Unemployment compensation, at-will, that complies with at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws.

actually, the preamble is the most legally significant aspect of the USCON. It establishes that government originates from the will of the governed, and while most do not read or accept this, it implies that the majority, or whomever the hell 'we the people' are, has the right to change the constitution when it sees fit.

__________________

I have given numerous quotes from Madison and Jefferson on the General Welfare clause, but how many have you given?

Please feel free to post any quotes from Adams or Washington on the General Welfare clause, or that are directly related.

Welfare is unconstitutional. Period. I would bet a lot of money that both Adams and Washington would agree. Hamilton I don't really care about, as I have no respect for his opinions. So, do you have any quotes form Adams and Washington that relate to this discussion?

So far I have included quotes from Madison, Jefferson and Davy Crockett. We also have Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee who were concerned about the General Welfare clause, but MADISON assured them that this clause granted no new powers to the FEDGOV and that it would be obvious to people that the clause granted no new powers to the government.

http://books.google.com/books?id=dt-...esult&resnum=4

One last piece........

The use of the term "general Welfare" in the Preamble and later in Article I, Section 8 has been a source of contention since the Constitution was first proposed. There was a significant body of citizens who strongly opposed ratification of the new compact. Known as the Anti-federalists, they included such undisputed patriots as Patrick Henry. Among other things, the Anti- federalists objected to the inclusion of such a vague term on the grounds that it could be used by unscrupulous politicians to justify any national government actions.

Supporters of the move to ratify the Constitution ridiculed these concerns. The Federalist Papers were articles published by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to explain and defend the design for the new government. In Federalist Paper No. 41, Madison called the objections "stooping to such a misconstruction." He argued at length that the general welfare clause was merely a "general phrase" which was explained in detail by the sentences following it, enumerating the specific powers granted to Congress. The idea that the term "general welfare" would take precedence over the specific limitations he described as "an absurdity."

http://www.neusysinc.com/columnarchive/colm0054.html

If more of the founding fathers could see the United States today, I would bet everything I own that a vast majority would be anti-federalists. The constitution has been perverted from it's original meaning, just like Jefferson and Patrick Henry feared.

Madison claimed that the government abusing the General Welfare clause was absurd, as the powers granted to the Federal government were all listed. What Madison didn't understand is that many people will believe whatever they want to believe, no matter how much evidence is presented to show that they are wrong.

Sound like anyone you know?

It is my contention that federal welfare is not unconstitutional in DC or other federal properties. The states have no limitation enumerated for their own general welfare since it is sometimes indistinguishable from their domestic tranquility and security. An example of the this is the Erie [post] Canal under Dewitt Clinton (who, unfortunately, lost to Madison).

However, unemployment compensation, at-will, would work more efficaciously in providing for the general welfare, than welfare as we currently know it.

Doesn't matter how many you give. They're still just their opinions. Their opinions are no better than mine, or than those of today's Supreme Court which interprets it much the way I've done here.

Blasphemy of the highest order!!!!!! The opinions of the founding fathers are our political bibles, we cannot dare question them, much declare our own opinions just as meaningful.

you better repent or madison and jefferson will visit you in your sleep.

__________________

Yeah, who cares what Madison, Jefferson, Patrick Henry and all the others had to say. Let's just dismiss what all these great believers in individual liberty had to say and accept Hamliton's view, the guy who wanted the president to be a lifetime appointment.

Thanks for proving my point. You do not believe in individual liberty.

Actually, I believe every American has a right to decide what is constitutional and what is not. Of course, before doing so, each American should read all they can find from all the founding fathers, BEFORE forming their own opinion.

Gee, I wonder why the founding fathers writings are rarely taught in schools anymore?

Better yet, let's accept the interpretations of our modern jurors and constitutional thinkers, who are aware of the needs of modern society in a way that nobody alive in the late 18th century could be. I see no need for a lifetime president.

What this proves is that you have no affinity for logical thinking whatsoever.

Yeah, the Supreme Court has done a great job "interpreting" the constitution. Their ruling on Eminent Domain proves they are a joke and don't even have the most basic understanding of the principles the USA was founded upon.

The SC ruling on medical marijuana is also a pathetic joke. Ruling that the government can ban a plant that is safer than countless other drugs, yet allowing doctors to recommend to their patients to buy marijuana off the street, illegally, is a travesty of justice and a slap in the face to the constitution.

