bbc.co.uk— Growing inequality, environmental decline and "teetering" economies mean the world must change the way it does business, a major UN report says.
Jan 30, 2012View in Crawl 4
“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison, Letter to James Robertson April 20, 1831
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” – James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792
Damn preamble to the Constitution...fooled me again. You're right, the Founding Fathers despised the 'general welfare'. One of the goals of the Constitution my ass!
Phew...thanks theunlearn ;)
Oh, BTW, you are on a different page from what I was saying. You are wanting to prove a different point than what I meant. If you don't know what's going on in a conversation, you should learn to listen before you talk.
You really think the founding fathers revolted over taxes and the "big government" of the time, Great Britain" and created a system of negative governmental rights and would favor carbon taxing?
I've read many quotes from the founding fathers on these issues and healthcare. My conclusion is that what we have now was not their intent, its been decades of progressive revisionism that have led us to this point.
I do agree that we do not have what their intent was.
You will have to explain this further however:
"You really think the founding fathers revolted over taxes and the "big government" of the time, Great Britain" and created a system of negative governmental rights and would favor carbon taxing?"
I'm just curious what you were saying here. Your sentence is confusing.
". According to this view, positive rights permit or oblige action, whereas negative rights permit or oblige inaction."
-wikipedia
The constitution is a document of negative rights, basically its intent is to say what the government can't do to you or against you. To take snippets like the general welfare clause or the interstate commerce clause and use it as a justification to do whatever the hell you please with government is such a bastardization of the document you might as well just say "yeah f**k it we never liked it in the first place"
Firstly, I know what positive and negative rights are. Your sentence just didn't make sense the way it was written.
Secondly:
"To take snippets like the general welfare clause or the interstate commerce clause and use it as a justification to do whatever the hell you please with government is such a bastardization of the document you might as well just say "yeah f**k it we never liked it in the first place"
When did I ever say this or anything like it? Like the unlearn, you are trying to get a point across that was never even brought up. I'm lost how simply stating the phrase 'general welfare', or that promoting it was a goal of the Constitution (as mentioned in the preamble) created all these sideline debates.
More claims that the sky is falling from the UN. The world hasn't changed much. Yet anyway. When the EU finally collapses THEN we will see lots of changes. As for the environment... proof please? I wish these asshats could be forced to back up their claims with hard scientific facts.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
And no doubt they'll give China a free pass on their unsustainable development and growth, while asking the rest of the world to take a few steps backwards.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The only instances of successfully getting those types of policies in the US is by misrepresenting them, a tactic the left is quite good at. You might want to take a cue and try and do what most dems do ...lie and say it "creates jobs"
Would you like to pay more for gas, groceries, goods and services and have that money sent to the third world so they can pay less for those goods and services in the name of carbon?
As long as we insist on CHARGING our brothers & sisters for the labour we provide... we will probably continue to see inequality on this planet?
Also: whether speaking of the left hand or the right hand (democrats & conservatives), both operate under a socialist system. As long as there is FORCED TAXATION... there exists a system of socialism. Yes?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
austrologiJan 30, 2012
oh this is more of the same eco-socialist bulls**t.
bigbert81Jan 30, 2012
'eco-socialist bulls**t'?...Really?
All these right-wingers throwing around the word 'socialism' like breathing air make me think...it's McCarthyism all over again.
Question for you, austologi:
Did you know that the founding fathers were FOR the general welfare of the public? Now maybe, you can start calling THEM socialists too.
theunlearnJan 30, 2012
“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison, Letter to James Robertson April 20, 1831
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” – James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792
Did you know you're full of s**t?
sardonicJan 30, 2012
I think your only representing your half of the bulls**t argument. What did Alexander Hamilton have to say on the matter?
bigbert81Jan 30, 2012
Damn preamble to the Constitution...fooled me again. You're right, the Founding Fathers despised the 'general welfare'. One of the goals of the Constitution my ass!
Phew...thanks theunlearn ;)
Oh, BTW, you are on a different page from what I was saying. You are wanting to prove a different point than what I meant. If you don't know what's going on in a conversation, you should learn to listen before you talk.
austrologiJan 30, 2012
You really think the founding fathers revolted over taxes and the "big government" of the time, Great Britain" and created a system of negative governmental rights and would favor carbon taxing?
I've read many quotes from the founding fathers on these issues and healthcare. My conclusion is that what we have now was not their intent, its been decades of progressive revisionism that have led us to this point.
bigbert81Jan 30, 2012
I do agree that we do not have what their intent was.
You will have to explain this further however:
"You really think the founding fathers revolted over taxes and the "big government" of the time, Great Britain" and created a system of negative governmental rights and would favor carbon taxing?"
I'm just curious what you were saying here. Your sentence is confusing.
austrologiJan 31, 2012
". According to this view, positive rights permit or oblige action, whereas negative rights permit or oblige inaction."
-wikipedia
The constitution is a document of negative rights, basically its intent is to say what the government can't do to you or against you. To take snippets like the general welfare clause or the interstate commerce clause and use it as a justification to do whatever the hell you please with government is such a bastardization of the document you might as well just say "yeah f**k it we never liked it in the first place"
bigbert81Jan 31, 2012
Firstly, I know what positive and negative rights are. Your sentence just didn't make sense the way it was written.
Secondly:
"To take snippets like the general welfare clause or the interstate commerce clause and use it as a justification to do whatever the hell you please with government is such a bastardization of the document you might as well just say "yeah f**k it we never liked it in the first place"
When did I ever say this or anything like it? Like the unlearn, you are trying to get a point across that was never even brought up. I'm lost how simply stating the phrase 'general welfare', or that promoting it was a goal of the Constitution (as mentioned in the preamble) created all these sideline debates.
norman619Jan 30, 2012
More claims that the sky is falling from the UN. The world hasn't changed much. Yet anyway. When the EU finally collapses THEN we will see lots of changes. As for the environment... proof please? I wish these asshats could be forced to back up their claims with hard scientific facts.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
agmlauncherJan 30, 2012
And no doubt they'll give China a free pass on their unsustainable development and growth, while asking the rest of the world to take a few steps backwards.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kelleyrainerJan 30, 2012
Conservatives throw that word Eco-socialism around as a slur. I happily will pick up that title and wear it as a badge of pride.
austrologiJan 30, 2012
The only instances of successfully getting those types of policies in the US is by misrepresenting them, a tactic the left is quite good at. You might want to take a cue and try and do what most dems do ...lie and say it "creates jobs"
bigbert81Jan 30, 2012
WTF?!?
Oh...I get it. It's opposite day! Or I mean it's NOT opposite day ;)
Let me try...Rush Limbaugh is BRILLIANT, and the GOP uses nothing but FACTS.
Yay!!! That was fun!
austrologiJan 31, 2012
Put this to a vote...
Would you like to pay more for gas, groceries, goods and services and have that money sent to the third world so they can pay less for those goods and services in the name of carbon?
it won't pass.
bigbert81Jan 31, 2012
Firstly, yes, I LOVE to pay more on things. Sometimes I even light my cigars with $100 bills.
Secondly, this is a gross oversimplification you've laid out.
austrologiJan 31, 2012
I know its a simplification, these policies do tend to get layered as to hide their true goals
PanjeeJan 30, 2012
As long as we insist on CHARGING our brothers & sisters for the labour we provide... we will probably continue to see inequality on this planet?
Also: whether speaking of the left hand or the right hand (democrats & conservatives), both operate under a socialist system. As long as there is FORCED TAXATION... there exists a system of socialism. Yes?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.