Constitution Day ...

ViRedd

New Member
Constitution day
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, September 13, 2006


Each year since 2004, on Sept. 17, we commemorate the 1787 signing of the U.S. Constitution by 39 American statesmen. The legislation creating Constitution Day was fathered by Sen. Robert Byrd and requires federal agencies and federally funded schools, including universities, to have some kind of educational program on the Constitution.
I cannot think of a piece of legislation that makes greater mockery of the Constitution, or a more constitutionally odious person to father it -- Sen. Byrd, a person who is known as, and proudly wears the label, "King of Pork." The only reason that Constitution Day hasn't become a laughingstock is because most Americans are totally ignorant of, or have contempt for, the letter and spirit of our Constitution.
Let's examine just a few statements by the framers to see just how much faith and allegiance today's Americans give to the U.S. Constitution. James Madison is the acknowledged father of the Constitution. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief for French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo (now Haiti) to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison said disapprovingly, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
Today, at least two-thirds of a $2.5 trillion federal budget is spent on "objects of benevolence." That includes Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, aid to higher education, farm and business subsidies, welfare, etc., ad nauseam. James Madison's vision was later expressed by Rep. William Giles of Virginia, who condemned a relief measure for fire victims. Giles insisted that it was neither the purpose nor a right of Congress to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require."
Some presidents had similar constitutional respect. In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding that to approve the measure "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
President Grover Cleveland vetoed many congressional appropriations, often saying there was no constitutional authority for such an appropriation. Vetoing a bill for relief charity, President Cleveland said, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
Constitutionally ignorant people might argue that the Constitution's "general welfare" clause justifies today's actions by Congress. Here's what James Madison said: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." Thomas Jefferson echoed, in a letter to Pennsylvania Rep. Albert Gallatin, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
James Madison explained the constitutional limits on federal power in Federalist Paper No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . [to] be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." Here are my questions to you: Has our Constitution been amended to authorize federal spending on "objects of benevolence"? Or, is it plain and simple constitutional contempt by Congress, the president, the courts and, worst of all, the American people? Or, am I being overly pessimistic and it's simply a matter of constitutional ignorance?



Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
I guess those "slave owners" had little tolerance for "beneficial" anything unless it feathered their nests. The premises of the constitution are solid in their respect for individual rights, but the needs of the society need to be balanced within our govt. in modern times. They had no infrastructure to speak of back then. The family was a much more solid unit than now. they took care of their own, no need for a social structure. you cannot even begin to compare those times to these. For a lot of reasons, the family structure is not as strong as it was, example: It takes two incomes for the average family to live, IE. the mother is not there to run the household. To propose that modern society should not have a structure to take care of all the problems in it would be to condone anarchy, and just think, there would be no thugs (police) to protect the rich, a real tradgedy. there is no comparison between the 1700s and the 2000s, they didn't even have flush toilets. to cherry pick lines from the constitution and apply them to modern times, Ridiculous!
 

ViRedd

New Member
So, is your answer to trash the Constitution? I mean, if you don't think it is relevent to today, why keep it? With that said, please state what you would replace it with, and how society would look under your rendition of the document. Oh ... and as you type out your response, please keep in mind that the Constitution is the liberty document that chains the power of the federal government.

I'm curious about something. In your new constitution, would you agree with inserting the following words: "From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs."


Vi
 

ViRedd

New Member
Well, it's been tried before. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a direct quote from the Communist Manifesto. You should read it sometime.

Oh, and by the way ... a "Heavy, progressive income tax" is one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto as well.


Vi
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
"Heavy, progressive income tax" The only way to fly> The more you make, the more you pay. an equitable solution to our National debt crises. We didn't have a crises untill Bush-Cheny gave 95% of the taxes back to the richest 10 percent, and I believe that the top 2% got most of that. Boy you Rich guys sure cry when they try and take "your" money Waaaaaaa........ Ever heard a hungry child cry, or a family being thrown out of their house for non-payment because of job loss, You guys are pathetic!
 

ViRedd

New Member
We didn't have a crises untill Bush-Cheny gave 95% of the taxes back to the richest 10 percent, and I believe that the top 2% got most of that.

Here's some homework for ya. What was the national debt that the federal government piled up prior to GW taking office? Please feel free to include the Clintoon administration.

Vi

PS: A Google search will lead you to the answer.
 

ViRedd

New Member
No ... its not "commie lies." if you were really astute you would know that there is a difference between the year to year budget and the national debt. But what's the use? I mean if one is just commenting based upon "feelings" and not fact ... who needs knowledge?

Vi
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
Baaaarrrrffff! Thats the most intelligent thing I have to say to you. Stay in your little box and spout fascist ideas to those who care, I don't!
 

ViRedd

New Member
Fascist remarks? Are you aware that Fascists are of the mindset that the citizen is secondary to the state? Fascistic governments allow for the illusion of private ownership while maintaining strict, VERY strict, oversite by the government. They believe that state ownership isn't necessary but control is. This is not too far from your own communistic viewpoint that private enterprise should be run by in it's entirety by the state ... health care for instance.

The Communists and the Fascists/Nazis were/are nothing more than two rival gangs fighting over the same territory. Now, exactly how do I fit into that equasion, considering that my penchant is for free markets, free minds and a VERY limited government?

Look, if you are going to be bantering about, blubbering terms like "fascist" and "Nazi," at least have the common sense to learn what the terms actually mean, will ya?

