AliHajiSheik
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2012
- Messages
- 12,550
- Reaction score
- 4,369
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Your point being, what? That you think Congress will decide one day it should impose mandatory education on everyone until they have a Ph.D.?
It's not up to the "Federal Government" - aka Congress - to decide that. The USSC has the final say and has ruled many laws unconstitutional.
Your point being, what? That you think Congress will decide one day it should impose mandatory education on everyone until they have a Ph.D.?
It's not up to the "Federal Government" - aka Congress - to decide that. The USSC has the final say and has ruled many laws unconstitutional.
Which is part of the necessary curriculum. Unfortunately, today we're only teaching kids how to feel good about themselves, not how to think critically.
Your point being, what? That you think Congress will decide one day it should impose mandatory education on everyone until they have a Ph.D.?
It's not up to the "Federal Government" - aka Congress - to decide that. The USSC has the final say and has ruled many laws unconstitutional.
You of all people using an implication to interpret the Constitution?!? Now THAT'S funny! :lamo
Well, there's the rub, isn't it? What you might call "general welfare" I would call control of the economy. As many of your modern day peers believe, we don't need a national money supply or any of the other stuff associated with it. In fact, didn't we manage without national money, except on a very limited basis, for a good part of the first century? I could be wrong, I've never read about the history of money in America, but I know there were a lot of different private notes running around in the 1800's.
If you do not like being pointed out for your strawmen - then quit using them.
I support limited government. You claim you do also. What is the problem? :doh
I mentioned non-adults because the current system takes no position on mandated adult education, only primary and secondary education. I made that plain enough five posts ago.*sigh*, the point being that the Federal government is more than just Congress and even Executive Branch departments are given wide latitude by most laws to interpret laws as they see fit. This is probably where move abuse is created than just the passing of laws. You specifically mentioned non-adults in an earlier post. You made the decision to restrict your point to that group and I was challenging why it would only apply to non-adults.
More law is implemented by the Executive branch than most people realize. If the Federal Government wants to justify anything as being governed by the general welfare clause, no one, not even the SC is likely to stop them. Funny how even Obamacare was not justified by the General welfare clause.
Then you violate your own contract, the US Constitution.The USSC is the federal government. That's why the federal government can't validate its own laws as constitutional and be the final arbiter of that decision. The states (the owners of the federal government) are the ultimate decision makers of what is and isn't constitutional.
The USSC is the federal government. That's why the federal government can't validate its own laws as constitutional and be the final arbiter of that decision. The states (the owners of the federal government) are the ultimate decision makers of what is and isn't constitutional.
Then you violate your own contract, the US Constitution.
There's a reason a Supreme Court justice can't be easily removed from office once appointed.
However, the states certainly have the right to change that law, so, yes, the do indeed have the final say. All it takes is an Amendment to the Constitution.
I'm sure there's a little of all those things. What matters is the law itself - first and foremost - and, in far second place, the vote of the people.That is correct. the balance of powers is still working to a degree. Still, there are few in Congress who take the tenth amendment seriously, and a lot more who think that the general welfare clause covers everything.
Or, maybe they just think that the constitution is something to be circumvented in a never ceasing search for more power.
And they do that by not enforcing them. It's been done in the past, it'll be done in the future. We've already been through this. :shrug:Much like a soldier having a duty to defy unlawful orders, states have a duty to defy unconstitutional laws...
A lot of money was issued in the 1800's that did not have "US Treasury" printed on it.I'm not sure what you're getting at actually. I'm not following your point about private notes.
A lot of money was issued in the 1800's that did not have "US Treasury" printed on it.
Actually, that opinion is a couple of decades out of date. We do, in fact, teach critical thinking skills. At one time "self esteem" was the number one priority, but no longer.
Your opinion is irrelevant next to the actual language of the US Constitution which clearly says that Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare.
No, now they're just teaching kids how to past tests *AND* how to feel good about themselves.
There is a huge incentive for teaching kids how to pass tests, that's true, and will be as long as the stupid bureaucrats insist on using a standardized test as the sole method to evaluate schools and teachers.
Check out the state standards for your state, however, and see if it doesn't include a lot of critical thinking.
:lol: anyone else find it entertaining that Haymarket thinks that his preferred interpretation is the what the Constitution "clearly says", while the people who wrote the Constitution are just dismissable opinions?
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.
While Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, historians argue that his view of the General Welfare Clause was repudiated in the election of 1800, and helped establish the primacy of the Democratic-Republican Party for the subsequent 24 years
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?