Effort or Luck?

I see you are focusing on "promote the general welfare", and just prior to that is "PROVIDE for the common defense", which would tend to indicate there is a difference between the two terms in their application within the document. We also have to recognize the fact that while words meanings change over time, to properly understand a documents original intent one needs to first understand the words meanings at the time of writing. In any event the powers of the Federal government are enumerated, and the interpretation you are attempting to forward is one which the founders appear to have misunderstood as they did not employ it as government tries to do today.
The simple resolution to our difference of opinion would be to amend the Constitution in a way explicitly giving the Federal government the authority to make society more equal as you find desirous. Think it could be accomplished?

 

Indie

Once again – if you have any rational and reasonable criticism of my views then please present them, so far you haven’t, if you think my views are irrational then explain why you think that in a rational and reasonable way, so far you haven’t.

Anyway as I said earlier my ideas are based in trying to bring about a better, fairer society for everyone where peoples potential are more likely to be realised.

As I said at the time this seems rational and reasonable because who would want to live in a society that was worse for many people and was far more unfair?

The problem was that you do seem to want a society which is more unfair and where many people would be in a worse position and only a few would be better off.

So I’ve been trying to find out if you had any rational, reasonable or logical reasons for having this view and now you are saying you never had any.

None, zilch, nada, zero.- you could have said that earlier and saved us a lot of time. And when you swore earlier that you did have rational arguments were you lying?

Now we find out that you just feel that a lot of people should suffer so that a few people that are already advantaged can be more advantaged - it’s not exactly a rallying call is it.

 

So essentially your whole argument rests on legality; which essentially means you could justify anything as long as it were simply legal (or illegal, as the case may be). Surely you see the absurdity of your position.

Why?

 

We're just going around in circles here. Where in the Constitution, which is more or less the rules and authority by which the Federal government wields power, is such authority to accomplish what you would like?

 

i focused on the three over the fourth as they seemed more relevant to this thread, as opposed to, say, a thread about military intervention or whatever

not only do words change over time, circumstances do too; the conomic disparities of today might be unimaginable to those of 1776 [at least, for the free men of 1776]

the constitution has already been amended to make society more equal; have you been asleep?

granted, these amendments do not directly address economic disparity

yet the various enacted legislation that do address economic disparity are subject to the same constitutional challenge and review by the supreme court that all legislation is, and seem to have survived . . .

 

And you don't think you're being absurd? The U.S. is a nation of laws, and while you may not agree, I don't think many would go along with being prosecuted or punished for obeying the law.

Why? Because government has nothing of its own to give. If you are a UK citizen than perhaps you are attuned to Socialism as your preferred form of government, but the U.S. remains a Constitutional republic, and until or unless that changes the government is not empowered to equalize the inhabitants, as proposed by Marx, Socialism, or Communism.

 

No one suggested this at all. What I am suggesting is that if a thing doesn't work, you change it. Simply because the Constitution has not specifically enumerated the powers in question is irrlevent, an amendment can be added. That's really the whole idea of a living document. Having said that, since the reason you oppose the government attempting to help the disadvantaged is because it isn't specifically legal, then you would be OK if an amendment were passed making it legal, yes?

I am an American citizen, I simply live in England. Also, the United States being a Constitutional Republic does not in and of itself preclude the redistribution of wealth. As I said, if an amendment were added, it seems your concerns would be resolved.

 

Furthermore, I fail to see why you cling so tightly to our current Constitution which is outmoded. The founding fathers would be absolutely astounded to learn that we are still using the exact same Constitution they wrote 200 years ago (amendments included). If there is one thing we can be certain of the Founding Fathers is that they expected to be overridden.

 

It is NOT irrelevant without amendment. And I agree with you on what makes the Constitution a 'living document'. And yes, absolutely I would be okay with an amendment although not supportive.

While you may claim redistribution of wealth not being precluded, it also could be with an amendment of such.

 

It is not exactly the same as written originally, it has been amended 27 times, the last in 1992. If you feel it is outmoded you should press for a Constitutional Convention to draw up a new one. Until then, or until further amendments are applied, it happens to be the basic law under which our government draws its authority. And there are a number of things in it that I don't like, but until they are changed I accept them.

