posted
Kat: I've said that about a brazilian times. Keep police/fire, army, roads, courts/jails and get rid of *all* social programs. I'd axe the libraries too, just so you know, even though Librarians seem to be good people (or so I thought before your evidence to the contrary.) I would limit the power of elected officials to a strict interpretation of the constitution.
I realize you violently disagree with me and that you have a history of venom, but I have to take off in 15 minutes for my appointment so you'll likely get the last word here.
posted
How librarians do you know? Or do you base this on liking books and assuming that everyone who is like you (likes books) are good people while everyone who is not like you is clearly bad?
That still doesn't solve the problem of Congress, though, who, according to you, is filled with rotting pustules of dank corruption and are worthy of nothing but scorn. What would you do about that?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would limit the power of elected officials to a strict interpretation of the constitution.
A strict interpretation of the constitution allows for federal spending on libraries and social programs.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I dated a librarian. She was pretty and sweet and smart, and best of all, quick witted. She could always make me laugh. Things didn't work out, unfortunately, but I still hold her in high regard.
The reason I would close the public libraries is because I don't hold it as an ethical use of public funds. It doesn't protect us from anything. If someone wanted to build a library and privately fund it for the good of the public, I'd applaud that person.
The problems with presidency and the congress are unsolvable so long as people hold their hands out for more free goodies and/or demand that everyone follow their religion whether they believe or not.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So your complaint is that everything is so hopelessly corrupted that nothing can be done so you would do nothing?
While I find that incredibly nihilistic and simple, it does contain its own solution, which is you not participating in the process, so that works out.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: Are you referring to the "General Welfare" clause or is there a specific reference to libraries and social programs or something else I missed? (I admit, it's been a while since I gave the constitution a thorough and complete reading.)
Kath: I don't think you know what "Nihilistic" means. I am by no means a Nihilist. I participate in the process by voting for the least evil of the evils provided. If I were in the middle of the ocean in a sinking boat, I'd still bail.
Rabbit: Are you sure you're not confusing me with Lisa? I'm torn on the topic of Public Schools. On the one hand, they're hopelessly corrupt and not part of the "force and fraud protection" mandate of the government. On the other hand I shudder to think just how stupid the general populous would be with out it. (Believe it or not, they COULD be stupider.)
Jon Boy: Roads are part of the national defense. Further they allow speedy responses for fire and police. The roads are a necessary part of protecting us.
Spang: There is no where left to Flee.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixiest: perhaps not all those who wish to do good view gov't as an illegitimate avenue to doing good.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag: Are you referring to the "General Welfare" clause or is there a specific reference to libraries and social programs or something else I missed? (I admit, it's been a while since I gave the constitution a thorough and complete reading.)
The General Welfare clause, but not the one in the preamble.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Dag: The general welfare clause is a horrible loophole. The rest of the document is all about limiting power, but then they come in with "But you can do ANYTHING you like so long as you claim it's for the 'General Welfare.'" It's the letter of the law that provides for violating the spirit of the law. It's two little words, taken out of context used to validate anything the gov't does.
Does anyone really believe that the founding fathers had our bloated gov't in mind? Remember these are the people who rioted over a tiny Tea tax.
Further, if you read on in section 8, it lays out what the gov't may do in regards to defense and general welfare.
Borrow money, Regulate interstate and foreign commerce, Navies, Naturalization, Make Money, Post offices and roads, Copyrights and Patents, make courts, Armies, Militias... It ENUMERATES what it means by Common Defense and General Welfare.
It does not list Libraries or Social programs. Unless one can show how libraries and social programs are necessary to one of the listed powers.
quote: To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
I realize I'm playing on your home field here, Dag.. Please don't hurt me too badly...
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The general welfare clause is a horrible loophole. The rest of the document is all about limiting power, but then they come in with "But you can do ANYTHING you like so long as you claim it's for the 'General Welfare.'" It's the letter of the law that provides for violating the spirit of the law. It's two little words, taken out of context used to validate anything the gov't does.
No, it specifically does not say you can do "ANYTHING." It says, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to ... provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"
It can spend money to provide for the general welfare.
quote:Further, if you read on in section 8, it lays out what the gov't may do in regards to defense and general welfare.
Borrow money, Regulate interstate and foreign commerce, Navies, Naturalization, Make Money, Post offices and roads, Copyrights and Patents, make courts, Armies, Militias... It ENUMERATES what it means by Common Defense and General Welfare.
It does not list Libraries or Social programs. Unless one can show how libraries and social programs are necessary to one of the listed powers.
I disagree with your textual analysis. Each of these powers is placed on equal terms, separated by semicolons. There's no indication that the tax and spend power is meant to be merely introductory or a general summary.
