Posted on 02/01/2002 10:21:47 AM PST by Exnihilo
Why are you tossing softball questions at me? The obvious answer is:
Amendment XXI
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws theroeof, is hereby prohibited.
No kidding.
Where have you seen the courts ever limit government power?
If government is so limited, why are you complaining? Your own whines and cries against an overbearing government show that your logic about government power being completely restrained is demonstrably false.
Yes, there are a few limits on federal government power. Alcohol, gambling, slavery, and secession come to mind, but there just aren't that many limits.
The whole concept that our Constitution "limits" government is a bunch of hype from clueless Libertarians. Look around you. We've had soldiers' pension plans for almost 2 centuries. We've had a federal Bank since Thomas Jefferson. We've had Social Security since the 1930's, for crying out loud.
You Libertarians run around screaming that these programs aren't Constitutional as if no adult had ever reviewed them in court over the last 200 years, and that just isn't a rational position to hold.
You claim that government is limited, so you show me where. Show me where lawful courts have ruled against government programs. Show me where any respected authority has ever, in the history of our nation, passed down judgements that are in line with your radical claims.
Frankly, I don't see it. Lincoln got the draft and the income tax through because of the general welfare clause. FDR got the New Deal, Social Security, the Works Progress Authority, and the confiscation of gold through because of it. Thomas Jefferson got the first federal bank through because of it.
But oh no. A.J.Armitage says that the general welfare clause conveys no power, has no meaning on its own, and can simply be disregarded.
Well, forgive me if I don't buy that line of nonsense. Show me where government has been restrained by our courts. show me where the general welfare clause has been ruled to have had no value.
You can't do it. You can't do it because you are wrong, and not only are you wrong, but Libertarianism is wrong.
And not only is Libertarianism wrong, but Libertarianism is guilty of try to perpetuate a FRAUD in that its adherents falsely claim that the general welfare clause has no meaning.
And if you disagree, then SHOW ME where the courts have EVER backed your radical, disproven views.
You can't do it, and that's a challenge to you.
This is so much bunk!
What Libertarian insurrection were
you witness to that wanted to over-
throw the government and rule by
a handful of elite Libertarians?
IN FACT we are the exact opposite.
No initiation of force, remember!
We will do nothing unless we can
convince you of the rightness of
our argument! You have nothing
to fear so why do you lie?
I'll call you and raise you.
Any use you appear to feel is justified by
your view of the general welfare clause
would only cause or already has caused
grave harm to the general welfare.
The actual reason that it has no meaning
is you believe that you can better society
by taking from some to help others. You
claim to be against socialism but you want
The U. S. Constitution to allow some form
of misguided social endeavor. Anyone but
a fool should be able to see that. Your
claim is socialist.
You make me so sad that we have come
to this point. Libertarians are the only
true patriots left in our republic, yet we
get vile slander and abuse from those
that give lip service to the same cause.
LOL
That doesn't say Congress can't prohibit alcohol, dimwit. And it's also not part of the original Constitution. No wonder you can't get anything right.
Since I've been beating the stuffing out of your absurd claim that Congress has a "general welfare power"... except when it doesn't (making sense isn't your strength, apparently), you decided, in your next post, to get aggressive. Am I supposed to be intimidated or something?
Where have you seen the courts ever limit government power?
Try the link in #400.
The whole concept that our Constitution "limits" government is a bunch of hype from clueless Libertarians.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Strike one!
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Strike two!
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Strike three! The hack is out!
And there's plenty more where that came from.
The lesson: an aggressive tone will never make up for not knowing what you're talking about.
Show me where lawful courts have ruled against government programs.
#400.
Show me where any respected authority has ever, in the history of our nation, passed down judgements that are in line with your radical claims.
Respected authority?! I gave you the Federalist Papers! I have more, of course.
The Annotated Constitution:
The grant of power to ''provide . . . for the general welfare'' raises a two-fold question: How may Congress provide for ''the general welfare'' and what is ''the general welfare'' that it is authorized to promote? The first half of this question was answered by Thomas Jefferson in his opinion on the Bank as follows: ''[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.'' The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power. Although a broader view has been occasionally asserted, Congress has not acted upon it and the Court has had no occasion to adjudicate the point.
The Annotated Constitution, by the way, is a official US government publication. Are you ready to surrender yet?
