Free trade

[dutchwrangler]

Our only real disagreement is on what's enumerated and what isn't. You feel that to provide for the general welfare isn't an enumerated power and I feel that it is. The rest of this I'll agree with, far too many people would rather hear the latest "news" about Britney Spears or whatever other pop culture moron is making headlines at the time.



I figured 10% to be practical.



I am a little surprised that someone who studies/believes the bible makes statements like "liberty is all that matters" as the key takeaway from that sacred text is "love is all that matters". "Take up your cross and follow me" certainly doesn't give a ringing endorsement of individual liberty. After all is said and done, it is love that enables liberty.



Very libertarian stuff there. I will fundamentally disagree with anyone who says that the police/fire department/miltary doesn't do one iota of good.

"General welfare", as mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, from my study means "prosperity". This definition is based on my study of word meaning in the eighteenth century. Many imply that this means the "welfare of the individual". However, a quick glance at the enumerated powers indicate no mention of the individual. Thus, my argument is that the "general welfare" meant the prosperity and well being of relations between the States, which is who created the central government. Only the Bill of Rights, at the insistence of the Anti-Federalist, pertain to the individual. These of course were ratified after the Constitution was already in force.

Liberty is a gift of from the Creator. I value gifts lovingly given to me by those who love me. I see no disparity in my value of Liberty as it relates to love.

Yes, we'll have to disagree on police/FD/military. My views are more in line with the Founders than the average citizen.

 

[ignerntbend]

Dutch, the second ammendment makes no mention of "the individual" either. Does it follow that gun ownership is a collective right contingent upon a militia regulated by the state?

 

[soonerwings]

General welfare", as mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, from my study means "prosperity". This definition is based on my study of word meaning in the eighteenth century. Many imply that this means the "welfare of the individual". However, a quick glance at the enumerated powers indicate no mention of the individual. Thus, my argument is that the "general welfare" meant the prosperity and well being of relations between the States, which is who created the central government. Only the Bill of Rights, at the insistence of the Anti-Federalist, pertain to the individual. These of course were ratified after the Constitution was already in force.

Correct. The individual is not mentioned. It gives congress the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States. It doesn't say the well being of the relations between the States. It quite simply says for the welfare of the United States. It means that Congress has been given the power to provide for the welfare of all the states.

Liberty is a gift of from the Creator. I value gifts lovingly given to me by those who love me. I see no disparity in my value of Liberty as it relates to love.

Because the Christ willingly gave up his liberty for others. Therefore liberty is not the only thing that matters.

Yes, we'll have to disagree on police/FD/military. My views are more in line with the Founders than the average citizen.

That comes across as fairly arrogant considering that the creation of a military is constitutionally authorized. Also, the founding fathers elected a General as the President of the Constitutional convention. I'd say that the founding fathers realized the good that can be accomplished by a national military. To claim that the military does not/cannot do good and that's "what the founding fathers thought" is absurd.

 

[dutchwrangler]

Dutch, the second ammendment makes no mention of "the individual" either. Does it follow that gun ownership is a collective right contingent upon a militia regulated by the state?

The 2A does mention the individual, "... the right of the people to keep..."

 

[dutchwrangler]

Correct. The individual is not mentioned. It gives congress the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States. It doesn't say the well being of the relations between the States. It quite simply says for the welfare of the United States. It means that Congress has been given the power to provide for the welfare of all the states.



Because the Christ willingly gave up his liberty for others. Therefore liberty is not the only thing that matters.



That comes across as fairly arrogant considering that the creation of a military is constitutionally authorized. Also, the founding fathers elected a General as the President of the Constitutional convention. I'd say that the founding fathers realized the good that can be accomplished by a national military. To claim that the military does not/cannot do good and that's "what the founding fathers thought" is absurd.

Consider me arrogant than along with the many Founders who stated and believed that standing armies were a threat to Liberty.


"A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen" - James Madison

"It astonishes me to find... [that so many] of our countrymen... should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty... which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries." -- Thomas Jefferson

 

[soonerwings]

Consider me arrogant than along with the many Founders who stated and believed that standing armies were a threat to Liberty.

Would those be the ones in the minority that were outvoted? If so (as seems apparent by the fact that a standing army is indeed Constitutionally permitted), then you'd be more precise to claim that your views are in line with a few founders rather than the many.

 

[ignerntbend]

The 2A does mention the individual, "... the right of the people to keep..."

Isn't people a plural noun?

 

[dutchwrangler]

Would those be the ones in the minority that were outvoted? If so (as seems apparent by the fact that a standing army is indeed Constitutionally permitted), then you'd be more precise to claim that your views are in line with a few founders rather than the many.

Being outvoted doesn't necessarily mean what you're implying. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, I would presume knew of that which he said. The Constitution states...

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of the Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

That a permanent Navy was permitted is acceptable. The Navy, by it's very design and configuration in that era was limited to it's reach inland. The armies to be raised were for declared wars. Fight the war, win the war, go home.

Again, you are less inclined to defend the Constitution based on the written debates of the those who wrote and ratified (the sovereign States) it. You're guilty of what the statists tend to do... an end run around the Constitution and it's limits. I'll attribute this to the national hubris you may hold as a native born son of the US. My approach is from the opposite angle as I do not possess this hubris. I never can nor ever will. Sorry...

Will discuss more later if it pleases you. But I've got to make my nightly run to Dallas... or as I call it... DallASS.

 

[ignerntbend]

Dutch, You're making it up as you go along just like the rest of us. Nothing wrong with it. Any of us would rewrite the second if we could. Still,
I think the founders would be apalled that we rever them as gods.

 

[soonerwings]

Being outvoted doesn't necessarily mean what you're implying. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, I would presume knew of that which he said. The Constitution states...

It means that it's a minority opinion and that MOST people disagreed. Thus we can conclude that most of the founders present at the Constitutional Convention realized that a military CAN do some good (whether or not the government uses it for good is an entirely different discussion).

You're guilty of what the statists tend to do... an end run around the Constitution and it's limits.

No end run is necessary for things authorized in black and white...such as the creation of an army and navy.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of the Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years

Read literally this means that the appropriation cannot last more than two years. The DoD budget is annual.

That a permanent Navy was permitted is acceptable. The Navy, by it's very design and configuration in that era was limited to it's reach inland.

False. The British navy was capable of global circumnavigation and taking a fight to anywhere in the known world more than a century before the American revolution. This is you trying to make one of your condemned "end runs" around the Constitution. Navies were capable of global reach well before the Constitution was drafted and yet it still allowed for the creation of a Navy.

Will discuss more later if it pleases you. But I've got to make my nightly run to Dallas... or as I call it... DallASS.

Of course, it's always fun to discuss things with people of differing views. Have fun in Dallas. Even though I'm a native born Okie I do have a fondness for that city. I'll be there thursday and friday evening myself.