Your forcing me at gunpoint to provide for national security, roads etc.

__________________

No, because as a citizen you are voluntarily living under the constitution. The income tax likewise, to pay for national defense and other constitutional measures, citizens have agreed to by virtue of citizenship. Healthcare, roads, education, etc, are not constitutional allowed, and therefore the congress uses their guns to force you to pay for them.

Its akin to saying you are forced at gunpoint not to murder people, vs pay for a public park.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

The general powers are clearly enumerated as the ends for which our tax monies are to be raised.

Sufficient infrastructure to ameliorate pollution, and abolish poverty should be considered a promotion of the general welfare.

In my view, our Constitution allows for an underground conduit that can deliver energy, communications, and potable and (industrial) waste water management. As a literal conduit to markets, such infrastructure can generate revenue from general forms of taxation and can lower our tax burden by defraying public sector costs. This approach also solves for some of the externalities of environmental pollution due to industrial waste.

Such infrastructure also requires labor in any local economy it is developed in. In my opinion, labor used for the general welfare precludes that labor being used for the general badfare, common offense, and general warfare as an opportunity cost.

Pollution and poverty are not the listed powers of congress which can be funded, nor energy, communications, water or waste management. If we want them we should amend the constitution.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Your subscription to the republican doctrine is apparent. However, I think our Founding Fathers did an excellent job at the convention with our Constitution since they enumerated specific Examples of what they meant by the common Defense and general Welfare.

Post roads, post communication systems, and post industrial waste water systems can be integral parts of our infrastructure. Post-infrastructure is implied and can be considered a requirement for better assuring a republican form of government and its provision of the general welfare. The general power to provide for the general welfare is "very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

We already know that the national and socialized War on Poverty public policy scheme does not work at ending generational forms of poverty. Providing for their own general welfare is a states' right, privilege and immunity. With state unemployment compensation as a poverty elimination mechanism that conforms to the federal at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws, welfare as we currently know it could be ended by attrition.

Im not a republican. If you think these are things authorized by the consitution, then it shouldnt be a problem to get an amendment passed.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Ah, you see heres the rub. A) we're not talkign about the US soley but our own political philopshys and beliefs. Constitutionally in the UK all these things are allowed and more than that its quite possible they're allowed under the US constitutiopn; look at roads for example, it can be argued that under the clause to 'maintain a postal service' and to 'regulate inter-state commerce' then thats constitutional. Healthcare; general welfare of the Union.

Your referencing social contract theory a lot here, now the real question is what the US consitution allows. We know its deliberatly vague to allow these sort of things, otherwise you'd end up with the situation you had with the confederacy.

Also, you are aware that before the Jackson presidency a standing army was deemed unconstituional and hadn't been raised. If it wasn't for the force bill then you wouldn't have a national armed force...

B) Taking it away from the US constituion, if this is on our own philopshy, inderpendent of the constituition then why shouldn't a constittuion (As with UK, German, French etc.) and thus your social contract theory allows the money to be taken, by force (as with the US constituion) to pay for things. As a point of principle I don't think your arguement stands up. Whats so different between national defense and government healthcare?

__________________

To be fair, pollution that crosses state lines does seem to fit into the Commerce Clause. States should control or regulate pollution that does not. Of course, with the EPA's latest attempt to call CO2 pollution, if that is allowed, it would federalize it's regs on all of us.

The courts have allowed this expansion of power on the skimpiest of legalities. And once a "precedence" is established, built on it. It's been a slow grind away from the constitution.

And, I'm afraid, the American people have become complicit in the movement.

__________________
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. ---P. J. O'Rourke

It's my understanding you guys don't even have a written constitution, therefore, the sky's the limit.

As far as "standing army" it is not prohibited by the constitution, and a proposal to limit the standing army to 5,000 during the constitutional convention was met by one of Washington's few comments as the president of the convention, that he would support such a proposal if all enemies would limit their armies to 3,000.

From Madison's Federalist Paper #41

How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation? The means of security can only be regulated by the means and the danger of attack. They will, in fact, be ever determined by these rules, and by no others. It is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation. It is worse than in vain; because it plants in the Constitution itself necessary usurpations of power, every precedent of which is a germ of unnecessary and multiplied repetitions. If one nation maintains constantly a disciplined army, ready for the service of ambition or revenge, it obliges the most pacific nations who may be within the reach of its enterprises to take corresponding precautions.

The Constitution does mandate that appropriations for military spending not exceed two years.

Interestedly, the same Federalist Paper explains why the "general welfare" is limited to the powers given Congress:

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

__________________
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. ---P. J. O'Rourke

Mine is pretty simple.

Keep the wealth of the nation [free market] out of the governments hands because money = power.

I prefer capitalism over a government controlled economy.

__________________
Sic Semper Tyrannis






http://www.myspace.com/swoop187muzic

No, Im still talking about philosophy. Youre the one who brought up roads. My philosophy does not include road building, therefore I cant force you at gunpoint to build roads. On the other hand, all of our philosophies have included physical defense, therefore, no gunpoint is neccesary, since we all agree. The difference between national defense and healthcare is that people can not defend themselves against foreign armies. They can provide for their own healthcare. Now, if you in your country all want to agree that a country should provide healthcare as a service, thats fine, since you agree. We dont here, which is why they are going to force us at gunpoint.

Thats the brunt of my philosophy. If you dont all approve of govt doing something beyond it basic authorized by all powers, then it shouldnt be done. Which is exactly how our constitution was written.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Pollution is not commerce. Of course, the founders didnt know about pollution when they wrote the constitution, hence why they allowed it to be amended for future needs. If we want the EPA, we should pass an amendment.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

I understand your argument, otoh, regulate interstate commerce could imply all aspects of a business engaged in interstate commerce. It was the justification for OSHA, EPA, and Labor Laws dealing with minimum wage.

Even allowing for such regs to be imposed on interstate business, it still wouldn't allow those regs to be imposed upon everyone, which has clearly happened.

__________________
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. ---P. J. O'Rourke

Well, when we start implying we end up where we are. This was not the intent of the founders. The commerce clause intent was to make regular the trade of goods and services between states to avoid things like embargos and taxation. I totally agree that one role of the federal govt is to prevent one states actions infringing on another states freedom, which would include industrial pollution, but this more likely falls under protecting the soveriengty of states, not regulation of commerce.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson