
There is no way the founding fathers could even forsee the future with perfect accuracy. Nor any of the obstacles we would face as a nation. However, they did state the US Constitution could be changed to keep up with said times. If most Americans feel 'Provide for the General Welfare' means 'Take care of Americans with good health coverage', so be it.
General Welfare of the United States, as the clause truly is, does not mean taking care of each and every individual according to each individuals' needs. The General Welfare of the United Staes
quote:
I'm curious DS. Which side of the health care 'fence' are you on?
A) The side that says we should have the best laws and rules to govern good health care for all Americans.
B) Allow only 'for profit' organizations to 'tax' the ill or eldarly and laugh all the way to the bank regardless of people's misery.
I wonder what the founding fathers would say.
Sorry, I'm not going to play that bullshit game. Those are not the only two options available. I know it. You know it.
|
|
|
|
