General / Off-Topic Sorry from AMERICA!!!!

[Gully Foyle]

Who cares we are getting better gun laws, I'm all hopeful. 8 years of Obama desert walk has come to an end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzHZxuX8whc

Better gun laws to me would be across the board legitimate screening for all purchasers. Close the online and unfettered auctions and gun show sales that sell without vetting.
Assault weapons are for killing people. There is no logical reason to own them, they are not hunting weapons IMO.

I won't go to the States anymore, not even to ski. Y'all got bad gunlove.
Just my 2 loonies.

 

[Monk]

Well, when I say it leans left, I don't mean that it's militantly progressive or anything. I used to be a regular listener as well.

Yeah, I know you didn't mean that. I mean, who would think NPR, the biggest wet noodle out there, would be militant

Still, the daily reporting I hear feels pretty neutral...Now PBS, that's a different story. They certainly lean left and aren't really shy about it...just look at their debate coverage.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Correct, Congress is empowered to pass appropriations for specific funding. If congress votes to revoke funding, that is within their legal power.

I know it's academic, but I think it would behoove all of us to hold the Federal Government to the standards set out for it in the Constitution. Every time we allow it a power that is not specifically outlined in the Constitution, we give a little bit of our rights away.

 

[Boomer Kay]

I know it's academic, but I think it would behoove all of us to hold the Federal Government to the standards set out for it in the Constitution. Every time we allow it a power that is not specifically outlined in the Constitution, we give a little bit of our rights away.

It is specifically outlined.

It's also specifically outlined that treason to the United States is unconstitutional.
Why do you not demand Trumps tax returns and Flynns paychecks from Russia?
There's a good chance they actually are traitors.

 

[Monk]

"...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare *) of the United States."

*) Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD"

Does "the arts" add to that?

When we break it down by this much, certainly you can see why any of it is subject to debate. I believe the arts are incredibly important to the welfare of a society but that doesn't mean other people think it is essential to the welfare of society. Whomever can make the best argument (and bring the most supporters) will get to define this through Congress.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

"...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare *) of the United States."

*) Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD"

Does "the arts" add to that?

General Welfare is not an enumerated power. The enumerated powers listed immediately after that statement are the powers by which the Federal Government is to "provide for the general welfare".

If "general welfare" is a catch-all, then the Federal Government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants. Then what's the point of having a Constitution, the charter by which the Federal Government is supposed to operate? What's the point of having a Bill of Rights, if Congress can site "general welfare" for whatever action catches its fancy?

 

[Boomer Kay]

General Welfare is not an enumerated power. The enumerated powers listed immediately after that statement are the powers by which the Federal Government is to "provide for the general welfare".

If "general welfare" is a catch-all, then the Federal Government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants. Then what's the point of having a Constitution, the charter by which the Federal Government is supposed to operate? What's the point of having a Bill of Rights, if Congress can site "general welfare" for whatever action catches its fancy?

Wrong.

Well "strawman" to be precise.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

General Welfare is not an enumerated power. The enumerated powers listed immediately after that statement are the powers by which the Federal Government is to "provide for the general welfare".

If "general welfare" is a catch-all, then the Federal Government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants. Then what's the point of having a Constitution, the charter by which the Federal Government is supposed to operate? What's the point of having a Bill of Rights, if Congress can site "general welfare" for whatever action catches its fancy?

I'm certainly not opposed to State governments funding the arts. A privilege that is afforded to them by the 10th Amendment.

 

[Monk]

I'm certainly not opposed to State governments funding the arts. A privilege that is afforded to them by the 10th Amendment.

This small-government socialist is not opposed to the notion.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Wrong.

Well "strawman" to be precise.

I've specifically kept to discussing Article 1, Section 8, and you saying "strawman" doesn't break my argument.

 

[Boomer Kay]

I've specifically kept to discussing Article 1, Section 8, and you saying "strawman" doesn't break my argument.

General welfare is not a "catch all"
That was your attempt at strawmaning the discussion.

 

[Monk]

General welfare is not a "catch all"
That was your attempt at strawmaning the discussion.

I would have called it vague rather than catch all.

It is up to interpretation, debate and then codification by Congress.

 

[Boomer Kay]

I would have called it vague rather than catch all.

