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.
If I make a product in Florida, it doesn't mean the federal government has the constitutional right to regulate it.
If I ship that product to Georgia, there is an argument to be made for interstate commerce. If it stays in Florida, then the federal government has no right to deal with my business.
Case in point, legalization of marijuana in California.
The federal government has no rights to tell californians what they can sell to one another, thats a state issue. However, if someone ships it to Arizona, there is a interstate commerce problem there.
General means all, its a generic term. Not to be applied to any one specific group, unless their welfare benefits all Americans.
You keep saying "we the people" yes, the Constitution says that, but it doesn't mean we pass laws that are good for all Americans.
I'm sure sign companies took a hit when they had to quit printing "whites only" signs in the south. I guess we should pass a law for them.
States are perfectly capable of taking care of their own citizens welfare from corporations. If you don't like what your state is doing, move, or vote in someone you agree with.
And we've gone over this. I'm a states right, strict adherence to the Constitution type, and you're a interpretive federalist type. Thats fine, we just see it differently. No matter how much back and forth, its not going to change that.
Just remember, pot being illegal, gay rights, and things like that come from "interpretive" views, because the Constitution doesn't mention these things. Both views have their positives and negatives. I'd rather my state make rules for me, not the federal government. Because whats good for California, may not be good for me.
What is good for state might not be good for my local community. That doesn't eliminate the need for state to ensure basic laws that are within its capacity. The basic framework needs to be implemented at the highest level, with agencies closer to the people adding to it. Not the other way around where local agencies dictate everything with higher agencies having no say in it.
And yes, "general" is generic. I wasn't looking for that response. I was asking for your understanding of general welfare, and what it would encompass. And yes, it is to be applied across the board, for all.
And no, laws are not going to help everybody. Criminals would hate it. Those who want to discriminate would hate anti-discriminatory laws. That is a fact. But ultimately, the welfare of the nation depends on sound laws that are based on morals and realities.
BTW, I don't see gay rights, drug laws as being interpretive of anything constitution but Biblical (or religious in general). The society, as it is, is quite complex in its making, however. The ninth amendment speaks for it quite well.
I am not for federal or state rights, I'm for people's rights and that I expect the governments to work for the people. And yes, I do vote accordingly. Unfortunately, my vote is just as useful as anybody else's.
What is good for state might not be good for my local community. That doesn't eliminate the need for state to ensure basic laws that are within its capacity. The basic framework needs to be implemented at the highest level, with agencies closer to the people adding to it. Not the other way around where local agencies dictate everything with higher agencies having no say in it.
And yes, "general" is generic. I wasn't looking for that response. I was asking for your understanding of general welfare, and what it would encompass. And yes, it is to be applied across the board, for all.
And no, laws are not going to help everybody. Criminals would hate it. Those who want to discriminate would hate anti-discriminatory laws. That is a fact. But ultimately, the welfare of the nation depends on sound laws that are based on morals and realities.
BTW, I don't see gay rights, drug laws as being interpretive of anything constitution but Biblical (or religious in general). The society, as it is, is quite complex in its making, however. The ninth amendment speaks for it quite well.
I am not for federal or state rights, I'm for people's rights and that I expect the governments to work for the people.
I'm not familiar with your states constitution, but usually they don't give counties the same rights that the Federal constitution grants the states.
Sorry, don't like it, change your state constitution.
I'm not familiar with your states constitution, but usually they don't give counties the same rights that the Federal constitution grants the states.
Sorry, don't like it, change your state constitution.
Anything is meaningless if it doesn't work for the people and their fundamental rights.
Besides, constitution is not the issue, people who can get to power are and largely due to interests that often go against the people. Just a few of the realities we must deal EVERYWHERE.
If I make a product in Florida, it doesn't mean the federal government has the constitutional right to regulate it.
They do if you sell it in Alabama.
Quote:
If I ship that product to Georgia, there is an argument to be made for interstate commerce. If it stays in Florida, then the federal government has no right to deal with my business.
Case in point, legalization of marijuana in California.
The federal government has no rights to tell californians what they can sell to one another, thats a state issue. However, if someone ships it to Arizona, there is a interstate commerce problem there.
Exactly. For awhile there it looked like you were clinging to some weird misconception.
Exactly. For awhile there it looked like you were clinging to some weird misconception.
No, if you read my previous posts, I said that if a mine sells its coal to a local "distributor" and that distributor ships it across state lines, there is no interstate commerce from the mine, just the distributor. Some mines operate in that manner.
Thats my point, if a mine isn't effecting any state around it, the federal government has no right to deal with it. Thats my point.
In both instances, we're looking not at the resource itself but protecting people. How is that not in the national interest? I assume you're opposed to child labor laws, minimum wage etc?
Protecting American people in the national interest.
......selective use at best when those people live on the Arizona/TX/NM border and are terrorized by violent illegal aliens or when those American people are unborn and the mother wants to abort for convenience sake.
Workplace safety is important. OSHA is a behemoth that will not be slayed. It would take years of study to determine if the good outweighs the bad.
However, were the federal government actually doing its job when it came to workplace safety the mine collapses and the oil rig disaster via BP would not have happened.
Perhaps there is a better way than a federal buraucracy to enforce workplace safety? I dunno.
Rand Paul is a pretty bright guy when his words are not twisted about by the left. I'd vote for him if I lived in KY. He's a younger, stronger, brighter, better spoken version of his father sans the wierd factor.
He's catching flak from the left too which means he is a burr under their saddle blanket and on target.
No, if you read my previous posts, I said that if a mine sells its coal to a local "distributor" and that distributor ships it across state lines, there is no interstate commerce from the mine, just the distributor. Some mines operate in that manner.
Thats my point, if a mine isn't effecting any state around it, the federal government has no right to deal with it. Thats my point.
Then your so-called point is in conflict with the constitution and many cases of supreme court rulings, is all. But it's yours, so hang on to it no matter what the facts are.
Protecting American people in the national interest.
......selective use at best when those people live on the Arizona/TX/NM border and are terrorized by violent illegal aliens or when those American people are unborn and the mother wants to abort for convenience sake.
You have it partly right that government's job is to ensure welfare of the country (and as a result, its people). Now...
There is nothing selective about expecting government to do its job. Violent people, illegal or otherwise, are expected to be handled under the laws. And they are. What exactly are you babbling about? Are you saying that illegal aliens are getting a free pass to enter this country? Well, having been inspired by those who preach the ten commandments the most, I have a new signature. The ninth commandment serves as the perfect baseline to judge people and how they meet their political ends. I assume you don't believe in lying and bearing false witness against anybody, for selfish reasons or otherwise.
Now, are you saying that one could just cross the border and the government will not do anything about it? Have you tried it?
General welfare of the country isn't the only thing in the constitution either. It points at one of the responsibilities of the government. The constitution also ensures that the government must not trample on individual freedoms. You want your freedoms to be respected. Others want theirs. I leave the issue of abortions with that. The government has no right and business to tell an individual what they can or cannot do with their bodies, or a part of it. You're for it, I'm against it. You're anti-choice, I'm pro-choice. It would be very easy for me to be anti-choice given I'm a guy, but respecting others' freedoms and personal responsibilities ain't a matter of "convenience" to outsiders.
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.