And remember, there's more where that came from. Face it: you're dying on the wrong hill.
Lincoln got the draft and the income tax through because of the general welfare clause.
You don't know history very well, do you?
But oh no. A.J.Armitage says that the general welfare clause conveys no power, has no meaning on its own, and can simply be disregarded.
You're misrepresenting my position, probably intentionally (in other words, you're a liar). I never said it can be disregarded. Your absurd misrepresentation of my position seems to come from an obviously wrong presupposition, that any clause not granting power is meaningless. No wonder you don't think the Constitution limits government power; you've got your own filter, shifting out everything you don't like.
Show me where government has been restrained by our courts. show me where the general welfare clause has been ruled to have had no value.
Since you seem to think having value means giving power to the federal government, your second "challenge" is absurd.
Your first, on the other hand, is simplicity itself.
Would it be too much to ask you to admit you were wrong? Almost certainly. Either way, let me point out who the true extremist is here. You've angrily denied there are Constitutional limits on federal authority, and called the idea that there are limits "radical and disproven". The disproven proves, yet again, that you don't know what you're talking about, and the radical proves how disconnected you are from American history and the views of the Founders. Of course the federal government is limited by the Constitution. Only a wild-eyed fanatic (who doesn't know what he's talking about) would say otherwise.
You can't do it, and that's a challenge to you.
I just did it.
Now here's a challenge to you. Tell me why I should pay more attention to some guy on the internet (leaving aside your own demostration that you don't know jack) than to the Federalist Papers.
You are incorrect. I don't want government to have broad power. All that I'm doing is pointing out that government does have broad power, legally.
If you will look at the history of our nation, we've had a FOUNDING FATHER create the first federal bank two centuries ago, legally. We've had gold confiscated and outlawed up until the mid 1970's. Government programs have grown every year for decades, and the very whining and crying of libertarians illustrates that government is NOT denied of broad power.
Yet you libertarians will consistently claim that the general welfare clause gives no power to the federal government. You will consistently claim that government power is more limited than both reality and court decisions would indicate to any rational person.
Look around you. Is government power constrained in America or are you complaining that it is too powerful?
Why has government power been so broad over the last 200 years of court decisions?
You see, reality contradicts the libertarian worldview.
One of the things that is wrong with libertarians is that they consistently misinterpret the Constitution, specifically the general welfare clause.
Many of the posts above this one being prime examples of that fact.
Please refer to Post #11 in its entirity, whenever possible, rather than pinging me as your first impulse for a reply on this thread.
Post #11 pretty well sums up my views on this subject.
9 posted on 2/1/02 11:30 AM Pacific by Central Scrutiniser
Right again, Miss Cleo.
Both had more money too. Ross Perot spent $20 million of his own money. Ralph Nader took federal matching funds to finance his runs. Interestingly enough, although Pat Buchanan took $12.6 million in federal matching funds he received only 100K more votes than Harry Browne who declined the $750,000 which he qualified for. It takes money to get the message out. Many people still do not know what Libertarians are or that the party even exists.
You're so full of it.
Your sorry excuse for an interpretation has been thoroughly thrashed. That's because it was wrong to begin with.
If you will look at the history of our nation, we've had a FOUNDING FATHER create the first federal bank two centuries ago, legally.
Nothing to do with the so called "general welfare clause".
We've had gold confiscated and outlawed up until the mid 1970's. Government programs have grown every year for decades, and the very whining and crying of libertarians illustrates that government is NOT denied of broad power.
First, that has as little to do with the "general welfare clause" as the national bank. Like I said before, amateur big government hacks use the "general welfare clause". The pros use the commerce clause.
You know, the SC once ruled that a man growing crops on his own land for the consumption of his own livestock was interstate commerce. I know, it's an incredibly stupid ruling, but the Court actually made it. More telling for this discussion is that they didn't just say "general welfare" and let it pass. In other words, your position is even more stupid than the one the Court used as justification. You are, in short, full of it. You know nothing.
And second, that stuff is indeed unConstitutional. You types always get back to the position that "it exists, therefore it's Constitutional" even though nobody knew it until the 1930s. This is so stupid I won't bother refuting it. Seriously, anything Congress does is Constitutional because Congress does it? Please. I suppose you think the Alien and Sedition Acts were also Constitutional.
