Alright Constitutional Scholars...

[GaryC 7]

Might I point out that this is the preamble of the constitution. It's basicly the introduction. There are no rules stated there. It serves as the intent but not the details. Using it to make law is like reading the introduction of War and Peace and thinking you know what is in the book.

...is sometimes referred to by courts as reliable evidence of what the Founding Fathers thought the Constitution meant and what they hoped it would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of Confederation).

It still isn't the actual law and to make law out of it wasn't the intent of the founding fathers either.

The entire Constitution is built upon that foundation and that foundation demonstrates the intent of the Founding Fathers. Removing that foundation or pushing it aside when debating over the role of our government is revisionist thinking.

So you think it was the original intent for the government to take over so many things from the states? Very doubtfull. Their original intent was for sovergn states with the federal government speaking only for the entire country to the rest of the world. The term "general welfare" referred to the welfare of the states and not the individual. The original intent is being perverted to suit the "progressives" and you can't twist it any other way.

[Heracles 417]

It still isn't the actual law and to make law out of it wasn't the intent of the founding fathers either.

This is 2009 and not 1770. Playing games trying to figure out what the founding fathers said, while your country is falling apart, is just dumb. It's also why from being the leaders of the world you guys are now the laughing stock of the world. Who cares right? Who is going to buy your goods, your tractors etc if they think they are no good? You guys are losing credibility on a daily basis but all you can focus on is documents written centuries ago and rights issue.

Here is your typical middle class blue collar worker suburb. Homes are worth around $450K. Point being while people here are arguing what the constitution did or did not mean, others have not only surpassed your average Joe here but living a dam good and wealthy life. Basically countries like Australia and their people have pulled a Toyota / Honda on you guys.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=-38...2,51.72,,0,7.15

Peoria, IL equivalent

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40....310.93,,0,-1.65

Time to focus on the real issues. Otherwise you may be migrating to the Phili one day.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Might I point out that this is the preamble of the constitution. It's basicly the introduction. There are no rules stated there. It serves as the intent but not the details. Using it to make law is like reading the introduction of War and Peace and thinking you know what is in the book.

...is sometimes referred to by courts as reliable evidence of what the Founding Fathers thought the Constitution meant and what they hoped it would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of Confederation).

It still isn't the actual law and to make law out of it wasn't the intent of the founding fathers either.

The entire Constitution is built upon that foundation and that foundation demonstrates the intent of the Founding Fathers. Removing that foundation or pushing it aside when debating over the role of our government is revisionist thinking.

So you think it was the original intent for the government to take over so many things from the states? Very doubtfull. Their original intent was for sovergn states with the federal government speaking only for the entire country to the rest of the world. The term "general welfare" referred to the welfare of the states and not the individual. The original intent is being perverted to suit the "progressives" and you can't twist it any other way.

Such as? What public programs that are currently national do you think should be solely handled by each state?

[GaryC 7]

Might I point out that this is the preamble of the constitution. It's basicly the introduction. There are no rules stated there. It serves as the intent but not the details. Using it to make law is like reading the introduction of War and Peace and thinking you know what is in the book.

...is sometimes referred to by courts as reliable evidence of what the Founding Fathers thought the Constitution meant and what they hoped it would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of Confederation).

It still isn't the actual law and to make law out of it wasn't the intent of the founding fathers either.

The entire Constitution is built upon that foundation and that foundation demonstrates the intent of the Founding Fathers. Removing that foundation or pushing it aside when debating over the role of our government is revisionist thinking.

So you think it was the original intent for the government to take over so many things from the states? Very doubtfull. Their original intent was for sovergn states with the federal government speaking only for the entire country to the rest of the world. The term "general welfare" referred to the welfare of the states and not the individual. The original intent is being perverted to suit the "progressives" and you can't twist it any other way.

Such as? What public programs that are currently national do you think should be solely handled by each state?

All of them.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Might I point out that this is the preamble of the constitution. It's basicly the introduction. There are no rules stated there. It serves as the intent but not the details. Using it to make law is like reading the introduction of War and Peace and thinking you know what is in the book.

...is sometimes referred to by courts as reliable evidence of what the Founding Fathers thought the Constitution meant and what they hoped it would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of Confederation).

It still isn't the actual law and to make law out of it wasn't the intent of the founding fathers either.

The entire Constitution is built upon that foundation and that foundation demonstrates the intent of the Founding Fathers. Removing that foundation or pushing it aside when debating over the role of our government is revisionist thinking.

So you think it was the original intent for the government to take over so many things from the states? Very doubtfull. Their original intent was for sovergn states with the federal government speaking only for the entire country to the rest of the world. The term "general welfare" referred to the welfare of the states and not the individual. The original intent is being perverted to suit the "progressives" and you can't twist it any other way.

Such as? What public programs that are currently national do you think should be solely handled by each state?

All of them.

National Parks?

[Heracles 417]

So you think it was the original intent for the government to take over so many things from the states? Very doubtfull. Their original intent was for sovergn states with the federal government speaking only for the entire country to the rest of the world. The term "general welfare" referred to the welfare of the states and not the individual. The original intent is being perverted to suit the "progressives" and you can't twist it any other way.

The states system is for a different era. Look at China's huge success using their federal power. How effective would a state based military force be? There is a reason it is federal.

