Whip Comes Down
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,563
- Reaction score
- 138
- Location
- In the land of steers and queers
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
If the enumerated powers where intended as a limitation, they wouldn't have granted broad authority over the general welfare, bro.Goober said:If your interpretation of the clause is correct, then there would be no need for any of the other clauses found in the article, save the last.
It is only a cheap cop-out if you arent concerned about the government violating the constitution so it can do something that you thing is a 'good idea', and it is -completely- true.
What qualifies you to fairly and objectively determine what the Constitution means?All this means is that Congress was not given the power to create them, and that their creation was extra-constitutional.
Please -do- try to pay attention.If the enumerated powers where intended as a limitation, they wouldn't have granted broad authority over the general welfare, bro.
The power to raise and support armies, and the power to tax in order to raise rvenue to do so, necessitates that there be a certain amount of spendining on the common defense, should those armies be raised and revenues collected to that end.Military Keynesianism was not mentioned in the constitution...
Why don't you start a petition demanding that Congress put the Air Force back into the army. Be sure to include a threat to sue if they don't adopt your view of the Constitution. Keep us informed of your progress.Goober said:The USAF was originally part of the army, and was reorganized into its own service in 1947. I have argued that it should be re-absorbed back into the army.
The power to raise and support armies, and the power to tax in order to raise rvenue to do so, necessitates that there be a certain amount of spendining on the common defense, should those armies be raised and revenues collected to that end.
This is a charaterization of the function I described, and nothng more.And you have just described a national defense. The US does not provide a national defense, instead we have a military industrial complex derived from the basis of Keynesian economics.
This is a charaterization of the function I described, and nothng more.
The function itself is clearly there.
So you agree that the constitution does allow the federal government to spend money in the private sector to raise and support armies as per its mandate to provide for the common defense -- something you describe as 'military Keynesianism".Nobody was attempting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Nobody claimed the absence of the "function".
So you agree that the constitution does allow the federal government to spend money in the private sector to raise and support armies as per its mandate to provide for the common defense -- something you describe as 'military Keynesianism".
Thank you.
No, I didn't miss anything.Of course the constitution allows this, although you have missed the point.
It is, as you have agreed that said term is your characterization of a function that you agree -is- mentioned in the constitution.Military Keynesianism was not mentioned in the constitution...
No, I didn't miss anything.
You said:
It is, as you have agreed that said term is your characterization of a function that you agree -is- mentioned in the constitution.
However you want to describe your characterization, the fact is the function is there, stated in specific clauses relevant to same, a point to which you have agreed.Not my characterization, only a simple analysis of reality. Simple national defense ceases to exist when used by government to manage the economy.
However you want to describe your characterization, the fact is the function is there, stated in specific clauses relevant to same, a point to which you have agreed.
I accept your concession of the point.So if single payer government mandated health care resembles the general welfare clause, you would be in support?
I accept your concession of the point.
Moving on:
What "general welfare" clause?
That's OK -- you think that. It was silly of me to think you might be actually trying to have an honest conversation. MY bad, and I apoligize.You've made a point? Silly me. I assumed you were disengaging in the discussion....
That's OK -- you think that. It was silly of me to think you might be actually trying to have an honest conversation. MY bad, and I apoligize.
Sorry -- not feeding the trolls.Care to provide a source of my dishonesty?
Sorry -- not feeding the trolls.
It's also an outright lie on your part, as I have done no such thing.Making empty claims and then running away when someone calls you on them is unbecoming...
It's also an outright lie on your part, as I have done no such thing.
You AGREE the function that you characterize as "Military Keynesianism" is directly specified in the Constitution under the clauses I mentioned. Not sure what else needs to be said, and why you think you still have a relevant point.
Ah! I see your problem! You don't understand the argument.Military Keynesianism in regards to US military policy developed in the early 80's...
And yet; the conservative political watchdogs took the bait. Which is why you argue against (with little success) health care reform.
You made a comment in regards to the General Welfare Clause. If we are to bastardize it in the fashion you bastardize national defense, why are you against a single payer system again?
Ah! I see your problem! You don't understand the argument.
Now, genuinely or willfully I cannot say, but I have my suspicions...
Apples and oranges.
As you have agreed, "Military Keynesianism" has its basis in powers directly specified by the Constitution, whereas a federal-government-as-the-single-payer system does not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?