Every Public Good

Art 1, Sect 8 does provide for the
"promotion of the progress of Science and the Useful Arts"
but only by way of patent and copyright of creative product.

"General Welfare of the People" is only mentioned twice in the Constitution and both are in regard to the explicit duties and powers of the central government.

A "public good" is not accounted therein, and, therefore, ought not be construed to be or arbitrarily allowed for.

I am a "letter by letter to the intent of" type of Conservative. If it isn't in there, it does not exist and should be null and void.

Keep 'em coming.

Glenn Flowers


PS: Interface has an EXCELLENT post regarding Orwell and Huxley's visions of their future and how Both seem to be valid and imminent.


http://theinterface.blogtownhall.com/2009/04/03/a_brave_new _1984.thtml

Worth the read!!

Art 1, Sect 8 does provide for the
"promotion of the progress of Science and the Useful Arts"
but only by way of patent and copyright of creative product.

"General Welfare of the People" is only mentioned twice in the Constitution and both are in regard to the explicit duties and powers of the central government.

A "public good" is not accounted therein, and, therefore, ought not be construed to be or arbitrarily allowed for.

I am a "letter by letter to the intent of" type of Conservative. If it isn't in there, it does not exist and should be null and void.

Keep 'em coming.

Glenn Flowers


PS: Interface has an EXCELLENT post regarding Orwell and Huxley's visions of their future and how Both seem to be valid and imminent.


http://theinterface.blogtownhall.com/2009/04/03/a_brave_new _1984.thtml

Worth the read!!

How did that happen??

Sorry.

Hehe, that's quite alright.

I agree with you, completely. My tact in argument is different. I've found it quite difficult to un-drone-ize many statists by urging for original intent and limited government outright. Unfortunately, they believe, quite blindly, in utopia by total control, whether they realize it or not.

So, I often have to argue mere logic and evidence on why what is advocated will not work or is not morally right at its core. Once the utopianism is deconstructed, then the case for originalism can be put forward much more effectively.

Sounds like the Debates in the Constitutional Convention in 1787 all over again.

I just finished Madison's Notes on that convention. Every article and clause had to be proved or disproved to some delegate or two. In most cases, it was argued many times before any concession or agreement gained.

Good and effective strategy though.

Glenn

It has worked a number of times. I really wish we had disagreements of the sort during our founding. Profound for their time? Yes. But in modern day, the issue is not a legitimate disagreement. By and large, the left has established itself upon emotion rather than logical principle. That's why principled arguments do little to awaken those who blissfully slumber while their very existence is being shackled. Of course, the dynamics of our history are as massively varied as today.

I'm distressed continually that America is less threatened by the directly malevolent and are, to a much greater extent, under those blades held by the blindfolded and the 'benevolent'.

Could've changed ALL the tenses... How about it...

"I'm distressed continually that America is less threatened by the directly malevolent and is, to a much greater extent, under those blades held by the blindfolded and the 'benevolent'."

I have posted and commented on this often Legislative powers granted "shall be vested in a Congress."

Only limited legislative powers were granted by the people. The powers granted are made clear by the "enumeration of these powers in Article I, section 8."

The Federal government has gotten far away from the powers given to [the only] it by the Constitution. Some latch on to "general welfare" or the "commerce clause" to enlarge their [government] power, which is what all of this government action is about.

The Founders "intended the doctrine of enumerated powers to be our principal defense against overwhelming government . . ." Madison by his many writings, and books by others, verifies and makes clear this very point.

Yes, that's absolutely true and I agree with a Constitution which restrains the government, not the people.

But you have to understand, I'm approaching most of my arguments from a perspective of pushing them onto people who don't believe in the Constitution. Things must be explained to emotional people so that they can understand why emotional rhetoric doesn't work.

It's nearly impossible to make the case for Constitutional certainty when people prefer immediate accomplishment of goals by whatever means necessary. You must first make the case that such shifting definitions of accomplishment are a massive threat to people's liberty, then you can explain why Constitutional originalism is superior.

Best of luck trying to explain that to the group you hope to reach.

Don't get me wrong I applaud your efforts and hope wholeheartedly they succeed.

These government programs don't succeed, stimulus, auto bailouts, etc., etc., but they say [congress, WH] just let us spend more, more intrusion into your liberties and we can do it.

We all have to remember that with something over 30% of the people not paying taxes [2005 figures].

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=155

what do they care if you get a bigger tax hit.

I'm sure you have seen these figures but just so your readers get them,

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
"Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What"

When I first saw these numbers I could not believe it.

It was like when I found out what was really up with the government Ponzi scheme of Social Security, and had my eyes opened. Just wait till the bill comes due.