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.
You are all assuming everything our government currently does is Constitutional.
Faulty assumptions are not good bases for arguements.
Actually, no. No one is assuming that everything our government currently does is Constitutional.
My argument rests solely on the premise that legislation intended to benefit the "general" welfare, is intended to benefit the "general" welfare of the citizenry, and that the citizenry is comprised of individuals.
As for education.
Are schools federal?
Funny, I always thought they were local.
I understand that the feds hold an ax over the locals heads by withholding federal funds unless federal mandates are met but the states are able to make that decision.
Using education in this argument over 'general welfare' is an invalid one.
Unbelievable. I am the one who is using the Constitution in the correct context. You are the one who is changing the meaning because (as you admit) the 'world is changing'. If the Constitution is to change, a new amendment must be passed. Saying the Constitution is a living document does not mean we change our interpretation of it (as you obviously are, and admitted to in the post before this), but it means we can amend it if need be.
Ignorance such as yours is the reason our country is in shambles.
************************************************** ********
TM is correct, and you are wrong but intransigent. The Constitution originally allowed the vote only to white, land-owning males...that was changed. We are guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; the latter two are impossible without the first, and health care is essential to it. You might want to review this: "Informal Amendment"
Another way the Constitution's meaning is changed is often referred to as "informal amendment." This phrase is a misnomer, because there is no way to informally amend the Constitution, only the formal way. However, the meaning of the Constitution, or the interpretation, can change over time.
There are two main ways that the interpretation of the Constitution changes, and hence its meaning. The first is simply that circumstances can change. One prime example is the extension of the vote. In the times of the Constitutional Convention, the vote was often granted only to monied land holders. Over time, this changed and the vote was extended to more and more groups. Finally, the vote was extended to all males, then all persons 21 and older, and then to all persons 18 and older. The informal status quo became law, a part of the Constitution, because that was the direction the culture was headed. Another example is the political process that has evolved in the United States: political parties, and their trappings (such as primaries and conventions) are not mentioned or contemplated in the Constitution, but they are fundamental to our political system.
The second major way the meaning of the Constitution changes is through the judiciary. As the ultimate arbiter of how the Constitution is interpreted, the judiciary wields more actual power than the Constitution alludes to. For example, before the Privacy Cases, it was perfectly constitutional for a state to forbid married couples from using contraception; for a state to forbid blacks and whites to marry; to abolish abortion. Because of judicial changes in the interpretation of the Constitution, the nation's outlook on these issues changed.
In neither of these cases was the Constitution changed. Rather, the way we looked at the Constitution changed, and these changes had a far-reaching effect. These changes in meaning are significant because they can happen by a simple judge's ruling and they are not a part of the Constitution and so they can be changed later.
Popular Amendment
One other way of amendment is also not mentioned in the Constitution, and, because it has never been used, is lost on many students of the Constitution. Framer James Wilson, however, endorsed popular amendment, and the topic is examined at some length in Akhil Reed Amar's book, The Constitution: A Biography.
The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, "... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them."
It makes sense - if the people demand a change, it should be made. The change may not be the will of the Congress, nor of the states, so the two enumerated methods of amendment might not be practical, for they rely on these institutions. The real issue is not in the conceptual. It is a reality that if the people do not support the Constitution in its present form, it cannot survive. The real issue is in the practical. Since there is no process specified, what would the process be? There are no national elections today - even elections for the presidency are local. There is no precedent for a national referendum. It is easy to say that the Constitution can be changed by the people in any way the people wish. Actually making the change is another story altogether.
Suffice it to say, for now, that the notion of popular amendment makes perfect sense in the constitutional framework, even though the details of affecting popular amendment could be impossible to resolve.
The above is taken from this site: Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
It would appear that, despite condescension and insults, you are the one who is displaying a lack of information about the Constitution. Referring to
TM as "ignorant" is no way to "win friends and influence people...especially when you are the one who is incorrect.
It's also why the document was left so open to interpretation.. and therefore things like education, health care etc.. DOES and HAS fallen under the general welfare !!!
Funny.. the same people who want to hide behind the constitution tend to be the same ones who like to throw it out the window if it fits their "agenda".
As for education.
Are schools federal?
Funny, I always thought they were local.
I understand that the feds hold an ax over the locals heads by withholding federal funds unless federal mandates are met but the states are able to make that decision.
Using education in this argument over 'general welfare' is an invalid one.