Vi
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
V, I guess life will be more boring to you as you won't have me to argue with. I thought our banter entertaining, but alas there was only one way communication, and I'm tired of hearing it, (Thats the communication part), so enjoy your perspective and live in your world, I cannot. Peace be upon you and yours. Med!
 

ViRedd

New Member
V, I guess life will be more boring to you as you won't have me to argue with. I thought our banter entertaining, but alas there was only one way communication, and I'm tired of hearing it, (Thats the communication part), so enjoy your perspective and live in your world, I cannot. Peace be upon you and yours. Med!
Fine with me, Pal. I suppose this means that you cannot justify your beliefs (feelings) and cannot back them up with facts. If you don't want to enter into political discussions with me, that's fine. You should be aware however, that everytime you try to spout off with your communistic viewpoints, I will counter them with logic and facts. The very last thing I want to see here is you negatively influencing young minds in an attempt to lure them away from a positive mindset of freedom and liberty. Now, go sell your socialist snake-oil somewhere else.

Vi
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
V FOAD! You right wing Hitlarian junkey, I suppose selling your right wing swill is the cure for our f--ked up world. People like you give the human race a bad name. I will never leave this forum as someone has to counter your fascist retoric with some humanity. Me f--king up the minds of the young, who made you the "decider", If this an open forum then I'm entitled to my opinion, Just as yours is opinion, You say it's facts. Maybe it's facts from your point of view, but to me and countless others it's just right wing bullshit. Don't you ever talk down to me again. You bet I'm mad, you act like your Opinion is the only one that counts on this forum. When someone agrees with you it's "hey buddy buddy", when they don't then their a f--king commie. I am entitled to post without being demeaned. To act like you do is cowardly (acting in annonimity) as you really don't have to face the person you are calling names. If you would like to meet me and start with name calling, that can be arranged. Then we could see just how brave you really were. I'm basically a non-violent person, but when aroused to the boiling point, I can handle my end. I was in combat, I heard the bullets going over my head, the mortar fire dropping around me, seeing my comrades going home in body bags. War is bad business, Unless you've been there, you have no right to champion wars!
 

ViRedd

New Member
And no one is asking you to leave the forum. My intent was to ask you not to try to sell your communistic viewpoints to me ... cuz it won't fly.

And, why are you getting upset about me calling you a communist? You have already agreed that their platform suits you to a tee. I directed you to their website and you returned stating that you agree with what they had to say. I've given you quotes from the Communist Manifesto itself, and you stated that you agree with it. If it quacks like a duck, walks like ... well, you know the rest.

Name the place you f--king coward. quit hiding behind annonimity. I'd just love kicking your cowardly ass. The talk is over, time for action you ass! Thats the real me talking now, step up you coward, no more retoric!

So, that's the "real you?" Man, I'm suprised. What happened to the compassion for your fellow man? What happened to the peace loving liberal? What happend to the Christian ethic of turning the other cheek?

For the life of me, I cannot fathom the thought of an individual who espouses peace and love for his fellow man, then turns around and says he would like to beat the shit out of an old man. Bah!

Vi
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
I changed my post as I realized it to be a wee bit radical, but don't come with the old man bullshit. I'm maybe 2 years younger than you and I'm tired of you thinking you rule this forum. If you really want to demean me, come on and step up, I'm really not above kicking another old mans ass, otherwise keep your demeaning comments to your self and just post your right wing bullshit. I'll say what I have to say without calling any names, referring to your rhetoric as right wing bullshit only. Peace you old fart!
 

mogie

Well-Known Member
How do you like living in our Communist country? What you say we are the land of the free?

The government tells us marijuana is bad. If you watch Reefer Madness it can drive us insane. But alcohol and cigarettes are okay.

I have seen people stop taking narcotic perscription drugs and simply use medical marijuana to relieve their pain. But the government says no that is illegal that the drugs instead. The drugs that mess up your kidneys, cause horrible side effects, dependacy and feed the pockbooks of the drug companys.

The REAL reason they won't legalize pot. They can't tax it!

Welcome to our little communist country. We call ourselves free but who are we kidding!!!!!!
 

ViRedd

New Member
Med ...

A "wee" bit radical? *lol* That's like calling Bill Clinton faithful.

And, to call me "right-wing," as I continue to point out to you, is an error on your part. I've already pointed out to you that I'm a Classical Liberal. I'm assuming that you didn't take the time to look up the definition. My position in this forum, and in my personal politics, has always been for a limited government and maximum freedom. I am for the complete abolition of the War on Drugs. I am for eliminating the IRS and our entire progressive tax system. I am for financial privacy, honest money and economic freedom. I believe in individual liberty and states rights. I believe in chaining the federal government with the Constitution as the Founding Fathers intended. I believe that our Creator endowed us with Human Rights long before our government was formed. Hardly "right wing," as you accuse me of being and certainly not fascistic in nature at all. See, those on the Left, and on the right, I might add, make the common error of thinking that anyone opposed to them MUST be the direct opposite to them. Not true at all. There are other political viewpoints shared by your fellow citizens besides those of the Democrats and Republicans.

Also, I am not trying to "run" this forum. All I am doing is interjecting my political views and countering yours. Yes, you have the right to speak your mind ... and I have the right to speak mine as well. I really think it a shame that you consider disagreement to your political views demeaning. And I'm also disappointed to learn of your violent nature as well.

Vi
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
I was right, you don't even bother to digest what I've written! I defined liberal right out of Merriam-Webster in one of my posts, and then again once more as describing you as not fitting the criterea. Read the dictionary!
 
Top