There are a number of things that need to be handled on a state level rather than the constitutionally protected county level. There are other things that should be handled by the federal government, over the states or county. Nope, inefficient constitution protects this.

There is nothing wrong with the constitution but it just needs to be ratified and brought into 2009.

[GaryC 7]

Might I point out that this is the preamble of the constitution. It's basicly the introduction. There are no rules stated there. It serves as the intent but not the details. Using it to make law is like reading the introduction of War and Peace and thinking you know what is in the book.

...is sometimes referred to by courts as reliable evidence of what the Founding Fathers thought the Constitution meant and what they hoped it would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of Confederation).

It still isn't the actual law and to make law out of it wasn't the intent of the founding fathers either.

The entire Constitution is built upon that foundation and that foundation demonstrates the intent of the Founding Fathers. Removing that foundation or pushing it aside when debating over the role of our government is revisionist thinking.

So you think it was the original intent for the government to take over so many things from the states? Very doubtfull. Their original intent was for sovergn states with the federal government speaking only for the entire country to the rest of the world. The term "general welfare" referred to the welfare of the states and not the individual. The original intent is being perverted to suit the "progressives" and you can't twist it any other way.

Such as? What public programs that are currently national do you think should be solely handled by each state?

All of them.

National Parks?

That isn't a social program and you know it. Keep deflecting.

So you think it was the original intent for the government to take over so many things from the states? Very doubtfull. Their original intent was for sovergn states with the federal government speaking only for the entire country to the rest of the world. The term "general welfare" referred to the welfare of the states and not the individual. The original intent is being perverted to suit the "progressives" and you can't twist it any other way.

The states system is for a different era. Look at China's huge success using their federal power. How effective would a state based military force be? There is a reason it is federal.

There are a number of things that need to be handled on a state level rather than the constitutionally protected county level. There are other things that should be handled by the federal government, over the states or county. Nope, inefficient constitution protects this.

There is nothing wrong with the constitution but it just needs to be ratified and brought into 2009.

It has been "ratified" all ready. What you want is a wholesale re-writing. That will NEVER happen, thank God. The constitution is fine the way it is thank you.

[Heracles 417]

Federalism works.

People need to remember that what was successful in the past may not be now. Who wants the country to end one big Chrysler? Unfortunately by then its too late and you are third world.

Rise and fall of stubborn super powers is almost a given. Unless you adapt and change, you are doomed to fail. America is at that cross road.

[GaryC 7]

Federalism works.

People need to remember that what was successful in the past may not be now. Who wants the country to end one big Chrysler? Unfortunately by then its too late and you are third world.

Rise and fall of stubborn super powers is almost a given. Unless you adapt and change, you are doomed to fail. America is at that cross road.

No it does not. It inevetably gets bloated and inefficent just as ours is now. Centralized governments always fail.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Such as? What public programs that are currently national do you think should be solely handled by each state?

All of them.

National Parks?

That isn't a social program and you know it. Keep deflecting.

What are national parks then and what part of the Constitution do they fall under?

Edited May 22, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[GaryC 7]

Might I point out that this is the preamble of the constitution. It's basicly the introduction. There are no rules stated there. It serves as the intent but not the details. Using it to make law is like reading the introduction of War and Peace and thinking you know what is in the book.

...is sometimes referred to by courts as reliable evidence of what the Founding Fathers thought the Constitution meant and what they hoped it would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of Confederation).

It still isn't the actual law and to make law out of it wasn't the intent of the founding fathers either.

The entire Constitution is built upon that foundation and that foundation demonstrates the intent of the Founding Fathers. Removing that foundation or pushing it aside when debating over the role of our government is revisionist thinking.

So you think it was the original intent for the government to take over so many things from the states? Very doubtfull. Their original intent was for sovergn states with the federal government speaking only for the entire country to the rest of the world. The term "general welfare" referred to the welfare of the states and not the individual. The original intent is being perverted to suit the "progressives" and you can't twist it any other way.

Such as? What public programs that are currently national do you think should be solely handled by each state?

All of them.

National Parks?

That isn't a social program and you know it. Keep deflecting.

What are national parks then and what part of the Constitution do they fall under?

Still deflecting? Go right ahead then.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Article 1, Section 8 states:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

....that's different from your claim of each state individually, Gary.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[Heracles 417]

It has been "ratified" all ready. What you want is a wholesale re-writing. That will NEVER happen, thank God. The constitution is fine the way it is thank you.

Fine based on what? Common sense indicates that if someone is good at something or has a great idea others will copy it. Funny how no one has copied it or that no country that is doing well (as in its people) use a US style open-ended (anything goes) constitution. We have separation of church and state but the government is allowed to celebrate with we the people in Aus. After all the government is there to represent we the people. Whereas in the US decision are made behind the close door of courts. Our courts are their to represent the will of the people. Not the opinion of judges or groups like the ACLU. Sorry that has been an EPIC FAIL for the country. Where your ACLU can sue county's or pretty much anyone they don't agree with. Therefore, their ideology and opinion overrides the will of the people.

How else has it served you well?

Living standard?

Crime?

Wealth? or wealth of the average Joe

Infrastructure?

Employment?

Livability?

Quality of Life?

[GaryC 7]

Article 1, Section 8 states:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

....that's different from your claim of each state individually, Gary.

Notice it says STATES and not citizens.

[Ban Hammer 13,150]

How effective would a state based military force be? There is a reason it is federal.

don't tell that to the national guard