One of the things that is wrong with libertarians is that they consistently misinterpret the Constitution, specifically the general welfare clause. Many of the posts above this one being prime examples of that fact.
You've been PROVEN WRONG ON ALL COUNTS. Every contention you've made on behalf of your idiotic claim has been incorrect, has had no relation to the topic, or has been nothing but sophistry. Sure, we consistently disagree with you, but, as this thread demostrates, that means we consistently GET IT RIGHT.
It would appear that both the market and the voters have spoken. 0.4%
If I'm so unimportant, inconsequential, and wrong, then why do you keep pinging me? You issue a challenge as to why you should pay attention to me, and then you keep paying attention to me.
You keep spouting off your long-since disproven claims of the general welfare clause having no value, too.
Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
Read my post #11. That's what I think is wrong with Libertarians, per the subject of this thread.
Then stop pinging me, talking about me, or protesting so much. I've stated my views, supported my position (especially that you Libertarians are completely proven wrong by the historical scope of government size and power around you in your backward claims that the "general welfare" clause conveys no power), and yet you keep yapping after me like a scolded puppy.
As I said in post #11, I don't want to debate Libertarians. All of you argue too much, listen too unobjectively, and care too much about getting in the last word to ever have a reasonable debate.
Nice try. You haven't answered the substance of what I said. Why should some random idiot on the internet be given more trust in matters of Constitutional interpretation than the Federalist Papers?
And for the record, I want to make sure no one falls for your crap.
You keep spouting off your long-since disproven claims of the general welfare clause having no value, too.
That's rich. I've left your pathetic, worthless swill in the tatters is always truly was.
Nevertheless, as your return in an earlier post the your phrase fixation demonstrates, you have a very short memory, in addition to a brain that has difficulty using logic, so we'll review.
The Federalist Papers call your position absurd. Game over, I win. And that's a perfectly serious statement: any legitimate contention is over as soon as someone quotes Federalist #41. The issue has been settled for over 200 years. You, and a few other ignoramuses, are standing alone on this with nothing of any value to suport your loony assertions.
The clear meaning of the text (the entire sentence) is that the general welfare is the purpose of the power to tax. Not "without value", as your idiotic mantra asserts, but certainly not a grant of all power in Heaven and Earth, which is what your position implies, although, undercutting yourself, you're saying it's an unlimited grant of power except when it isn't. Your position can't but be wrong; you're contradicting yourself.
The context of the rest of the Constitution clearly shows that I'm right. The rest of Article I, Section 8 would be unnecessary if you were right. But you're not right and it is necessary, so it's there. In particular, there's a grant of the power you say was granted over the whole country, but it's not over the whole country, it's over an area of ten square miles or less. And, of course, there's the Tenth Amendment.
Each of the three above paragraphs is enough, on its own, to utterly demolish nonsense about a "general welfare power". The fact is, I have crushed you totally. You have nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, to stand on. It's far to late to bow out gracefully. You've been humiliated. You can't stand that, can you?
I've stated my views, supported my position (especially that you Libertarians are completely proven wrong by the historical scope of government size and power around you in your backward claims that the "general welfare" clause conveys no power), and yet you keep yapping after me like a scolded puppy.
The scolded puppy is you. You've been shown for what you are, and you hate it. By this point, you can't just admit you were wrong; it would be to have your nose rubbed in it all over again.
Oh, and on to the "serious" "content" of your comment quoted above. That the government does something in no way proves that it has Constitutional authorization to do it. And the post New Deal government powers aren't based on the "general welfare clause", they're based on a twisting of the commerce clause. In other words, your claim is twice wrong. Smacked down again! This has to be painful for you.
Then stop pinging me, talking about me, or protesting so much.
...
As I said in post #11, I don't want to debate Libertarians. All of you argue too much, listen too unobjectively, and care too much about getting in the last word to ever have a reasonable debate.
"Please, stop thrashing me! My ego cannot stand the humiliation! Please let me attack others, but I am far to fragile to take it myself! My arguments are weak, but please pretend your irrefutable arguments are the weak ones. After all, the title of thread say "Why Is Libertarianism Wrong?" Pretend I beat you. Please?"
AqFa> The central problem with libertarianism is that God doesn't give anyone the "right" to do anything intrinsically evil.PaVe> Hi Aquinas I was just thinking God gave us free will and probably man-made law which reflects it is the most sensible one.
Right again, Miss Cleo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.