Providing for the common defense and general welfare are specifically enumerated in our Constitution.

Our federal congress is only empowered to legislate "in all Cases" in their District and other federal property.


The Federalist doctrine explains the rationale for interpreting Section 8, Article First. The specific enumerations following the general concepts were specifically enumerated for that purpose, to give some indication of the Class of ojbects that comprise the common defense and general welfare.

The Drug War cannot provide for the general welfare, simply because we already know it doesn't work. It is extra-constitutional due to precedent already established with both the enactment and repeal of the delegated power to Prohibit forms of Commerce. Barring such a delegation, the federal government is only delegated the power to Regulate commerce among the several States of the Union.

Not really a meta conspiracy. Reliance on red herring argumentation usually indicates a profit motive that may or may not be market recognizable.

No, they're not. They're generally mentioned. They're to be affected through the powers that are specifically enumerated.

Well, that would seem an open question. How bad would drug abuse be without it?

Would this then indicate that the drug war would be constitutional if it "worked"?

Haven't got a clue...

Given that you can't provide a specific answer to my question, why do you claim to oppose allowing the rich to abuse the poor?


Why should the thinking of men who lived more than 200 years ago be considered inviolable?


Who is this supposed to convince?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

From my perspective, the common defense and general welfare define what public monies should be spent on. In other words, money should not be spent on the general warfare or common offense.

Those specifically enumerated and specific powers are listed after the general powers in order to provide context for what was meant by the common defense and general welfare.

Your point of view is normal propaganda from republicans claiming to bear true witness to their republican doctrine, while resorting to zero sum true witness bearing.

Why would drugs be a worse problem if they are legal and well regulated, like it says in our Constitution?

The Drug War is extra-constitutional due to precedent already established with both the enactment and repeal of the delegated power to Prohibit forms of Commerce. Barring such a delegation, the federal government is only delegated the power to Regulate commerce among the several States of the Union.

So, they were just examples?

uh... ok. I'm all about the "zero-sum true witness bearing". I'm thinking of making it into a bumper sticker.

Personally, I don't think they would be. I was just wondering about the "whatever works" test of constitutionality.

What's interstate commerce got to do with it? If you can call it "general welfare", it's ok, right?

I think our Founding Fathers did an excellent job at the convention, with our Constitution.

We can interpret it fundamentally if we want and it can still be relevant up until the Civil War amendments.

My main criticism of the republicans and the republican doctrine, is that they should be the keepers of fundamentalism for the greater glory of their party doctrine, if nothing else.

Yes. The specific enumeration of specific powers were specific examples of what was specifically meant by the common defense and general welfare.

I thought you were resorting to the fallacy of false cause. You took my comment out of context since I defined how it was extra-constitutional in the next paragraph: The Drug War is extra-constitutional due to precedent already established with both the enactment and repeal of the delegated power to Prohibit forms of Commerce. Barring such a delegation, the federal government is only delegated the power to Regulate commerce among the several States of the Union.

The Class of objects known as Drugs are also a form of Commerce that should be Regulated, as specifically enumerated in our Constitution. "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" Interstate commerce should be (well) regulated among the several states, as specifically and fundamentally enumerated in our own Constitution.

The idea that they went to the trouble of enumerating powers just to serve as "sample powers" is specious in the extreme and violates the overwhelmingly well-documented intent of the constitution to constrain government to a limited set of specific powers. It honestly strains logic to imagine that they go would go through so much work, arguing for months over the smallest details, to create a list that is, in the end, irrelevant. From this point of view, the only thing in the constitution that matters IS the general welfare clause. Everything else is just fluff.

You claimed it didn't qualify as "general welfare" because it didn't work. That seems to indicate that if it did, it would, and would therefore be constitutional. No false cause, no special pleading, no ipso-facto-zero-sum-neo-maxi-zune-dweebie.

I skipped the appeal to precedent because it doesn't apply. It's a precedent regarding the interpretation of the enumerated power to regulate commerce. Prohibition was wedged in through that power. That was back when they were still under the delusion that the government was limited in that way and Prohibition was justified through the commerce regulation power. In revoking it, they merely set the precedent that the power to regulate commerce doesn't include the power to prohibit it.

But, if we're going with the "just examples" interpretation, such justification is unnecessary. As long is it's not specifically prohibited elsewhere in the constitution, promoting the general welfare is the only excuse required.

That doesn't mean we can't do better. Allowing for a more sophisticated citizenry, such betterment would become a certainty.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

As specific examples of what was meant by the common defense and general welfare, they are not fluff, but moral and ethical examples of what was meant.

Just because it can be considered to be conducive to the general welfare doesn't mean that the general government of the Union, has the delegated authority to do so; and, that it should be considered a States' right.

Using a fundamentalist approach, the word Regulate is clearly enumerated, not Prohibit. Prohibit was used in delegating that power but was since repealed due to its deleterious effects on our political-economy. I defined how it was extra-constitutional in the next paragraph: The Drug War is extra-constitutional due to precedent already established with both the enactment and repeal of the delegated power to Prohibit forms of Commerce. Barring such a delegation, the federal government is only delegated the power to Regulate commerce among the several States of the Union.

In any event, the several states have the right to request that the general government of the Union refrain from usurping States' rights. The theory of nullification has a basis in our Tenth Amendment.

daniel,

Once again, you've baffled me. Your Madison quote makes my point precisely and eloquently. Did you read it? It's specifically addressing, and refuting, your previously expressed notion that the general welfare clause amounts to an enumerated power.

Anyway, I mostly agree with you new position, though the about-face puzzles me.

Actually, I completely agree with this point of view. But I think such changes should be explicit and deliberate, not fabricated through 're-interpretation'. The amendment process was designed expressly for that purpose.

How does Madison's writing support your contention of a republican doctrine, if Madison was a federalist when he wrote the article?

In other words, not everything qualifies as the general welfare.

The general powers are explained and qualified by the particulars (as examples) of what constitutes the common defense and general welfare.

"contention of a republican doctrine"?

Madison was arguing against the idea that the general welfare clause establishes an enumerated power. That's my position.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

Thomas Jefferson

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson