Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 04/05/2012 View Wed 04/04/2012 View Tue 04/03/2012 View Mon 04/02/2012 View Sun 04/01/2012 View Sat 03/31/2012 View Fri 03/30/2012
1
2012-04-05 Home Front: Culture Wars
ItÂ’s Not the Constitution, Stupid
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2012-04-05 06:15|| || Front Page|| [1 views ]  Top

#1 Several points.

Much of what passes for this sort of behavior is for "our protection". Ben Franklin said that anyone who is willing to trade a little freedom for a little security will wind up with neither.


Much of the Constitutional justification for government intrustion into private affairs is through the "general welfare" clause. In my thinking, much of what is passed off as the "general welfare" is actually the "average welfare". There is a difference: in "the general welfare", EVERYONE benefits, while in "the average welfare", some are benefitted only at the expense of others. Note that to make this acceptable, advocates of "the average welfare" do not see governmental waste, inefficiency, and even GRAFT, on their or anyone's part, as downsides: as long as the amount of money in the total system remains the same, the "average welfare" is maintained and is not "bad", provided the target beneficiaries are somewhat better off. To them, the only way the "average welfare" could go down is if someone took the government subsidy, convered it to cash, and burned it.

The framers of the Constitution did not have "average welfare" in mind when they said "general welfare", mainly because of the Eminent domain clause requiring "just compensation" for any property taken by the Government, including intermediary transfers (See Kelo). Kelo established the right of government to take from some to give to others for a "public" purpose, but did not waive the "just compensation" requirement. When the government takes property or items, there is a bit of question as to the dollar value of the property taken, and usually it is the government that dictates the "value" of what was taken as "just compensation", but that does not apply to money, for the value of money taken is the exact amount taken.
Posted by Ptah 2012-04-05 11:19||   2012-04-05 11:19|| Front Page Top

#2 The Commerce Clause and the The Necessary and Proper Clause also tend to cause death by a thousand cuts to our republic.
Posted by JohnQC 2012-04-05 18:02||   2012-04-05 18:02|| Front Page Top

#3 "The Commerce Clause and the The Necessary and Proper Clause also tend to cause death by a thousand cuts to our republic."

Yet the argument before the court have nothing at all to do with either in the proper context.
Posted by newc 2012-04-05 19:58||   2012-04-05 19:58|| Front Page Top

#4 The SIRIUS EVENT, but I digress ...
Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-04-05 22:59||   2012-04-05 22:59|| Front Page Top

00:00 Skidmark
23:51 USN, Ret.
23:27 SteveS
23:25 texhooey
23:18 DarthVader
23:04 Barbara
23:02 Barbara
22:59 JosephMendiola
22:58 Barbara
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:55 canalzone
22:53 JosephMendiola
22:51 USN, Ret.
22:48 JosephMendiola
22:47 JosephMendiola
22:45 USN, Ret.
22:44 JosephMendiola
21:58 rjschwarz
21:14 Thing From Snowy Mountain
21:12 Shimble Guelph5793
21:11 Shimble Guelph5793
20:59 Frank G
19:59 Matt
19:58 newc









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com