Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well Summers, The "promote general welfare" clause in the Constitution would have me disagree with regulating toxic substances, but that is the intent of the Founders to disagree over responsibility(since none of them agreed either and argued just as much as we do now).
Sorry, but there is no such Clause in the US Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution is the power to levy taxes, duties, imposts, etc. It is not a power for Congress to do whatever they please. That liberal fantasy of a "General Welfare Clause" has already been laughed out of the Supreme Court.
Quote:
If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, that clause would not only enable Congress to supplant the States in the regulation of agriculture and of all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, sedulously framed to define and limit the power of the United States and preserve the powers of the States, could be broken down, the independence of the individual States obliterated, and the United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the Union superseding all local control over local concerns.
Source: United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
Sorry, but there is no such Clause in the US Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution is the power to levy taxes, duties, imposts, etc. It is not a power for Congress to do whatever they please. That liberal fantasy of a "General Welfare Clause" has already been laughed out of the Supreme Court.
What? It has been used dozens of times in history with the Supreme Court.
The latest use was by the most conservative court in decades in allowing eminent domain to be legal.
Promote the general welfare is listed twice in the Constitution and the vast majority of scholars and lawyers point out it is one of the few lines that can actually be used to debate the "true intent" of the founders.
I'm sorry but you are wrong on this one sir.
P.S. Did you read the history and context of the quote you posted?
What? It has been used dozens of times in history with the Supreme Court.
No, it has not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maabus1999
The latest use was by the most conservative court in decades in allowing eminent domain to be legal.
Wrong again, the 5th Amendment covers eminent domain: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) decision was based upon the 5th Amendment, not some liberal fantasy of a non-existent "General Welfare Clause."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maabus1999
Promote the general welfare is listed twice in the Constitution and the vast majority of scholars and lawyers point out it is one of the few lines that can actually be used to debate the "true intent" of the founders.
The phrase is listed twice in the US Constitution, correct. Once in the Preamble which has no weight in law, and once again under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 as the PURPOSE for the power to levy taxes, not as a power itself.
As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936), such a clause would render the entire US Constitution meaningless since Congress would be able to do anything they please. No such power was ever granted to Congress. The purpose of the US Constitution is to restrict the power of the federal government, not give them unlimited power.
Wrong again, the 5th Amendment covers eminent domain: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) decision was based upon the 5th Amendment, not some liberal fantasy of a non-existent "General Welfare Clause."
The phrase is listed twice in the US Constitution, correct. Once in the Preamble which has no weight in law, and once again under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 as the PURPOSE for the power to levy taxes, not as a power itself.
As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936), such a clause would render the entire US Constitution meaningless since Congress would be able to do anything they please. No such power was ever granted to Congress. The purpose of the US Constitution is to restrict the power of the federal government, not give them unlimited power.
An example of the way courts utilize the Preamble is Ellis v. City of Grand Rapids. Substantively, the case was about eminent domain. The City of Grand Rapids wanted to use eminent domain to force landowners to sell property in the city identified as "blighted", and convey the property to owners that would develop it in ostensibly beneficial ways: in this case, to St. Mary's Hospital, a Catholic organization. This area of substantive constitutional law is governed by the Fifth Amendment, which is understood to require that property acquired via eminent domain must be put to a "public use". In interpreting whether the proposed project constituted a "public use", the court pointed to the Preamble's reference to "promot[ing] the general Welfare" as evidence that "[t]he health of the people was in the minds of our forefathers"."[T]he concerted effort for renewal and expansion of hospital and medical care centers, as a part of our nation's system of hospitals, is as a public service and use within the highest meaning of such terms. Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: '* * * promote the general Welfare.'"
Yes there is a 5th amendment, but expanding it was what I was alluding too. I didn't want to get into serious details.
Plus, the case with Butler(which has some interesting irony in the final decision if you read about it related to Madison vs Hamilton), as you pointed out, adopted one of three founding father interpretations of the "general welfare" clause, which came to this conclusion:
It also established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress. In its opinion, the Court warned that to challenge a federal expense on the ground that it did not promote the general welfare would "naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress."
And this is how they[Obama] will be arguing health care FYI. Be interesting how the current Supreme Court takes it with this precedent behind them.
EDIT: In case this is confusing, in Laymen's terms current case law takes Alexander Hamilton's view on the General Welfare clause of the Constitution, which in short says: Alexander Hamilton promoted a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power of Congress and could be exercised independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.
Last edited by Maabus1999; 08-27-2010 at 10:08 AM..
ya but what about all the millions of bullets that get shot in the woods of america every year that get imbedded into trees, ground, would that be good in the long term.. lead will seep into the ground water
i don't see a big deal with using another metal for bullets.. if you get shot with a copper bullet you will be just as dead as lead..might cost more, but dead is dead..
Where do you think lead comes from in the first place? I know of some natural lead deposits in the mountains here, some sticking right out of the ground...
Lead is toxic. Do you not believe the government has a right to regulate toxic substances?
Also, do you think the ban on mercury for most products should be repealled?
I mean we could make a whole list of "inert and stable" elements that have side effects if you want.
Related to the post, being lead has a subsitute, albit more expensive, I see no problem in this decision. So you may pay a few more cents for bullets, big deal.
The substitutes for lead are significantly more expensive, and furthermore, are as toxic or more toxic than lead. the dirty little secret about metals like bismuth are that they're hardly non-toxic. Bismuth poisoning exists, and it's mildly radioactive as well.
There have been legitimate studies that have shown lead rifle and handgun bullets are not a danger. Have you looked at who wrote this petition? It's an animal rights group that is anti-hunting. Connect the dots.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,787,526 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by cruxan
ya but what about all the millions of bullets that get shot in the woods of america every year that get imbedded into trees, ground, would that be good in the long term.. lead will seep into the ground water
i don't see a big deal with using another metal for bullets.. if you get shot with a copper bullet you will be just as dead as lead..might cost more, but dead is dead..
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,787,526 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maabus1999
Lead is toxic. Do you not believe the government has a right to regulate toxic substances?
Also, do you think the ban on mercury for most products should be repealled?
I mean we could make a whole list of "inert and stable" elements that have side effects if you want.
Related to the post, being lead has a subsitute, albit more expensive, I see no problem in this decision. So you may pay a few more cents for bullets, big deal.
Any impact on the environment by lead projectiles is truly, truly negligible and there is not one system or organism that would have any measurable or perceivable increase in health or quality of life as a result of a ban on lead bullets. The justification is a red herring.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
