AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@ican711nm,

The answers.com answer also conveniently left out Hamilton's qualification for his view of the General Welfare. Yes it stands alone, in Hamilton's view, but it is nevertheless restricted to that which benefits the entire country and all the people and not one or a few states or a limited group/area. I don't know if the debate between Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson was ever resolved on that issue. I think Hamilton's definition gives us a bit more leeway. He would have probably approved the trip to the moon and the Hubble telescope for instance while Madison and Jefferson probably would not.

It would be interesting to have Hamilton sit in on a debate re universal health care I think, but I bet he would thumbs down it on the principle that it would not benefit everybody equally and would not benefit some at all.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

No, it doesn't make any more sense Fox because my post that you quoted was NOT in response to your post to Cyclo. My post was in response to THIS post by you
http://able2know.org/topic/113196-338#post-3618131
A post where you clearly quoted the phrase "general welfare."

The post I responded to CLEARLY used the phrase "general welfare" when you said this

Quote:

What I believe Ican has been patiently trying to teach here is that our Founders did not define the 'general welfare' as the courts and Congress currently define it. What Modern American Conservatism believes is that the Congress and Courts have illegally redefined what the 'general welfare' was intended to be as written into the Constitution. The Founders wrote extensively about that and it is no mystery what their intent was with that phrase.

You clearly said the courts "ILLEGALLY" redefined meaning. Your accusation shows a disrespect for the courts and you obviously feel the courts can act ILLEGALLY. This was not about you just disagreeing with their decision. This was you calling the court's ruling "illegal" in spite of what the constitution says.

1 Reply

@parados,

Here is my full quote:

Quote:

What I believe Ican has been patiently trying to teach here is that our Founders did not define the 'general welfare' as the courts and Congress currently define it. What Modern American Conservatism believes is that the Congress and Courts have illegally redefined what the 'general welfare' was intended to be as written into the Constitution. The Founders wrote extensively about that and it is no mystery what their intent was with that phrase.

And that which has been corrupted can in fact be made right. That which the court has ruled one way can be overturned by another court ruling a different way.

We would like to have MACean principles--most are in fact incorporated into the original intent of the Constitution--reinstated before we regress from those values to the point that we can't get back.

And it was to this that you responded. Not a word about taxes nor did you mention taxes. I took your response to me--not to what Ican was talking about, but to me--especially based on my comments following--as challenging my opinion that the Courts can and do get it wrong.

I did pick up the wrong post number but here again is your response:

Quote:

Re: Foxfyre(Post 3618131)
So, your entire argument is what Fox? That MAC's ignore the USSC and what the constitution actually says about that court?

You can't argue that MAC's support the constitution at the same time that you want to argue that the court's rulings on the constitution shouldn't be upheld.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxie, Which MAC president and/or congress applied "your" interpretation of our Constitution? Can you name one?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Foxie, Which MAC president and/or congress applied "your" interpretation of our Constitution? Can you name one?

She'll say Reagan, while ignoring the parts that contradict the definition, is my bet.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

No, IMO actually most of them stuck to it pretty close up to FDR. That's when the government started taking more and more liberties and getting away from the original intent.

4 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

No, IMO actually most of them stuck to it pretty close up to FDR. That's when the government started taking more and more liberties and getting away from the original intent.

Ah, well I lose the bet then.

Funny how there hasn't been a 'Modern' Conservative prez in the last 70 years. Perhaps you should rethink your terminology?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Gee, FDR was a MAC? "Modern?" ROFL

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Do you not agree with what ican stated about MACs? If not then why did you post it and continue along the same lines going from the courts acted "illegally" which ican said to your ", "what is corrupted can be in fact be made right." Why are you explaining what ican has been trying to teach if you aren't agreeing with it by then expanding upon it? There is little doubt based on your comments that you agree with ican. To attempt to hide behind ican, is rather disingenuous on your part.

Your argument is that MAC's follow the intent of the constitution unless they disagree with the court's ruling then they don't have to follow it but consider the court's actions "illegal." I think the point is Fox, that you are not a true follower of the constitution. You only follow what you want to follow, the same as ican. You disregard the rest of the constitution when it doesn't fit your world view.

The courts have clearly defined "general welfare" using the words of the founders. For you to argue that somehow you are more constitutionally correct in your interpretation then the one by the courts is complete bunk.

1 Reply

@parados,

This is another area in which Foxie has more knowledge than our government, and can identify what they do as "illegal." The only problem she has, is a) nobody knows what MACs stands for, and b) how is she going to "enforce" her interpretation of our Constitution?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

No, IMO actually most of them stuck to it pretty close up to FDR. That's when the government started taking more and more liberties and getting away from the original intent.

Be specific. It was FDR's position that the economic recovery policies enacted by congress were consistent the Constitution.

http://www.hpol.org/fdr/chat/

True to form, however, the hypocrisy of the conservative movement again rears its ugly head.

Conservatives want our courts to declare economic policies UNCONSTITUTIONAL. To them, that is not judicial activism.

On the other hand, conservatives do NOT want our courts to declare oppressive social policies UNCONSTITUTIONAL. To them, it is judicial activism for the courts to tell them they cannot abuse the power of the state to oppress others.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre, as you know, my own test for whether tax money is spent for the "general welfare of the United States" is whether or not a tax expenditure is made to people who lawfully earned it or did not lawfully earn it. Public employees, including the military, employees of the various other branches of the federal government, organizations and people who provide products or services to the federal government, all presumably lawfully earn what the federal government pays them for their services or their products. That would include federal employees like those employed by NASA, FAA, and the NWS.

But federally financed healthcare is not something earned by people other than people like those referred to above. The self-employed and those employed by organizations who do not provide services or products to the federal government should be limited to purchasing healthcare from private providers.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

I believe that went over Foxie's head.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

foxfyre wrote:

No, IMO actually most of them stuck to it pretty close up to FDR. That's when the government started taking more and more liberties and getting away from the original intent.

I interpreted this statement of yours: No, IMO actually most of them stuck to THE CONSTITUTION pretty close up to BUT NOT INCLUDING FDR. That's when the government started taking more and more liberties and getting away from the CONSTITUTION'S original intent.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

conservatives do NOT want our courts to declare oppressive social policies UNCONSTITUTIONAL. To them, it is judicial activism for the courts to tell them they cannot abuse the power of the state to oppress others.

~~ ~ !???! ~ ~~
~~~ (O|O) ~~~
....~~ ( O ) ~~....

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
conservatives do NOT want our courts to declare oppressive social policies UNCONSTITUTIONAL. To them, it is judicial activism for the courts to tell them they cannot abuse the power of the state to oppress others.

~~ ~ !???! ~ ~~
~~~ (O|O) ~~~
....~~ ( O ) ~~....

I don't know why you look shocked, it's essentially true.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Oh! That's supposed to be a "shock" expression? I thought that was his ass.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

foxfyre wrote:
No, IMO actually most of them stuck to it pretty close up to FDR. That's when the government started taking more and more liberties and getting away from the original intent.

I interpreted this statement of yours: No, IMO actually most of them stuck to THE CONSTITUTION pretty close up to BUT NOT INCLUDING FDR. That's when the government started taking more and more liberties and getting away from the CONSTITUTION'S original intent.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Correct.

0 Replies

HERE ARE FOUR IDEAS FOR LAWFULLY STOPPING THE OBAMA-CRATS FROM CONTINUING TO CORRUPT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

(1) The House impeaches Obama AND the Senate removes Obama from the presidency.

(2) Three-quarters of the states vote to call a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of proposing an Amendment to the Constitution that empowers more than one-half the states to call for a special federal election of members of the Congress and the President to serve until regular terms expire.

(3) One or more states secedes from the union to protest the federal government's violation of its contract with the states, the Constitution of the USA.

(4) One or more American citizens emigrates from the USA to a nation that maintains the integrity of its own Constitutional Republic.

(5) President Obama is persuaded to resign from the presidency.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Here's my vote...

Quote:

(4) One or more American citizens emigrates from the USA to a nation that maintains the integrity of its own Constitutional Republic.

Let us know when you are all settled into your new country ican.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know