No food for fat people

Agreed. The schools need to get back to the basics. At least in this arena. If a student wants a career in food preparation/sales, then "Food Technology" is the course to take. But for everyday healthy living, it's the basics which count.

 

And this is a great example of my point.


Some of us find good reasons for how we need government to intrude in the most basic needs of it's people in one way, that meant it will feel obligated to do it in other ways as well.


Why does the government need to teach our kids any of this? Where are the parents?

What ever happened to common sense? Do you really need the government to tell you bacon and fried chichen are bad for you?


If we are relying on the government to raise our kids, what is the point?



I say schools need to go back to the "real" basics, like math, science, and history. Make the parents get back to being parents.

 

Sadly the parents are no longer parenting, they are out working to earn the money to feed the kids etc etc etc and so the sorry circle goes.

School is no longer about basic academic education but more an education for life. Someone has to do it after all!

When I signed up to do my job I never realised for one moment that part of the job of educating the kids would be to parent them too......sad really.

 

James Madison, Federalist Paper #41

The proper meaning of the general welfare clause was defined during the ratifying process. Your socialist interpretation of the general welfare clause has no basis in fact. Let us not stoop to misconstructions.

Barry Goldwater:

 

It is not my interpretation of it just like this comment you posted was not your opinion but another man's opinion your using.

The point he clarly misses though is if the specific points given were the only intended uses of federal government and power, then the general part would have been worthless right? If this was the case, they could have simply said that the following were the on;y things allowed, but that is not what they did, they allowed the general term to stay.


Clearly like the basic constitution we started with, this was seen to allow other things to come as well, to suit the needs of a changing society.


You keep missing my point about how one thing leads to another in a natural order. By making exceptions for an all powerful government in some ways, we pave the road for an all powerful government in other ways. It is all of our faults becasue each of us can see where "some" of what the government does to manage our lives is good. Some can see more good then others to be sure.


The only way to change it now would be to go back to almost no federal Government (something I fully support) and get rid of all the social programs completely. Remove the federal government for all things except for crimes crossing state lines, world trade, and running the military. In my opinion, all other things should go back to the states to decide how they want to do things.


But that is just me.

 

The only way to change it is to go back to the proper interpretation of the Constitution. Federalist Paper #41 was not just any man's opinion. The paper was written during the ratifying process by the man labeled the Father of our Constitution. As long as we accept judicial activism and turn our heads to the gross abuse of the commerce and general welfare clauses we will continue to allow Washington to gain more power.. There is a proper way for the constitution to change with the times: amendments. We have two Supreme Court judges, Scalia and Thomas, who give hope that there is a possibility at some time of returning to the founder's intent of a limited federal government.

 

And yet Federalist paper #41 still includes the general comment "general welfare of the United States" and your not admitting that the reason for that general statement was to allow for change as seen fit by future generations.

As I already pointed out, the rest of the paper is very clear so if these reasons were the only ones to be allowed, there was no reason for the general comment to be included.


You cannot have a federal government that is limited, this is the lesson we learn or we don't. Sooner or later, a all powerful government will slowly take steps to completely take over everything. It will happen with tiny baby steps to be sure, but it will happen.


"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." ~ John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton


"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it" ~ William Pitt the Younger


The very concept of having a federal government is what causes the corruption we have today, the only way to stop it is to completely remove it's power to control the States.

In my opinion of course.

 

You really need to read #41 again. It specifically states that the general welfare duties are limited to those proscribed in ARTICLE I SECTION 8. The Amendment process is what allows for change.

Let me repaet these quotes:

From FP41:

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

 

No it does not. If the intent was to draft a very specific set of reasons, that was simple to do, all they had to do is list the duties (as they did) and leave off the general statement. Even a 10 year old could figure that out, but by including the general statement "first" that means the following was examples, not limitations.

If they wanted the general statement as fluff or leadup but still wanted to define the following examples as the "only" use of the federal government, they could also have added something like "limited to the following" just before the list, but they did not do that.

Again, these were not stupid people, if they wanted to draft a list of very specific and limited jobs of government, they could have done that. The general statement is not only a part of the paper but is also the "first" part and that means it has a greater weight to the writer than the "examples" that follow.





But, let's assume for a moment that they just messed up and never intended the general statement to be included or given weight in the first place.


