Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [RLC-Action] "... promote the general welfare, ..."

Expand Messages
  • Ray Holtorf
    Go to the federalist papers. Madison and Jefferson wrote extensively about how they feared the general welfare clause would be misunderstood, misrepresented,
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Go to the federalist papers. Madison and Jefferson
      wrote extensively about how they feared the "general
      welfare" clause would be misunderstood,
      misrepresented, and misused. I can't remember exactly
      who insisted it be in there).

      -Ray

      --- DGHarrison <DGHarrison@...> wrote:

      > I am about to embark on a discussion with a flaming
      > liberal who thinks that
      >
      > We the people of the United States, in order to
      > form a more perfect
      > union, establish justice, insure domestic
      > tranquility, provide for
      > the common defense, promote the general welfare,
      > and secure the
      > blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
      > posterity, do ordain and
      > establish this Constitution for the United
      > States of America.
      >
      > defines the people's right to "welfare" from the
      > Federal government.
      > It's pointless to try to convince the wacky liberal
      > that started the
      > argument, but there are about 100 others on the
      > line, and some of them
      > might be led astray by this jerk, unless I provide
      > an adequate counter
      > point. Does anyone have a quick argument to toss
      > back at this moron?
      > Maybe a link to a discussion about it? I've been
      > working to encourage
      > members of the group to look into the RLC, and they
      > are looking for
      > answers to such word games played by the Left.
      >
      > Doug Harrison
      > Minnesota
      >
      >




      ____________________________________________________
      Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
      http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
    • DGHarrison
      Terrence Geoghegan wrote: On another note ... is it really necessary for responders in this group to always leave the entire thread of previous messages in
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Terrence Geoghegan wrote: On another note ... is it really necessary for responders in this group to always leave the entire thread of previous messages in their messages every time?

        I agree with you, Terrence, that the fat should be trimmed from messages, especially for the convenience of the folks who get the digest. I try to do that, but sometimes I forget. You will note that I usually snip all but the main point that I am addressing and format a snippet from the original message as a reference, as in the above, which I formatted to set it apart from my own message. I've noticed that sometimes folks just toss out a reply that leaves you wondering to whom or about what he is actually responding. It takes only a little effort to tweak a reply so that your reference is clear and your message is streamlined. Now all I have to do is figure out how to say more with fewer words (although when talking with a liberal, I find that I have to carefully define all my terms so that the bastard can't conveniently take things out of context and twist the meanings of words to suit his own demented purposes).

        As for the responses to my original plea for assistance, I can only say I am humbled. Thank you for your willingness to share your thoughts and provide suggestions for reading. I will look at the Federalist Papers to get an education on this and other matters. Since I am homeschooling my children (now ages 2+ and nearly 4) I will need to make myself a Constitutional expert. To this end, I will be acquiring a home library with references such as the Federalist Papers and other important historical documents and history books. If anyone would care to recommend a list of "must have" materials, I'd really appreciate it.

        Doug Harrison
        Minnesota
      • westmiller@aol.com
        From: DGHarrison ... Some excellent responses offered. I d put the basic arguments in four aspects: 1. Original intent [if they
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          From: DGHarrison <DGHarrison@...>
          > [preamble] ... defines the people's right to "welfare"
          > from the Federal government.

          Some excellent responses offered. I'd put the basic
          arguments in four aspects:

          1. Original intent [if they respect that], with quotes
          from Madison in Federalist 41:
          http://federalistpapers.com/federalist41.html
          2. Legal construction [if they're lawyers], with the
          note of Justice Story that a broad interpretation runs
          contrary to the enumerated powers that follow:
          http://www.constitution.org/js/js_326.htm
          3. Common sense [if they have any ;o], with the
          distinction between "promoting" conditions that are
          beneficial to all (noting equal treatment under law),
          rather than *providing* for every need (which must
          be infinite).
          4. Moral sense [...] that charitable assistance to
          those who are innocent victims of misfortune cannot
          be coerced, since that destroys any moral value in
          the act.

          I like the last one, for many reasons. The best
          way to disarm opponents is to appeal to their values.
          Government cannot provide *love* for those in need,
          attending to their individual suffering or encouraging
          their efforts; it can only take and give according to
          the cold strictures of law. Nobody in government can
          *care* about individuals.

          Bill
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.