If one were to accept your analysis, then Congress would have had no power to tax until the income tax amendment.
It's clear that the first listed power is "to tax..." and one of the allowable reasons for taxing is to "provide for the general welfare."
quote:I realize I'm playing on your home field here, Dag.. Please don't hurt me too badly...
That's a decent textual analysis, even though I disagree with it. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: If "General Welfare" is undefined by the following sentence fragments (as I contend it is) then it is INDEED open ended and one can legislate anything based on claiming it's for "the general welfare."
Jim Crow laws? Sure, if racists get back in power and decide segregation is in the general welfare.
Seize 100% of every one's money for equal redistribution? Sure, if literal communists get into power and decide that communism is in the general welfare.
It can justify anything.
I contend that the following lines ARE an enumeration, despite punctuation, because it DOES list things that are easily covered by "Common Defense and General Welfare."
Why would one need to list Armies, Navies and Militia if "Common Defense" covered it? Why would one need to list Post offices and Post Roads if "General Welfare" already covered it?
The 2nd and following phrases in Section 8 also fit in better, contextually, with the rest of the document when read as an enumeration of what is allowed by the first phrase. The founders were VERY careful to limit the power of government. Such an open ended backdoor is not something they would have included.
(thanks for not hurting me =)
Oh! and they WOULD have the power to tax, even before the income tax amendment, but only for the things listed. But they didn't have the power to levy a progressive income tax.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jim Crow laws? Sure, if racists get back in power and decide segregation is in the general welfare.
Seize 100% of every one's money for equal redistribution? Sure, if literal communists get into power and decide that communism is in the general welfare.
It can justify anything.
Pixiest, "provide for the general welfare" is only a justification exercises of the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises," not for any act of Congress.
quote:Why would one need to list Armies, Navies and Militia if "Common Defense" covered it?
Because establishing an army involves more than merely spending money. It involves exerting specific authority.
quote:Oh! and they WOULD have the power to tax
Where would the tax power come from if the first item isn't an actual power.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh! and they WOULD have the power to tax, even before the income tax amendment, but only for the things listed. But they didn't have the power to levy a progressive income tax.
Why do you say they didn't have the power to levy a progressive income tax? Nothing in the constitution specified the types of taxes that were or were not permissible. Perhaps you could point to the specific language that would have restricted progressive taxation?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: Hmm... No, my interpretation allows for taxes for everything in the list.
Your interpretation would say, for instance "You can raise a navy, but you can't tax for it." Because your interpretation has every line being equal. If every line is equal, then the Tax part only applies to Defense and General Welfare, which are completely undefined.
My interpretation has the first line being the umbrella. The Gov't can levy taxes defense and general welfare: Navies, Armies, Post offices <rest of section 8>. What defense and general welfare are are spelled out. Defined.
You're the expert, and the courts have ruled your way. But that interpretation doesn't make sense.
posted
If one's opposition to the definition of "General Welfare" arises from the assumption that many people will have one quirk or other inclining them to abuse it, then democratic republicanism must seem like a bad idea altogether.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps it would be useful to bring in other sources of data about what the authors of the Constitution intended. For instance, the federalist papers and what they did upon coming into power.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a diversion back to the original topic. About 20 years a go, my husband was very nearly hit by a police officer who ran a stop sign at high speed in reverse.
My husband was on a bicycle and could have been killed.
An ordinary citizen would have been charged with wreckless driving for such an act but the police officer was not even cited for running the stop sign despite my husbands complaints.
In my mind the thing that differentiates police officers from other public officials is that they first line of defense for the laws. When they aren't held to the highest possible standard by the law, it undermines the entire legal system.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: 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.
posted
Pixiest: In regards only to Tom's quote, (as in Jefferson) he went against that very belief when he became president with the Louisiana Purchase. I think it's a believe he would have disassociated himself from. Not to mention, he was not even at the constitutional convention.
I'm still thinking about the Madison quote.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taking quotes out of context to support arguments? Are we in a homosexuality/abortion/theism thread now?
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: But Jefferson's immediate concern was defensive: the prospect of a strong French presence at the mouth of the Mississippi and the volatility of loyalties in its vast hinterland threatened the survival of the American Union. The first law of nature, self-preservation, demanded decisive action. Jefferson's misgivings about Louisiana focused on incorporating "foreign" territory into the Union without violating a strictly construed federal Constitution
The article goes on to say that he had to strike while the iron was hot before Napoleon changed his mind. And that, to Provide For the Common defense (NOT the General Welfare) it behooved us not to have a foreign power at our back door.
