According to the US Constitution, the people themselves ordained that a constitution would help the general welfare of the US, not actually give government power over others happiness.
Don't mind him, he still thinks he owns his own body, too.
I said nothing about "control over every aspect of our lives" - that would be you reading what the constitution does not say. Congress is enabled to levy taxes in order to provide for the general welfare, that covers a lot of ground. It would not be within this particular clause - namely the power to levy taxes were it actually to mean "staying out of our business".
Yeah, it's the "pursuit" of happiness not happiness, itself, but you can't expect the drones to understand that. If they read the second amendment the same way as they read "general welfare" and "to regulate commerce"... everyone would be required to own and carry a firearm.
DAI (10 characters)
by some people's interpretation yes. So could food for all, shelter for all, lawnmowers for all etc etc.
You don't have to look far for supporting documents and letters, as to their goal. It's pretty clear that except for a scant few, their warnings to posterity were of too much government.
well maybe you couldn't but somebody else could. How bout popcorn? can we all get popcorn? Elena Kagan has already said on record that there is no limiting factor on government through the general welfare clause. You've admitted you'd like to stack the court with all Kagan types and that's your main reason for wanting another term for Obama. No Limiting Factor....
There are always abuses, regardless. Foodstamp programs, wic, food pantries and soup kitchens - these are good places/programs for those in need of food and from what I have seen there should be no one starving or hungry who has access to these programs/places.
In my hometown we get around 15 million in federal money to help about 1000 homeless people a year. I got so pissed off about the situation- lots of six figure jobs and not helping, just berating them and swindling the money. I went and lived among the homeless for about six months before I found out what was going on, then continued to stay with them and advocated for them - did activism spent much of my own money and lots of time on this. I spent several years at this, all I can say is theres plenty of help in the place I was if we could have just got people like the police comissioner and the politicians to stop stealing the money and helping their rich friends steal it, then it would have gone more directly toward helping the homeless instead of into the pockets of those who have plenty.
I had to read this again and well when the right and left get done f**king the country over there will probably be nothing left over. People's health and welfare was a lot better before politicians started selling our jobs to foriegn countries. Both left and right have participated in that, you know the two not me guys who point their finger at each other.
We can throw money at problems all day every day and get nowhere as long as these programs are administrated by theives. 15 million to help one thousand homeless! -per year. We could have bought them all houses and fed them/provided for them for the rest of their lives with that money.
Any power not expressly given to the Federal government by the Constitution is forbidden by the Constitution.
They do say business creates jobs, and there's no way you can argue against that. Eeverything else you claim is false. If you disagree with their opinions, fine, but don't put words in their mouths and then rail against things no one has claimed.
But we have a progressive tax rate, which means it's NOT uniform.
ANYTHING could be argued as "general welfare". The clause just states what the taxes can be spent on, not that it is required to be provided. Obamacare does not provide healthcare anyway. It requires YOU to buy insurance, the insurance company will provide the healthcare. Obamacare just specifies what must be covered and, importantly. NOT covered.