What is the difference?


My point is based on how things naturally flow, not what a few words say on a piece of paper. By having "any" excuses for an all powerful government like these several jobs detail, you have created a monster that is destined to take over. It is impossible to control something like that.


Even if your right and you make them admit your right, they will just vote in an amendment to give them the power that way, they have the control, not the piece of paper. Once you give men the power to be all powerful, they will be corrupted.


Let me repost my quotes:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." ~ John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton


"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it" ~ William Pitt the Younger




The idea that an all powerful government can be controlled is simply wrong because that government is run by men, and men are the problem, not the government.

 

Yes, once you give people power they will abuse it. That is why there were many safeguards in the constitution against federal power. Most specifically Article I Section 8 which documented the only powers the federal government woulkd possess. I suggest you study the ratification process of the constitution. The fact that the Constitution has been viciously assaulted by both the right and left is no reason for us lovers of liberty to not fight to get the original constitution back. Of course, that would mean swimming against the tide, not simply putting up mild resistance.

From Hayek's "Why I am not a Conservative":

All we need id two or three more USSC judges on our side. Sadly, I doubt McCain appoints the judges we truly need.

Justice Scalia on "The Living Constitution" BS

 

McCain tries to make his case with conservatives - CNN.com


Let's just hope he's a man of his word.

 

If there were so many safeguards, then why did it all get so blown out of wack?


Because man created the safeguards, and men can change or ignore them.


The original intentions of the founding fathers was to "not" have an all powerful government lording over the States. The States were all supposed to be independant so if we go back to the "true" constitution, we must remove 99% of everything the federal government now does.

And I support that fully.


We should not have welfare, we should not have any federal social program of any kind, not even social security.

And what good will changing justices do?

Do you think all this mess happened in just a couple years?


It will change nothing, sure, you can have a few changes in the short term, but then a few other justices retire or die and new justices come in and it all swings back the other way again.


You cannot have an all powerful government and expect it to be controled, the very notion is rediclious. It sounds good on paper just like socialism sounds great on papar, but it is the reality of man that screws it up.


It is the men involved in the system that makes it impossible to control due to the corruption that "will" insert itself into that system.


Think of it another way, there is not one federal politician that will allow the power to go back to the states now, they are too important in their minds to be reduced to nothing so they will simply draft a new amandment to cover what you try to take away with changing justices.


It is like how they vote themselves pay increases and better benefits.

 

Well, appears we agree on this point TJ...

They actually get in the way of smaller groups of individuals establishing their towns and communities as they fit... Like I said many times, they are their own worst enemy and will lose it by their own hand in time.

 

McCain showed his disrespect for the Constitution with McCain/Feingold the greatest attack on the 1st Amendment since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

It will take a crisis to return this nation to the ideas of our founders. Funding the medical bills of the ageing baby boom generation may be that crisis.

The socialists stole the liberal mantra in the US. Classical liberals had to adopt the term libertarian.

 

First I want to say you got me wishing that Ron Paul had a better shot. For the first time my wife and I agree on a political stance.

But I degrees..
I'm reading the McCain/Fengold act and I don't see the problem. I think the soft money donations should be withheld. And this was a bipartisan reform that was passed by the senate 60-40.

I would see limitations as a good thing.

 

if he's not on the ballot, I'm writing in his name regardless..

 

Notice that the USSC vote on the constitutionality was 5-4 and that the three conservative judges Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas were in the minority. Gotta go now. Will go in depth on McCain/Feingold later.

 

I think that Congressonal "earmarks" and Presidential "signing statements" should be made unconstitutionl.

All the earmarks are just a sh*t pot of money going to crap that has nothing to do with the bills intent.

As for the Presidential signing statements, G.W. showed how much that can be abused.

 

Ron Paul is living a delusion. I understand he has some good ideas on going back to what the Federal government was supposed to be like.

The thing is, it took us a little over 200 years to change to where we are, and it is going to take a long time to change back with anything short of another revolution and even that would probably lead to chaos.

Ron Paul as President would ensure that nothing, not even good things, will get accomplished the entire time he is in office, barring a veto overide.

 

It started with revolution, and unfortunetly, will most likely end the same way. Once people have "power", they don't relinquish it willfully.. History has repeated this lesson many times over..