The Supreme Court is a fucking joke. They wouldn't know the constitution if it walked up and bit them on the ass. Maybe you should read Justice Black's Griswold dissent sometime.

Do you happen to know the name of that case? I think I'm going to have to study it more closely. There are times when the court makes a ruling based on case proceedings without really trying the case on the merits. A perfect, classic example is the Dred Scott decision. Everyone finds that ruling appalling for its moral ramifications, but after reading it closely I agree with the court's reasoning and believe that it was the right decision legally.

Not saying the eminent domain case falls into the same category, just that it's a possibility that should be examined carefully. Anyway, the Court isn't infallible, but what you're talking about is a decision that would place Madison's personal/political prejudices above the plain language of the Constitution. He was entitled to do that as president (though he changed his stance after the War of 1812 it would seem), but the court must go by the actual wording of the law.

No, here I completely disagree. Traffic in marijuana is interstate commerce intrinsically -- there's no way to keep it confined within state borders -- and so it comes under the regulation of commerce clause to ban that commerce. It's the wrong thing for Congress to do, but it's within its powers.

A travesty of justice, sure, but it complies with the Constitution perfectly. Congress is empowered to regulate interstate commerce, but it is expressly forbidden to infringe free speech, and what's more, a doctor-patient relationship is NOT interstate commerce.

You have to stop confusing the word "constitutional" with the phrase "what I like."

I feel the Dred Scott case provides standing for inalienable or indefeasible rights clause to private property by the several states of the Union.

As a controversial form of private property, recreational drugs should also have the same protection afforded to something less moral and less ethical, as a form binding precedent.

In my opinion, public policy constitutes public use. Thus, if the Drug War were to be prosecuted according to that view, the drug war would only consist of eminent domain laws being carried out, and would provide a form of market based metrics for the drug war.

Otherwise, the drug war really is stealing private property and destroying forms of wealth, through the coercive use of force of the State. It is what happens when our elected representatives to federal government do not have to pass any religious morals test.

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)

As to the medical marijuana issue, if drugs like Oxycontin can be prescribed, why can't marijuana?

I was not talking about marijuana to be legalized, only MEDICAL marijuana.

If you agree with either of those rulings, then you are as misguided as the justices who supported both those rulings.

Both decisions were 5-4 by the way.

To assume that a split decision of the court always arrives at the 5 being right and the 4 being wrong is absurd. The Supreme Court was never intended to have such power, but here we are. As Justice Black told us......

That Amendment was passed not to broaden the powers of this Court or any other department of "the General Government," but, as every student of history knows, to assure the people that the Constitution in all its provisions was intended to limit the Federal Government to the powers granted expressly or by necessary implication. If any broad, unlimited power to hold laws unconstitutional because they offend what this Court conceives to be the "[collective] conscience of our people" is vested in this Court by the Ninth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, or any other provision of the Constitution, it was not given by the Framers, but rather has been bestowed on the Court by the Court. This fact is perhaps responsible for the peculiar phenomenon that, for a period of a century and a half, no serious suggestion was ever made that the Ninth Amendment, enacted to protect state powers against federal invasion, could be used as a weapon of federal power to prevent state legislatures from passing laws they consider appropriate to govern local affairs. Use of any such broad, unbounded judicial authority would make of this Court's members a day-to-day constitutional convention.

I repeat, so as not to be misunderstood, that this Court does have power, which it should exercise, to hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My point is that there is no provision [p521] of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose flexible. uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts, and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up, and, at the same time, threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have. [n16] [p522]

Norrin, I left this quote whole to show you what I mean by your difficulty thinking rationally. You don't seem to see that you wanted the court to behave, by overturning the laws against medical marijuana, EXACTLY the way Black was saying the court should not do.

The question, "if drugs like Oxycontin can be prescribed, why can't marijuana?" is a good one to ask of Congress. As far as policy goes and what the law should be, of course I agree with you here -- you know that already. But the fact remains, as wrongheaded as the war on drugs is, it's within the powers of the federal government as enumerated in the Constitution. And so is the authority to make stupid choices like that one.

The Court can't strike down a law because it's a bad law. It can only do so because the law violates the Constitution, and not all bad laws do.

Where does the constitution give the government the power to declare drugs illegal?

If alcohol prohibition needed an amendment, shouldn't the war on drugs require an amendment as well?