 

Indie

We’ve been through this before - a constitutional republic can be a democracy or be communist, all it means is that it is a republic with a constitution; in Britain we have a constitutional monarchy as do the Spanish, while France is a constitutional republic like the US.

 

Indie

So you are claiming that your interpretation of the US constitution backs up your view that no state support should be given to the disadvantaged.

(1)The problem is that you seem unable to produce or explain this interpretation.

(2)As many people have pointed out to you even if you interpretation was in any way correct, the thing is it could be changed to bring about a better and fairer society for all. You cannot argue that because your interpretation is such and such that somehow this ‘proves’ that society has to be worse for people and more unfair.

(3)This interpretation is based on your views which you admit are not rational or reasonable which would imply that the interpretation is irrationally and unreasonably based.

 

I believe that is what I said.

Why? The only definitive reason you've said you're against it is legal reasons - so why when the legal reasons have been cleared up would you not be supportive?

Fair, but why would you want to make such an amendment?

 

lol

even a dumbass such as i knows it's a constitutional monarchy

hopefully they'll shake off that last bit before the ascension of queen kate :hide:

 

It could be, but not simply through national elections. If the Communist party could become a majority in both houses and take the executive branch as well, the country would not become Communist, assuming the Supreme court still functioned. Elections of representatives are not how the form of government is changed, and the Constitution when properly applied acts as a check not only on the government, but also on the people, requiring time for rational and reasonable thought to occur when ever changes are sought, plus it requires more than a simple majority to amend the Constitution.

 

I never said no State, I have only been referring to the Federal government in relation to the U.S. Constitution. The individual states are something entirely different, but they too have their own Constitutions and governments. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but States also tax their residents, and some States have attempted to increase revenue by raising the tax on their wealthiest residents and found a number of them simply moved to another State, having the effect of reducing the States revenue. When States reduced welfare benefits, many people went from the welfare roles to being employed. That was under the Clinton administration, brought about by a Republican congress, and even Clinton has mentioned it taking credit.

I've tried, and the whole point is not a question of should changes occur, but how should changes be accomplished. Like I've tried to put across, changes should be seen as acceptable by much more than a simple majority, which reduces the amount of enforcement necessary. People just don't look at being a member of society as taking on responsibility for all or a portion of all other members of that society. Their labors, physical or mental are payment for the wealth they earn and/or accumulate. Is justice served by a poor man robbing a rich man?

I agree that there is a way to properly bring about changes, and most likely they would be used if those wishing to make changes thought they had a chance of their being accepted under the rules that apply.

On the contrary, it is your views that I agree to being irrational, unreasonable, and based upon a misinterpretation of how the U.S. government works.

 

It's their government, I could care less.

 

"Simply because the Constitution has not specifically enumerated the powers in question is irrlevent, an amendment can be added."

Based on the context of your sentence, it would only become irrelevant with passage of an amendment, and until such time it is quite relevant.

Where would we be without laws? Why would I not be supportive? The simple answer is that I do not look at government as a means of providing my means. If government can take from another and give to me, it can also take from me when it sees fit. Just where does that end?

I already stated that I would not be supportive, but if such amendment was passed I would have no choice but to submit to its application.

 

this baffles me

you fairly drool over that recent descendant of the magna carta known as the us constitution, a document birthed by those wishing to shake off the chains of monarchy

and you're not interested in the possibility that the very mother of america, britannia, might have also that same exalted goal finally within her sights?

 

The idea was that a resolved objection no longer need be discussed. And really, all you are doing is trying to misdirect the discussion.

Where would calves be without milk? What does this have to do with anything? No one is saying not to have laws. I'm saying your objection can be resolved by making new laws. How does that say "we don't need any laws" to you?

So now you are honestly using the slippery slope fallacy as the basis of your objection. Don't you find that at least a bit telling? Also, the government already takes from you to give it to another every time someone dials 911. You say you are for government assistance only when it involves basic protection. Why? So far you offer the law argument, which can be resolved, and a logical fallacy.