Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The beauty of a Republic is subjective, so neither one of us can be "wrong" or "right".
What's with the ludicrous name-calling? I definitely do not want to destroy the constitution. It is a great document that I believe the government is following just fine in most cases.That's what the Constitution was meant to be, and that's what people like you have destroyed.
I will."Promote the general welfare" is not an enumerated power of Congress.
Hence, not covered by Necessary and Proper Clause.
Try again.
Definition of "provide"
-supply: give something useful or necessary to; "We provided the room with an electrical heater"
-give what is desired or needed, especially support, food or sustenance; "The hostess provided lunch for all the guests"
Source
The government (in the case of healthcare) is making healthcare available to the populace, the majority of whom desired it since it's inception, providing for the general welfare of the United States.
That's your interpretation of its end. There is nothing in the constitution that addresses what a "just society" is. That's up for the citizens, senators and representatives, and the president to decide within the confines of the constitution itself.Yes.
I recognize the value of a Constitution. That doesn't mean I don't realize that the Constitution has a specific end: A just society.
Here we go again with the political opinion. Healthcare is constitutional. It's making available (or providing, if you will) healthcare for many Americans in order to provide for the general welfare of the United States through its people. I'm fine if you believe that healthcare isn't effective or that it's a waste of tax dollars. You are entitled to your opinion, but the fact it does take your tax dollars doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. Hell, the government could increase the income tax to 99% and it would be constitutional as long as it was used for something congress was charged to provide for, like the navy. Of course, this notion is ridiculous, NOT constitutionally, but practically.The law shouldn't be broken often or for frivolous reasons, and CERTAINLY not for evil reasons (public healthcare).
Public healthcare is not unconstitutional. Its methods may vary in effectiveness, but it's constitutional.
Failed in that strict constructionalism's fatal flaw was exposed, that is, how to deal with situations that aren't in the constitution. Breaking the constitution was a better alternative than going to war with one of the strongest nations in the world, or with any nation who we had to buy land from (Mexico, Spain, Panama etc. etc.)"Failed" how?
Again, because the Louisiana Purchase might not have happened?
Obviously a strict constructionist and a loose constructionist see the constitution in different ways. The former sees healthcare as overstepping its bounds because it is not a specifically enumerated power. The latter sees healthcare as a perfectly legal institution because it is what is necessary and proper to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Two different methods both following the constitution. The world is not as black and white as you think it is.Ridiculous. The entire argument you're making is ridiculous. It's not just a "method" of running the legislative and executive branch, it is THE ONLY LEGAL AND PROPER METHOD. It is how this government was FORMED and the only way it might ever remain just.
Alright good to know. I haven't seen a good argument so far of how the federal government has overstepped their boundaries.I'm arguing "for state's rights" in a manner related to the 9th and 10th Amendments and Article 1 Section 8.
As opposed to what? Healthcare?I'm not a fan of statist states either, but at least those are legal under Federal law.
I don't think that was the case...the Louisiana Purchase was formed into territories. The northern states spread there pro-federal influence to the northern territories while the southern states' idea of states rights flowed into the southern territories. Any statism that emerged was merely the spreading influence of the ideologies and opinions of the original states. The Louisiana Purchase didn't really bring anything new into the federal vs. state debate besides new territory and subsequently new states to influence (which really didn't encourage or discourage statism anyway).I know, but it may have lead to it by undermining the law.
Such is the danger of breaking the law, and that is exactly why it should only be done in extreme circumstances.
I know, but I want to know as a separate question not pertinent to this debate what you think the role of the Supreme Court is.Take it however you wish. I say precisely what I mean to say.
Lighten up, will you? I hardly find revelations in video games. I don't expect you to either.I don't think a video game will change my opinion of the Law of the Excluded Middle.