🚀 go-pugleaf

Dave Simpson (nospam@newsranger.com) wrote:
: 
: Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
: 
: >: It also fits their moral laxity instead to bend and twist and distort
: >: the meaning of the law, to use specious argument such as basing
: >: their claims on the Preamble to the Constitution or to say that the
: >
: >Whoa!  Not the preamble -- article I, section 8 -- "provide for the
: >general welfare."  Perhaps it's you who are ignorant of the constitution.
: 
: There you go again with your errors.  The "general welfare" clause
: is a qualification of the power to tax, which is the power granted to
: the federal government in Article 1, Section 8.  Those who wrote the

And the power to spend.  So we have social security, Medicare, Medicaid,
education spending, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, etc.

: Constitution knew it, and even made it plain for all in the Federalist
: Papers -- it is no general grant of power.  Those who claim it is such
: a grant are ignorant or liars and they flunk Constitutionality 101; the
: "general welfare" clause and the "commerce clause" obviously can't
: be misused as you believe they can.  That's among the easiest of
: bogus claims to annihilate.
: 
: Federalist #41 (Madison) lays it bare. 

He didn't specify in the constitution, though, and that's where it counts.

:  He'd be reviled to see not
: only what's been misconstrued and distorted, but that the level of
: knowledge in the USA is so poor there are fools who still try to fool
: their betters about the meaning of that clause.
: 
: http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_41.html
: 
: If you don't like it, too bad.  Grow up.  Rather than be crooked and
: dishonorable and embarrassing and immature and demanding that
: a court twist the meaning to suit what you want in today's society,
: do as your betters insist and have wanted all along, and CHANGE
: THE LAW -- AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.  That's what grown-ups
: require.

Grown ups know what the courts rule, and don't whine and moan that all the
courts are wrong, that only I know what the constitution means; they don't
insist on an 18th century world view controlling us today.

: 
: >: (The Supreme Court decision inventing the requirement for _both_
: >: houses of state legislatures to be based on one-person, one-vote
: >: representation was illegitimate, and how ironic that the Senate
: >: remains the way it is.)
: 
: >Because that's in the constitution.  No such exemption for state
: >legislatures is in it.
: 
: It will be very entertaining for you to quote for us exactly where
: it says such in the Constitution.  (The older state senates and our

"Equal protection" means my vote in Union county must count as much as
yours in Fulton county, and vice-versa.

: U.S. Senate are part of a republican form of government, and if
: there's no restriction on the states, they may do as they please.)
: 
: And you dare accuse others of ignorance!

You seem to have pulled a Rip Van Winkle, going to sleep in 1800 and just
waking up this month.

: 
: 
: Dave Simpson
: 
: