Sure it is. You just haven't wanted it yet.
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
It's not about what I want. It's about what you want. ie, what isn't necessary or proper.
Using your definition, nothing is excluded and the founders didn't even need to list the powers of congress. You've repeatedly violated the law to get what you wanted and destroyed the country in the process. Way to go, asshat.
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
I can supply quotes from Madison and Jefferson if F&L is ignorant of their positions.
Just tell me you don't know what I'm talking about, and I'll be happy to supply quotes with references.
The point F&L fails to grasp is: not every conceivable state enterprise is necessary and proper, or promotes the general welfare.
Vader (03-08-2012)
Cyclone Ranger (03-08-2012), optimus (03-08-2012)
Wanting the wealthy to help the poor is not an indication that the constitution allows for it.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. ... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." --James Madison
The language is plain and clear. If that doesn't convince you that you are wrong, nothing will.
Last edited by Freedom&Liberty; 03-08-2012 at 06:27 AM.
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
The ambassador died, Obama lied.
Freedom&Liberty (03-08-2012)
It's outrageous if you think you can come here and defend a man who called a woman a slut
I think we've seen the definite Madison quote. Here it is again. Read it this time and see how foolish you've been -
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. ... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." --James Madison
Liberals are the assholes the framers warned us about.
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
The definitive quote belongs instead to Madison's fellow framer and Federalist, Alexander Hamilton:
These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
I agree with that quote
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks