“My side” is pro choice and “your side” is pro police state. With my side you have your rights and can choose to exercise them if you wish, no force is involved. Your side demands control and to remove rights.

Mike, do you support abortion? your argument of “for the children” goes out the window, heck a few of your arguments do, if you support that position.

Before you liken me to the pro infanticide crowd my position involves no killing of the innocent who could not possibly have done something. My side holds to the right of self defense and self preservation on this subject, to be able to defend themselves against the violent criminals who have no problem with killing for no reason that your much prized and worshiped system seems to be incapable of rehabilitating or incarcerating to protect that “general welfare”.

The positions of your side, the “soft on criminals” have failed, the laws that only bind those who care to comply have failed and instead of going down your path of insanity, doing more of the same and expecting different results, we choose not to.

Perhaps you are unaware of the artificial scarcity of machine guns and other (unconstitutionally) regulated arms. Perhaps you can go into cities and amongst the poor and pitch your racist plans to those most in need of personal protection from criminals. You see, limiting supply drives up prices for the honest law abiding and guarantees that more criminals will have them “illegally”. Shall we look at Chicago? Shall we look to england where “knife violence” has caused similar programs for knives?

You have to be in the top five on the ignorant disarmament cheerleader squad. That doesn’t include the likes of helmke and other top organization folks as they know damn well what they will bring about, but you, you seem to just be a cheerleader for communism. I will remind you there are countries you can move to.

Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women? —Martin Luther

So gun control is not among the things Congress can do with the spending power, save a nationwide voluntary gun buy back, or something of that nature. All of the federal gun control laws are done using Congress’ commerce clause powers.

Tom, I’m afraid you’re the one redefining things here. What I’m talking about is doing something about the gun violence through gun control laws. I honestly believe that’s all anyone else on my side of the argument wants too. Your turning it into a conspiracy on the part of the government to “enslave” you, sounds like a bit of paranoia to me.

I would say the general welfare could be served very well with a significant reduction in gun availability. That would reduce the guns that flow from the good guys to the bad guys and it would proportionately reduce the number of good guys who turn bad.

When the government will give you “free” stuff such as housing, food, health care, minimum telephone service (cells with something like 70 min/month), transportation, etc. of what use is an education? Educational spending becomes “tits on a bull” if you will.

There lies the problems with federal “general welfare” programs. They breed ignorant, lazy, corrupt people dependent on continued theft and waste…and SLAVES to support the others. Divide and conquer as those pillaged grow ever more contemptuous of the parasites. When they buck or swing their tails as these town halls show they only provide more opportunity for the slavemasters in DC to use them for propaganda and to consolidate power unless enough of them stand up and do something about it.

Just how well has the government spending and running of education turned out? Have prices gone up as education levels have gone down? Compare the average child today with those of 50 years ago and get back to me.

Agriculture? The spend to grow, they spend NOT to grow, they spend to prosecute IF you grow too much for yourself.

How is dumbing down a population in it’s best interest?

I mean, Congress has no enumerated power to involve itself in education and agriculture, yet Hamilton suggests appropriations for both are appropriate exercise of Congress’ spending power. That’s can’t be reconciled with the last paragraph as you’re reading it.

Healthcare reform will be a local object; it will take from some and give to others, leaving some classes covered and others, not. Clearly, not what Hamilton meant, even if he did have a broader idea of federal power than others in his time.

There was not one socialist amongst the framers. Even the authoritarians, IMHO, found the idea of government theft for handouts (or government control over private healthcare choices) loathsome.

So that whole thing you posted is negated by that sentence, the fed has NOT been authorized to interfere with healthcare.

One could also argue that this scheme does not promote the general welfare as the country will suffer due to costs as well as loss of “rights” the left holds so dear…but of course those “rights” will be included at the expense of others. Violations of the first amendment would be made law yet again as some are opposed to abortion on religious grounds but they would now be forced to pay for it. With the government footing the bill what about the being able to sue? No so much since the feds decide if they can be sued.

Congress already has the (theoretical unlimited “interstate commerce” ) power that would allow them to reform and regulate private insurance companies to solve this “problem” that is, IF that were what this was actually about.

No, general welfare is not the goal, control and power are. REMAKING America is Obomba Inc’s goal. the closest this false messiah can come to having the power of life or death is health care and he means to seize it and wield it at his discretion. Just have a look at the eugenicists, abortionists, and radical communists he is surrounded by that he sought out as his friends and allies. Look to his promises to “fundamentally remake” America in light of those people. I can’t even begin to think like those who believe this to be a good thing.

Three things about that, Sebastian:

1. Hamilton once claimed — I think it was in The Federalist that there was nothing in the proposed Constitution that could be interpreted as a “sweeping clause.”

2. The fact that he had changed his tune within a handful of years has sort of a familiar ring, does it not?

3. By “playing games with words” I was referring to what we have seen statists of all political labels do over the years. I did not mean to imply the words were entirely unambiguous, although they are far less so than the would-be panjandrums of the law make them out to be. For not being entirely clear, I apologize.

Continuing, though, the answer is to apply a standard that is consistent within itself and consistent with what the Founders hoped to accomplish — not rule by the dead, but the rule of law. I personally advocate “original public meaning” originalism, and its extensions (based on the Ninth and Tenth amendments, particularly the former) “the presumption of liberty” , as advanced by Randy Barnett in Restoring the Lost Constitution.

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority “To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare” with no other qualifications than that “all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that “no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.” These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and “general Welfare.” The terms “general Welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou’d have been restricted within narrower limits than the “General Welfare” and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

You can argue that Hamilton was a scoundrel, and many people of his time would agree with you. But the interpretation of the general welfare clause as being a relatively catch all spending power certainly is not a product of the modern age, and was not unknown to the founders, even though many would disagree with it.