I'm sure he'd have prefered to amend the constitution before doing it.
Of course, I've often wondered what his exact rationale would be. If I could ask one question of Thomas Jefferson, I'd ask him about his thoughts and caveats on the Louisianna Purchase. (A purchase that, ultimately, made my home state part of the union.)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, just to bump it back to what we may have seen in police officer -- traffic behavior:
The charming rookie police officer that so kindly gave me a warning about fully stopping at the stop sign in my neighborhood a few months ago, slid through a stop sign himself yesterday -- no lights, no emergency -- while talking on his handheld cell phone. Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The firefighters here take the ladder trucks out for snacks all the time, parking in the bus stop pullout at safeway. Grr...
The cops around here mostly just don't use turn signals, but it seems 75% of regular people don't use them either.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Firefighters have to take their trucks with them so if they have a call, they can respond immediately. We see ours parked in front of the local gym and grocery store all the time.
Not that they should park in bus stop lane though.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nato: The firefighters here take the ladder trucks out for snacks all the time, parking in the bus stop pullout at safeway. Grr...
As brojack said, the firefighters have to take the truck out with them so they can respond quickly to calls. I used to work at a grocery store near a fire station, and they would frequently come by with their truck to pick up food...and would often get called away and have to just leave their stuff with us (we would put it in one of our big coolers) while they went off to do the call. Believe me, its not a job I'd want to have.
Of course, they should still drive safely, and the same goes for police officers. Their job is to make us safer, not to endanger us.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shan: So, just to bump it back to what we may have seen in police officer -- traffic behavior:
The charming rookie police officer that so kindly gave me a warning about fully stopping at the stop sign in my neighborhood a few months ago, slid through a stop sign himself yesterday -- no lights, no emergency -- while talking on his handheld cell phone.
You should've immediately called the station house and reported it to the watch commander. The only way stuff like that gets curtailed is if you report it.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Boon
unregistered
posted
I'd just like to note, for the record, that a police officer's lights do not necessarily have to be on for them to be responding to a call. Even a real emergency. Sometimes there are valid reasons to leave them off. This sometimes leads to people calling in to the police station to report officers breaking traffic laws while "not on their way to a call." Just saying.
IP: Logged |
posted
That makes absolutely no difference. If a citizen reports an officer who is, in fact, responding to a call at the time, no disciplinary action will be taken. Which means that you should report it whenever you see it -- there are no false positives in this case.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I say bunk. If the county has to pay their speeding tickets then the county should take the damages out of their pay. Perhaps I'd be okay with an amnesty period, just dismissing the fines so far, but making it clear that unless they are on their way to a call or in otherwise mitigating circumstances they should NOT break traffic laws. Anyone caught after that would be responsible for the fines.
This doesn't strike anyone as having the slightest possibility of backfiring? Next thing, you have cops claiming they didn't make it somewhere because of the cameras. It seems to me to be the general issue involved with automated speed enforcement is that an officer pulls you over for doing something dangerous, a camera is just there on your mind all the time- and the law, at least in California, clearly states that the 65mph highway speed is a guideline, and that drivers must drive at the speed most safe for the conditions they are in.
Personally, I've sped through intersections in my town that are particularly wide and have cameras in them. I'm very concerned about having to battle a ticket I shouldn't get- whether because I was stuck behind another car, or the light turned yellow after I entered the intersection. And at almost 400 dollars a pop, that represents a sizable portion of my personal income- all so that I don't run red lights? I've never seen anyone run a red light in my life.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: That makes absolutely no difference. If a citizen reports an officer who is, in fact, responding to a call at the time, no disciplinary action will be taken. Which means that you should report it whenever you see it -- there are no false positives in this case.
It doesn't make "absolutely no difference," why would you say that? I think you should, you know, use your judgement before calling into the police if the officer you see is breaking a law. He may look like he's on a way to a call, and if he's not doing anything dangerous, then honestly who cares? I only wish that officers didn't give out tickets for non-dangerous driving, now that would be completely fair. But why sit around obsessing about what the cops are doing and tying up their phone lines with stuff that the watch commanders aren't going to care about anyway? Just saying.
But then again, I have been pulled over seven times and never issued a single citation. So I think some of the cops are obviously reasonable.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I explained why I said that. Just because you weren't able to understand isn't enough reason for me to try to explain it any further. I used the smallest words I could think of, but I can only do so much when butting against people with no logical reasoning skills.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jt, I did understand. I pointed out why I thought you were wrong. Oh, but I disagree because I have no logical reasoning skills, not because I thought your rhetoric was flawed. Makes sense. You have the logical reasoning skills AND all the rhetorical skills to boot.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
