Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Mar 9, 2009 17:02:59 GMT -5
I'll do my best to derail this thread here again towards another topic - five years ago we were arguing whether getting to the NCAA's should be a reasonable expectation for a season or whether we should just be happy with an appearance every five years. Now we miss it in a rebuilding year - where we were picked to finish 7th in the conference (we missed that mark by 3 games) and there are people calling for JT3's head. I find that astounding. Well, maybe on nothing -- or very little -- politically, but on this much, we certainly agree. Frustration is one thing. We're all very frustrated and pretty disappointed. But clearly, based on recent goings on at the basketball board, Jack DeGioia did not extend his head coach search nearly far enough. Obviously, there are some coaches on the board he should have looked at before hiring JTIII. If we're going to go insane about this team, I prefer to read the posts of those who are insane with optimism. ;D
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Mar 9, 2009 19:14:39 GMT -5
About 26 words into the preamble, right after the "provide for the common defense" that I'm sure you're very much in favor of, I see "promote the general welfare." If FOOD isn't an important step in promoting the general welfare, I don't know what is. Wow! If you're going to take that step, then powers we granted to the Federal government truly are unlimited. You're probably one of those fools who finds a "right to privacy" in the text of the Constitution as well. To some degree, yes. I think to the extent that it is "for the general welfare," there should be privacy. Privacy as applied to abortion, I actually do not agree with because I don't believe that abortion is (unless for the physical health/life of the mother) in the general welfare. I'm very tough to peg politically, probably b/c I am still trying to develop my own ideas and hopefully someday coherent approach to these sorts of things (namely the Constitution / federal powers issue). But to whatever degree I can or cannot explain it in context, I still think the federal government needs to make sure people have something to eat. We're barely a sovereign nation if we can't secure the basic necessity of food for our people. (As a side not, I'm not sure why Elvado brought up the right to food, so don't blame me for this odd example.)
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Mar 9, 2009 19:42:44 GMT -5
Please direct me to the portions of our Constitution that make government responsible for providing health care, or housing, or food. Well this flamed up nicely! Oh, and yes. Article 1, section 8. Congress' right to tax, spend, and regulate interstate commerce are all directly relevant to government's provision of health care. That you disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of these clauses and Congress' subsequent legal justification for providing these services is ultimately between you and your representatives (so long as you don't live in DC).
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Mar 10, 2009 6:18:08 GMT -5
PROVIDE common defense
PROMOTE general welfare
The Framers were very careful with language. If you don't see a difference, so be it.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Mar 10, 2009 9:05:38 GMT -5
please, since they were so careful with language and you seem to 'get' it please explain exactly, exactly what "promote general welfare" means
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Mar 10, 2009 10:02:29 GMT -5
|
|
royski
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,296
|
Post by royski on Mar 11, 2009 0:31:10 GMT -5
About 26 words into the preamble, right after the "provide for the common defense" that I'm sure you're very much in favor of, I see "promote the general welfare." If FOOD isn't an important step in promoting the general welfare, I don't know what is. Wow! If you're going to take that step, then powers we granted to the Federal government truly are unlimited. You're probably one of those fools who finds a "right to privacy" in the text of the Constitution as well. Nobody sees the irony in a fear of unlimited governmental power coupled with an opposition to the right to privacy?
|
|