Put Your Money where Your Mouth Is!

[Wild Cobra]

Ah, I meant general welfare. You and I both know that "general welfare" meant something different than it does now.

However, there's nothing stating that we have to use the original language of those who wrote the Cons ution and maintain that. Words do change over time... heck, look at the phrase, "All men are created equal"... certainly, the definition of what cons uted a man has changed, as it relates to their right to freedom.

That type of at ude makes the cons ution meaningless. If you wish to change the cons ution, there is an amendment process. With your approach, all it takes is convincing far fewer people than the amendment process does, and it degrades the cons ution.

[LnGrrrR]

That type of at ude makes the cons ution meaningless. If you wish to change the cons ution, there is an amendment process. With your approach, all it takes is convincing far fewer people than the amendment process does, and it degrades the cons ution.

Are you saying that every law that isn't specifically enumerated or spelled out in the Cons ution is uncons utional?

As of THIS MOMENT, the law has determined that certain programs are LEGAL. That, in effect, makes them cons utional, unless challenged in a court of law. Do you disagree?

(You can certainly argue that something is uncons utional, as I did with warrantless wiretapping. However, until it is actually CHALLENGED, then it is legal by default as long as it does not cross any existing laws.)

[DMX7]

Conservatives, NO. Republicans, YES, but still, not as guilty.

Interesting distinction. Maybe conservatives should nominate people for like congressional offices. Then they can have like pre-elections to determine who will run in the general election. Then those candidates might win, and conservatives may finally have a voice in Washington.

[Wild Cobra]

Are you saying that every law that isn't specifically enumerated or spelled out in the Cons ution is uncons utional?

No. You're twisting what I meant and I think you know it.

As of THIS MOMENT, the law has determined that certain programs are LEGAL. That, in effect, makes them cons utional, unless challenged in a court of law. Do you disagree?

I was referring to your apparent desire to change the meaning of the cons utional intent, as words have changes. That's how I read what you said.

(You can certainly argue that something is uncons utional, as I did with warrantless wiretapping. However, until it is actually CHALLENGED, then it is legal by default as long as it does not cross any existing laws.)

And laws should be clear enough and judges original to intent, and most cons utional questions shouldn't even arise. The cons ution is pretty clear on most types of issues.

"Promote the general Welfare" in no way means welfare as we know it to day. Government is suppose to do things that create a better atmosphere in this nation for us to thrive in. Not redistribution of wealth. That hurts others. Excessive taxes and several types of regulations are contrary to this intent. The government operates outside the cons ution in these manners and c so many more.

[LnGrrrR]

"Promote the general Welfare" in no way means welfare as we know it to day. Government is suppose to do things that create a better atmosphere in this nation for us to thrive in. Not redistribution of wealth. That hurts others. Excessive taxes and several types of regulations are contrary to this intent. The government operates outside the cons ution in these manners and c so many more.

Yes, the definition of welfare today is different from our founding fathers. However, different does not equal uncons utional.

If it's written into law, and hasn't been overturned by the judicial system, it's de facto cons utional.

Using the idea that taxes today are excessive can also be used on the previous 'standing army' argument. You argued that there was no way our founding fathers could have foreseen the way the world is today, correct? That is why the Founding Fathers idea that we should remain relatively neutral, and not engage in wars unless absolutely necessary, is outdated. One could say the same of your "welfare" argument.