MSNBC Calls 10th Amendment Bullshit, outright.

[archangel689]

Brilliant constitutional scholar MSNBC's David Shuster, matter-of-factly insists the "general welfare" clause in Article 1 of the Constitution "unambiguously authorizes" social welfare spending like "social security, Medicare, veterans' care, etc."

He's full of shit.

While some may claim that the term "general welfare," in an authorization to raise revenue in the opening paragraph of Art. I, Sec. 8, could justify such Federal involvement; that notion will not stand review in context. There is little "general" about health services. They are inherently personal; inherently peculiar to the particular nature, needs and afflictions of an individual being served. Even a cursory glance at the other specific powers & functions addressed in the Section will reveal nothing functionally analogous to such overreach. All deal with functions that serve a purpose common to the interests of the whole people, in each of the several States--truly general in nature, never particular to those who suffer from a personal problem, such as an inability to afford something (here, insurance). Considering, also, the direct restriction on the taxing power in Art. I, Sec. 9, to prevent the use of taxation as a leveler of wealth & achievement; it is clear, indeed, that a program intended to equalize the medical resources of individuals, was neither authorized nor imagined. [Note: While the XVIth Amendment did change the Constitutional ban on a graduated income tax, it is confined to the power to tax. It does not extend powers or purposes, for which spending is authorized. Again, there is no suggestion of a power or function to subsidize any individual civilian's access to expensive health care.]

[BSH]

Saith one of the framers of the constitution:

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

[archangel689]

Lucky for us the Constitution wasn't written the way that Madison would have clearly wanted it to be written.

The problem with your first assertion is that you're logically transposing "at least" to "only" which is a legally... flimsy, at best... position to take.

Bottom line is that clearly, not all of the founding fathers agreed with Madison and the way the law was written, it wound up my side of the argument.

You could make any argument you want. You could find quotes by every one of the framers of the constitution and still these people would not admit that they are wrong. There are too many people and too many hands in the cookie jar at this point. IF the people continue to rise up like we've seen in dc, all they will get is a slow down of the erosion of rights, or token trinkets to get them to shut up. I don't see the people going for the jugular: Legalizing alternative currencies (Liberty Dollar) which would eventually lead to phasing out the federal reserve (since no one would use (fiat) dollars anymore), would make a large stride in the right direction.


We are always on the defensive. I don't seeing anyone making the argument for repealing the Federal Firearms Act. I see Heller, which was a "defensive win" we kept rights because of it, we didn't gain anything, we need to be on the offensive.

[Yellowfin]

It's become like old words in the dictionary, so out of use it has lost its meaning.

[Morel42]

You could make any argument you want. You could find quotes by every one of the framers of the constitution and still these people would not admit that they are wrong. There are too many people and too many hands in the cookie jar at this point. IF the people continue to rise up like we've seen in dc, all they will get is a slow down of the erosion of rights, or token trinkets to get them to shut up. I don't see the people going for the jugular: Legalizing alternative currencies (Liberty Dollar) which would eventually lead to phasing out the federal reserve (since no one would use (fiat) dollars anymore), would make a large stride in the right direction.


We are always on the defensive. I don't seeing anyone making the argument for repealing the Federal Firearms Act. I see Heller, which was a "defensive win" we kept rights because of it, we didn't gain anything, we need to be on the offensive.

Well, people can also find Quotes from the Framers conflicting alot of things.. They hardly agreed with each other when the signed it.. Alot of them HATED each other later on in life.. lol

Hell, Jefferson would be judged as a socialist, Adams signed laws that Hitler would have agreed with..

They were normal Men.. With normal conflicts, and normal problems.. Sometimes people forget this..

[General Geoff]

Hell, Jefferson would be judged as a socialist,

I find this very very hard to believe. I think Jefferson was a borderline anarchist.

[MichaelJ]

We are always going to be on the defensive because we will never be willing to force others to our beliefs. It's enough that we are allowed to express and follow our own.

Which is why the left is always attacking. Has the NRA ever pushed for legislation to make firearm ownership mandatory? While I'd agree with it, we can't force that level of responsibility on those who can not or will not keep it.

It's a catch 22 for conservatives of all stripes. We just wish to be left alone. The "other side" mandates we become part of their collective. If we attack, we become what we hate. If we follow our principals, we will always have the lapdogs nipping at our heels.

[Coops]

Shuster is unambiguously a douchebag.

His sexual references to political issues are juvenile (Chelsea being "pimped out", teabagging mouthpieces trying to lick Obama, etc.)
His response to the OCers at Obama events was sad and uninformed.

MSNBC personalities are not "reporters" any more than Limbaugh is. Because Shuster (and his crony Tamryn Hall) is on during the day he does not get as much exposure as Olberman and Maddow even though he is every bit as pompous and smirky as they are.

[andrewjs18]

thanks for reminding me why I don't watch msnbc. =)