Pope Francis Takes On Capitalism And Inequality

[Vance]

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.

James Madison.

[A]ll power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people. That government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right of acquiring property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purpose of its institution.

James Madison.

History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance.

James Madison.

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.

James Madison.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce.

James Madison.

[The Nehor]

Probably, I was in a hurry. Unlike the indolent dolts who live off the government @$%^, I have a real job where I work hard to provide for me and mine, (plus those living off the government dole).

 

Truly you bear a great burden for society and the world. Like Atlas, you should shrug. Why don't you go Galt and wait for the economy to collapse without your beneficent influence?

 

 

HA HA, So those that want an all powerful central gov aren't the extremist? They bent the rules past the breaking point, they LIED to us the whole time, and we are supposed to think they are benevolent?

HA.

Like what is going on in this country at this time!

Yet the REAL Founding Fathers called it tyranny.

Yet, that is what the REAL Founding Fathers called it.

Irrelevant.

 

They did call it tyranny. Hence, what I said, overblown rhetoric.

 

Also, no one is actively seeking an all-powerful government. Well, there might be a few but they are not dictating policy for either party and they are correctly limited to the lunatic fringe. Defending the nation from these people is like campaigning against government mind-control lasers. No, Obama is not seeking to become a fascist, depose the constitution, and bring about a new era of absolute government and liberal darkness. Those are just the scary campfire stories Uncle Limbaugh tells when he has had a few too many. They are as real as the ghosts told about in the same setting.

[Stone holm]

The Commerce clause is an enabling power. It does not limit the federal government. It grants it powers. That is what it is there for.

The government forces us to buy all kinds of things. Auto insurance for our cars, permits to build, analysis of land before you build something, experts to make sure buldings and other environments are up to code, passports, business licenses, etc. You can argue Obamacare is a mistake. I would agree. I just hope it transitions to something better but calling it unconstitutional is hysterical talk radio rubbish.

Actually, the commerce clause empowers the Federal Government, but it also limits the power of the States. The States are prevented from discriminating against interstate commerce. Interstate commerce is strictly the domain of Federal regulation with the exception of booze which is a special category.

[The Nehor]

Good constitutions are formed upon a comparison of the liberty of the individual with the strength of government: If the tone of either be too high, the other will be weakened too much. It is the happiest possible mode of conciliating these objects, to institute one branch peculiarly endowed with sensibility, another with knowledge and firmness. Through the opposition and mutual control of these bodies, the government will reach, in its regular operations, the perfect balance between liberty and power.

Alexander Hamilton,

 

I have to admit I never heard that one. I like it. It suggests a need for a balance and the idea of making the federal government small enough to be drowned in a bathtub is negated.

[The Nehor]

Probably, I was in a hurry. Unlike the indolent dolts who live off the government @$%^, I have a real job where I work hard to provide for me and mine, (plus those living off the government dole).

 

This is an amazing statement. For thousands of years of human history the person who had the job was considered the blessed and lucky one. Now for having a job he is the oppressed one yet somehow also the elite of society and somehow only those who have jobs realize it.

 

Amazing..........

[Vance]

Truly you bear a great burden for society and the world. Like Atlas, you should shrug. Why don't you go Galt and wait for the economy to collapse without your beneficent influence?

No worries! The economy and the government will collapse regardless of how hard I work. The false utopia peddled by the socialist/progressives is an illusion.

 

They did call it tyranny. Hence, what I said, overblown rhetoric.

They called it tyranny because that is what it was.

 

Also, no one is actively seeking an all-powerful government.

That is where you are wrong. They are actively working to silence and punish their opposition (because they can not win in the free market of ideas). They are lying, cheating and stealing elections. To what end? Peace and love and harmony?

Yeah, right.

 

No, Obama is not seeking to become a fascist,

Because he already is one.

 

depose the constitution, and bring about a new era of absolute government and liberal darkness.

You really have been listening to him have you. What do you think he meant by "fundamental transformation"? He IS fundamentally transforming this nation AWAY from the Constitution, individual liberty and the rule of law.

 

Those are just the scary campfire stories Uncle Limbaugh tells when he has had a few too many.

You OBVIOUSLY have never really listen to Limbaugh. Edited December 17, 2013 by Vance

[Vance]

Actually, the commerce clause empowers the Federal Government,

Nope. It limits the Federal Government to ONLY regulating interstate commerce. Unfortunately they have gone well beyond that limit. They are now regulating things that don't ever cross state lines.

[Vance]

I have to admit I never heard that one. I like it. It suggests a need for a balance and the idea of making the federal government small enough to be drowned in a bathtub is negated.

The typical leftist/progressive rhetoric/propaganda is that the tea party types want to eliminate the federal government. And unfortunately their drones sop that slop up. It is about limiting the federal government to ONLY its Constitutional duties and stop it from encroaching upon the rights of the States and the individual.

[Vance]

The Commerce clause is an enabling power. It does not limit the federal government. It grants it powers. That is what it is there for.

Not so. It limits the federal government to the ability to regulate ONLY the commerce that crosses between states. It is barred from interfering or regulating intrastate commerce.

The government forces us to buy all kinds of things. Auto insurance for our cars,

That is a State requirement, not a federal one.

permits to build, analysis of land before you build something, experts to make sure buldings and other environments are up to code,

Those are Local issues not federal ones.

passports,

Finally you get to a federal issue.

business licenses, etc.

Again, a local issue not a federal one.

It is becoming painfully obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. A product of government schools I presume.

You can argue Obamacare is a mistake. I would agree. I just hope it transitions to something better but calling it unconstitutional is hysterical talk radio rubbish.

The problem is that it is going it the wrong direction and taking a GIANT leap. It is unconstitutional in many ways. The rules were violated to get its initial passage. They were violated again to keep it passed. The democrats in congress and the president KNEW it was against the will of the people yet they, by hook or by crook continued. The president is violating the law EVERY time he "grants" a delay in its implementation.

We are moving from the greatest medical care in the history of the world (imperfect as it may be) to something that is far worse than Britain's ugly system.

[thesometimesaint]

You will believe leftist drivel.

Pray tell, does the commerce clause limit the federal government at all? If the federal government can tell you what insurance you have to buy, then they can also tell you kind of gun you have to buy.

"Oh wait!!", screams the leftist nut job, "it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to force me to buy a gun".

What difference is there between making you buy specific health insurance, or making buy a specific ANYTHING??? (gun or car or bed or toilet or tv or radio etc.)

If the federal government can force you to buy health insurance then you are no longer a citizen but a subject to whims of whoever happens to be in power.

 

Now let's deal with your rightist clap trap. Why do you continue to call names? Do you not have any factually and logically consistent arguments?

 

No the Commerce Clause doesn't not limit the government. Other parts do, particularly the Bill of Rights. The Founders were all for an expansive form of government. The government they formed was to be responsive to the needs of the majority electorate, while protecting the rights of the minority. IE; There can be no religious test for service in government.

 

Again you can't seem to deal with the arguments without name calling. You can't seem to remember that yes the Founders did enact laws that required citizens to buy and bring their own firearms. In 1792, Congress enacted a law mandating that all able-bodied citizens obtain a firearm. This history negates any claim that forcing the purchase of insurance or products is unprecedented or contrary to any possible intention of the framers.They were absolutely constitutional. You also seem to willfully forget that they also passed laws requiring private companies to buy medical insurance.The Constitution's framers could not possibly have envisioned a congressional power to force purchases. However, in 1790, the first Congress, which was packed with framers, required all ship owners to provide medical insurance for seamen; in 1798, Congress also required seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves.

 

You(We) have always been subject to the will of The People as implemented by our elected officials at our various level of government.

 

[Stone holm]

Now let's deal with your rightist clap trap. Why do you continue to call names? Do you not have any factually and logically consistent arguments?

 

No the Commerce Clause doesn't not limit the government. Other parts do, particularly the Bill of Rights. The Founders were all for an expansive form of government. The government they formed was to be responsive to the needs of the majority electorate, while protecting the rights of the minority. IE; There can be no religious test for service in government.

 

Again you can't seem to deal with the arguments without name calling. You can't seem to remember that yes the Founders did enact laws that required citizens to buy and bring their own firearms. In 1792, Congress enacted a law mandating that all able-bodied citizens obtain a firearm. This history negates any claim that forcing the purchase of insurance or products is unprecedented or contrary to any possible intention of the framers.They were absolutely constitutional. You also seem to willfully forget that they also passed laws requiring private companies to buy medical insurance.The Constitution's framers could not possibly have envisioned a congressional power to force purchases. However, in 1790, the first Congress, which was packed with framers, required all ship owners to provide medical insurance for seamen; in 1798, Congress also required seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves.

 

You(We) have always been subject to the will of The People as implemented by our elected officials at our various level of government.

 

 

It does limit State and local governmental power, but not Federal power.

[Vance]

Now let's deal with your rightist clap trap. Why do you continue to call names?

You mean like these?

 

Unfortunately the "States Rights" clarion call has been used by bigots and demagogues alike for generations to condone and outright facilitate every evil known in this country.

Or did you have something else in mind?

 

Do you not have any factually and logically consistent arguments?

You haven't been paying attention.

 

No the Commerce Clause doesn't not limit the government.

Yes, it does. It specifically limits the federal government to ONLY regulating interstate commerce. Thereby restricting it.

 

The Founders were all for an expansive form of government.

False. Even Hamilton (the one who leftist and progressives fawn over) said,

It's not tyranny we desire; it's a just, limited, federal government.

The government they formed was to be responsive to the needs of the majority electorate, while protecting the rights of the minority.

Nope, The federal government was form BY THE STATES and was specifically limited in both power and scope.

But even so, our current federal government is trampling the rights of the minority.

Again you can't seem to deal with the arguments without name calling. You can't seem to remember that yes the Founders did enact laws that required citizens to buy and bring their own firearms. In 1792, Congress enacted a law mandating that all able-bodied citizens obtain a firearm.

Article 1 Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence . . .

 

This history negates any claim that forcing the purchase of insurance or products is unprecedented or contrary to any possible intention of the framers.

Not so, the purchase of insurance has nothing to do with providing for the common defense.

 

You also seem to willfully forget that they also passed laws requiring private companies to buy medical insurance.

Not so. The founding fathers did no such thing.

Employer-sponsored health insurance plans were the direct result of the federal governments meddling with wage controls during WWII (IE meddling with free enterprise).

 

The Constitution's framers could not possibly have envisioned a congressional power to force purchases.

So, you admit I am right.

 

However, in 1790, the first Congress, which was packed with framers, required all ship owners to provide medical insurance for seamen; in 1798, Congress also required seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves.

Did you know that ship owners and seamen operated OUTSIDE OF the States. So, naturally the federal government had authority. DUH!

Edited to add.

CFR on that last claim.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Vance

[thesometimesaint]

It does limit State and local governmental power, but not Federal power.

 

The Bill of Rights is main check on federal powers, but imbedded within the main body of the Constitution there are specific measures that limit the federal government IE; A Bill of Attainder.

[Stone holm]

The Bill of Rights is main check on federal powers, but imbedded within the main body of the Constitution there are specific measures that limit the federal government IE; A Bill of Attainder.

True, but what is often argued is that somehow the body of the Constitution somehow has vast limitation of Federal Power. Occasionally you will have Progressives balking at Federal limitations on State power such as when Vermont wanted to regulate and require the disclosure that milk was coming from cows injected with hormones, or wanted to shut down the Yankee Nuclear plant, or wanted to go with single payer health care system. Vermont has also hesitated over taking on Monsanto because of threatened Federal litigation. We tend to look at the Federal government as currently gridlocked. Support of States rights really depends on who is perceived to be in control of the Federal government. Progressives see it stuck in gridlock with a Centrist White House. Conservatives see it as liberal because the White House is in Democrat hands and they can't overwhelm the Senate.

[thesometimesaint]

You mean like these?

 

Or did you have something else in mind?

 

You haven't been paying attention.

 

Yes, it does. It specifically limits the federal government to ONLY regulating interstate commerce. Thereby restricting it.

 

False. Even Hamilton (the one who leftist and progressives fawn over) said,

Nope, The federal government was form BY THE STATES and was specifically limited in both power and scope.

But even so, our current federal government is trampling the rights of the minority.

Article 1 Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence . . .

 

Not so, the purchase of insurance has nothing to do with providing for the common defense.

 

Not so. The founding fathers did no such thing.

Employer-sponsored health insurance plans were the direct result of the federal governments meddling with wage controls during WWII (IE meddling with free enterprise).

 

So, you admit I am right.

 

Did you know that ship owners and seamen operated OUTSIDE OF the States. So, naturally the federal government had authority. DUH!

Edited to add.

CFR on that last claim.

 

The call of "States Rights" goes back to at least the Presidency of George Washington. See: The Whiskey Rebellion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

Also SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion

 

Hamilton was far from a Leftist. But he did say that “The new government will not be a confederacy of states, as it ought, but one consolidated government, founded upon the destruction of the several governments of the states. … The powers of Congress under the new constitution, are complete and unlimited over the purse and the sword, and are perfectly independent of, and supreme over, the state governments; whose intervention in these great points is entirely destroyed. …

 

The Anti-Federalist arguments did in fact argue for "States Rights" :“The legislative power vested in Congress … is so unlimited in its nature; may be so comprehensive and boundless [in] its exercise, that this alone would be amply sufficient to annihilate the state governments, and swallow them up in the grand vortex of general empire,” the Pennsylvania dissenters declared.

 

Last I looked the 1790's were NOT after WW2.

Congress in 1790 did make purchasing firearms a requirement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

Moreover they did the same for health insurance in 1798: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/06/26/george-washingtons-individual-mandates/

 

That same part of the Preamble of the US Constitution also says: To promote the general welfare. How convenient of you to leave out that part as your main argument.

 

 Keep in mind that Congress put no limits of where that law would apply only one tonnage. The Coast Guard(Federal Government) has responsibilities for inland waterways too.

 

Your arguments are fallacious, and without substance. The Founders did all types of things that today we find objectionable. But they were Constitutional.  It is far past time to move on.

[thesometimesaint]

True, but what is often argued is that somehow the body of the Constitution somehow has vast limitation of Federal Power. Occasionally you will have Progressives balking at Federal limitations on State power such as when Vermont wanted to regulate and require the disclosure that milk was coming from cows injected with hormones, or wanted to shut down the Yankee Nuclear plant, or wanted to go with single payer health care system. Vermont has also hesitated over taking on Monsanto because of threatened Federal litigation. We tend to look at the Federal government as currently gridlocked. Support of States rights really depends on who is perceived to be in control of the Federal government. Progressives see it stuck in gridlock with a Centrist White House. Conservatives see it as liberal because the White House is in Democrat hands and they can't overwhelm the Senate.

 

Though not in the Constitution the reality is that until the Supreme Court determines if a law is Constitution it is Constitutional SEE: Marbury V Madison

 

We really don't have a political Left in this country, at least by European standards. We have center Right to bat crap crazy Right one by that standard. I am reasonably happy with our style of government(I don't foresee a time when we'll go to Parliamentarian style) but retain the liberty to not like all of its actions. Moreover the calls for secession, by certain elected and non-elected individuals, needs to be dealt with for the Treason it is.

[Stone holm]

Though not in the Constitution the reality is that until the Supreme Court determines if a law is Constitution it is Constitutional SEE: Marbury V Madison

 

We really don't have a political Left in this country, at least by European standards. We have center Right to bat crap crazy Right one by that standard. I am reasonably happy with our style of government(I don't foresee a time when we'll go to Parliamentarian style) but retain the liberty to not like all of its actions. Moreover the calls for secession, by certain elected and non-elected individuals, needs to be dealt with for the Treason it is.

 

In reality now, but it was no sure thing at the time.  And, you still from time to time will have either the President (as in the recent decision not to defend DOMA) invoke his oath to defend the Constitution as trumping his other responsibilities to enforce the law -- that has happened from time to time with Presidents from both sides of the aisle.  But the American people have come to feel that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitrator of what is Constitutional.

[Vance]

LOL!!

From your own link.

The Militia Acts of 1792 were a pair of statutes enacted by the second United States Congress in 1792. The acts provided for the organization of the state militias and provided for the President of the United States to take command of the state militias in times of imminent invasion or insurrection.

That is as I said,

Article 1 Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence . . .

Get that? Common Defense

Now, I still am awaiting you to add the claim that Health insurance was mandated by congress in the 1700's. The article in the left wing Washington Post (which provides NO footnotes or any other references) just will NOT do.

Your arguments are fallacious, and without substance.

Even our illustrious Wikipedia has NOTHING to say about what you claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_insurance#American_history

And this link totally contradicts the WaPo's claim.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5405599_history-health-insurance-america.html

So, until you can provide the actual description of the law from a non leftwing source, I am calling BULL.

[thesometimesaint]

In reality now, but it was no sure thing at the time.  And, you still from time to time will have either the President (as in the recent decision not to defend DOMA) invoke his oath to defend the Constitution as trumping his other responsibilities to enforce the law -- that has happened from time to time with Presidents from both sides of the aisle.  But the American people have come to feel that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitrator of what is Constitutional.

 

That's been the reality since 1803. A good argument can be made either way. However we really don't want all laws stringently enforced. When was the last time anyone was prosecuted for not boiling their dishrag, or not having a bath on Saturday? Discretion is Valor in this case.

[Vance]

Do you realize that you are not quoting Hamilton per se, but rather from the "Dissent of the Minority at the Pennsylvania Convention".

Which specifically voiced their CONCERNS about the new federal government might be. So they weren't claiming that is what the federal government should be but rather what it should NOT be.

LOL!!!

Edited December 17, 2013 by Vance

[thesometimesaint]

LOL!!

From your own link.

That is as I said,

Article 1 Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence . . .

Get that? Common Defense

Now, I still am awaiting you to add the claim that Health insurance was mandated by congress in the 1700's. The article in the left wing Washington Post (which provides NO footnotes or any other references) just will NOT do.

Your arguments are fallacious, and without substance.

Even our illustrious Wikipedia has NOTHING to say about what you claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_insurance#American_history

And this link totally contradicts the WaPo's claim.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5405599_history-health-insurance-america.html

So, until you can provide the actual description of the law from a non leftwing source, I am calling BULL.

 

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=257

 

So whether you like the source or not is irrelevant, and a Ad Honinem as well.

Edited December 17, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Do you realize that you are not quoting Hamilton per se, but rather from the "Dissent of the Minority at the Pennsylvania Convention".

Which specifically voiced their CONCERNS about the new federal government might be. So they weren't claiming that is what the federal government should be but rather what it should NOT be.

LOL!!!

 

I didn't claim it was Hamilton's argument, but Anti-Federalists arguments against Hamilton. The Anti-Federalists lost that argument.

[Stone holm]

That's been the reality since 1803. A good argument can be made either way. However we really don't want all laws stringently enforced. When was the last time anyone was prosecuted for not boiling their dishrag, or not having a bath on Saturday? Discretion is Valor in this case.

 

I think we are seeing some prosecutorial discretion at work in the recent Religious Polygamus Cohabitation case, where there was public disclosure that the State AG's Office is not normally prosecuting clean polygamy cases, which I have said was the policy out west for sometime, but it is the first I have heard it publicly disclosed. (Clean poligamy case is where there has been no other crime committed like minor sex,  involuntary detention, rape, welfare fraud, or fraudulent marriage license application, etc.)

[Vance]

I didn't claim it was Hamilton's argument, . . .

Yes, you did,

Hamilton was far from a Leftist. But he did say that “The new government will not be a confederacy of states, as it ought, but one consolidated government, founded upon the destruction of the several governments of the states. … The powers of Congress under the new constitution, are complete and unlimited over the purse and the sword, and are perfectly independent of, and supreme over, the state governments; whose intervention in these great points is entirely destroyed. …

. . . but Anti-Federalists arguments against Hamilton. The Anti-Federalists lost that argument.

Apparently, according to you the Anti-Federalists were right, in their accusation, for you seem to be claiming that there are no limits to what the federal gov can intrude into.

[Vance]

BTW, I am still waiting for you to address that CFR.