It is up to interpretation, debate and then codification by Congress.

Well, mass media and access to it wasn't even a thing when the constitution was written (duh).
I already mentioned I consider the constitution "visionary". Well ahead of its time (but still well behind 2017 and not nearly enough amendments or repeals .. it's like a computer you update every 10 years or so ).

 

[Deleted member 115407]

I would have called it vague rather than catch all.

It is up to interpretation, debate and then codification by Congress.

Well, mass media and access to it wasn't even a thing when the constitution was written (duh).
I already mentioned I consider the constitution "visionary". Well ahead of its time (but still well behind 2017).

The problem is that it's cited every time Congress acts outside of its enumerated powers. We the people have to be cautious, because every time we allow that we also allow the setting of precedent.

Today it's national education funding for the good of the nation. Tomorrow its quartering soldiers in your home... for the good of the nation.

*edit*

And I'm not arguing this from a partisan standpoint. I'm arguing it from the standpoint of a citizen who cares about protecting his fellow citizens.

 

[Monk]

Well, mass media and access to it wasn't even a thing when the constitution was written (duh).
I already mentioned I consider the constitution "visionary". Well ahead of its time (but still well behind 2017).

I'm not sure about that. The constitution was designed to change as slowly as possible. This is to prevent the day's current fad from becoming a major influence on government. We can see this working against the populism and demagoguery of President Trump. No matter how hard he tries to create instant gratification for his base he is constantly running into barriers established by the constitution.

So goes the definition of General Welfare. What the federal government is responsible for and what sort of services belong in the public commons is always evolving but not so much that radical change occurs in either direction. Personally, I think it is good and is standing up well against these fast-changing times.

 

[Boomer Kay]

The problem is that it's cited every time Congress acts outside of its enumerated powers. We the people have to be cautious, because every time we allow that we also allow the setting of precedent.

Today it's national education funding for the good of the nation. Tomorrow its quartering soldiers in your home... for the good of the nation.

Your precedent system blows, too.
You haven't responded to the treason charges.
Investigate or not?
Those troops in your house might speak Russian.

What the federal government is responsible for and what sort of services belong in the public commons is always evolving but not so much that radical change occurs in either direction. Personally, I think it is good and is standing up well against these fast-changing times.

I think you have an unpresidented constitutional crisis at hand.
Presidential Orders (for stuff that could easily go trough congress) in that magnitude are not covered by the constitution. (Actually they're not in the constitution at all.. more one of those precedents someone set).

 

[Monk]

Your precedent system blows, too.
You haven't responded to the treason charges.
Investigate or not?
Those troops in your house might speak Russian.

This is definitely a problem in the system, right now. Accountability for the President should not be left in the hands of Congress for the specific reason we are experiencing now...one set of partisans controlling the legislature and the executive. I'm not sure what the answer is though but the power to impeach the president needs to be done from a more impartial position.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

We can see this working against the populism and demagoguery of President Trump. No matter how hard he tries to create instant gratification for his base he is constantly running into barriers established by the constitution.

Yes. The standard works both ways, and we should hold the Federal Government to the standard. Our job as the people should be to scrutinize and challenge everything that they do. Trust me, my feelings on this span both sides of the aisle.

Your precedent system blows, too.
You haven't responded to the treason charges.
Investigate or not?
Those troops in your house might speak Russian.

I'm not sure where this went. You asked me a question about treason charges?

 

[Boomer Kay]

I'm not sure where this went. You asked me a question about treason charges?

Whether you think the emolument of government officials should be investigated.
Charges would be the next step, but first you need to do the first.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

This is definitely a problem in the system, right now. Accountability for the President should not be left in the hands of Congress for the specific reason we are experiencing now...one set of partisans controlling the legislature and the executive. I'm not sure what the answer is though but the power to impeach the president needs to be done from a more impartial position.

Well, it's not the first time that both the Executive and Legislative have been party controlled simultaneously. Democrats have enjoyed the condition many times. Unfortunately I don't know what the rules of impeachment are, and what kind of majority you need to impeach a President. I'll have to look that up.

- - - Updated - - -

Whether you think the emolument of government officials should be investigated.
Charges would be the next step, but first you need to do the first.

Of course it should be. In all cases.