No, it's perfectly valid. Because federal resources are allocated to education. Regardless if the bulk of control of education is ceded to local government, the argument regarding "general welfare" is about the Constitution and the federal government. If federal dollars are expended to education, then the federal rationale for that expenditure is valid for discussion.
************************************************** ********
TM is correct, and you are wrong but intransigent. The Constitution originally allowed the vote only to white, land-owning males...that was changed. We are guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; the latter two are impossible without the first, and health care is essential to it. You might want to review this: "Informal Amendment"
Another way the Constitution's meaning is changed is often referred to as "informal amendment." This phrase is a misnomer, because there is no way to informally amend the Constitution, only the formal way. However, the meaning of the Constitution, or the interpretation, can change over time.
There are two main ways that the interpretation of the Constitution changes, and hence its meaning. The first is simply that circumstances can change. One prime example is the extension of the vote. In the times of the Constitutional Convention, the vote was often granted only to monied land holders. Over time, this changed and the vote was extended to more and more groups. Finally, the vote was extended to all males, then all persons 21 and older, and then to all persons 18 and older. The informal status quo became law, a part of the Constitution, because that was the direction the culture was headed. Another example is the political process that has evolved in the United States: political parties, and their trappings (such as primaries and conventions) are not mentioned or contemplated in the Constitution, but they are fundamental to our political system.
The second major way the meaning of the Constitution changes is through the judiciary. As the ultimate arbiter of how the Constitution is interpreted, the judiciary wields more actual power than the Constitution alludes to. For example, before the Privacy Cases, it was perfectly constitutional for a state to forbid married couples from using contraception; for a state to forbid blacks and whites to marry; to abolish abortion. Because of judicial changes in the interpretation of the Constitution, the nation's outlook on these issues changed.
In neither of these cases was the Constitution changed. Rather, the way we looked at the Constitution changed, and these changes had a far-reaching effect. These changes in meaning are significant because they can happen by a simple judge's ruling and they are not a part of the Constitution and so they can be changed later.
Popular Amendment
One other way of amendment is also not mentioned in the Constitution, and, because it has never been used, is lost on many students of the Constitution. Framer James Wilson, however, endorsed popular amendment, and the topic is examined at some length in Akhil Reed Amar's book, The Constitution: A Biography.
The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, "... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them."
It makes sense - if the people demand a change, it should be made. The change may not be the will of the Congress, nor of the states, so the two enumerated methods of amendment might not be practical, for they rely on these institutions. The real issue is not in the conceptual. It is a reality that if the people do not support the Constitution in its present form, it cannot survive. The real issue is in the practical. Since there is no process specified, what would the process be? There are no national elections today - even elections for the presidency are local. There is no precedent for a national referendum. It is easy to say that the Constitution can be changed by the people in any way the people wish. Actually making the change is another story altogether.
Suffice it to say, for now, that the notion of popular amendment makes perfect sense in the constitutional framework, even though the details of affecting popular amendment could be impossible to resolve.
The above is taken from this site: Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
It would appear that, despite condescension and insults, you are the one who is displaying a lack of information about the Constitution. Referring to
TM as "ignorant" is no way to "win friends and influence people...especially when you are the one who is incorrect.
Please...informal amendments are a non issue here, as it does not change the wording of the Constitution, but rather people's perceptions. We are discussing a change to the wording itself. Obviously judicial precident is important, however again - it cannot be in direct conflict with the wording of the Constitution. The general welface clause is not ambiguous. It is worded such that it only applies to the nation as a whole, and not to individuals who reside within.
I am not sure what you mean by 'win friends', however I will match the level of contention shown to me. Please look at the context to which you are posting, as while the facts you displayed here are true and good, they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Stay on topic.
A little bit tonque-in-cheek here but as far as the welfare of the country, didya' stop and think, what with a shortgage of jobs, increasing population needs and effluents from same plus the sheer costs that chronically ill generate, it may be more advantageous to the country, as a whole, to NOT cater to .....uh......everybody?
Are you saying national defense is the same as preventing an old lady's purse from being robbed?
After all, they are both defense.
Think about what you just said, there is a very big difference between national welfare and the welfare of individuals.
The only difference between national welfare and the welfare of individuals is that national welfare applies to the welfare of the majority of individuals. Individuals make up the general welfare. The population of a country is not separate from the individuals contained, it is the SUM of the individuals contained. The general welfare of a nation's citizens is not separate from the welfare of citizens, it is the SUM welfare of the individuals who are citizens of a nation.
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.
