Sold out by IFR

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
I would argue that national parks and medical R&D are National issues and
as
such should be funded at the National level.

And neither are government issues...state of federal.


An artifical rain forest in
Iowa is clearly not a National issue

Quite! That would be one for Disneyland.

We could dabate whether these fall under "provide for the common welfare"
but lets not.

Mike
MU-2


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
I would argue that national parks and medical R&D are National issues
and
as
such should be funded at the National level.

And neither are government issues...state of federal.


An artifical rain forest in
Iowa is clearly not a National issue

Quite! That would be one for Disneyland.

In article . net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

We could dabate whether these fall under "provide for the common welfare"
but lets not.

Mike
MU-2


The preamble, like the AIM, is non-regulatory ;-)

"Pixel Dent" wrote in message
news
In article . net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

We could dabate whether these fall under "provide for the common
welfare"
but lets not.

Mike
MU-2


The preamble, like the AIM, is non-regulatory ;-)

Exactly right. The Preamble is a statement of _purpose_ (why a government
exists), not a statement of _powers_.

If it designated powers, then Section 8 is contradicted and merely fluff.

Ignorant About the American Constitution?
by Walter Williams (December 10, 2003)

Article website address: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3393

The Federalist Papers were a set of documents written by John Jay, Alexander
Hamilton and James Madison to persuade the 13 states to ratify the
Constitution. In one of those papers, Federalist Paper 45, James Madison
wrote:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal
Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State
Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised
principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign
commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be
connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the
objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives,
liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement,
and prosperity of the State."

If we turned James Madison's statement on its head, namely that the powers
of the federal government are numerous and indefinite and those of the
states are few and defined, we'd describe today's America. Was Madison just
plain ignorant about the powers delegated to Congress? Before making our
judgment, let's examine statements of other possibly misinformed Americans.

In 1796, on the floor of the House of Representatives, William Giles of
Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims saying it was neither
the purpose nor the right of Congress to "attend to what generosity and
humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require." In
1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill intended to help the mentally
ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public
charity," adding that to approve such spending "would be contrary to the
letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory
upon which the Union of these States is founded." President Grover Cleveland
was the king of the veto. He vetoed literally hundreds of congressional
spending bills during his two terms as president in the late 1800s. His
often given reason was, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in
the Constitution."

Today's White House proposes and Congress taxes and spends for anything they
can muster a majority vote on. My investigative query is: Were the Founders
and previous congressmen and presidents, who could not find constitutional
authority for today's bread and circuses, just plain stupid and ignorant? I
don't believe in long-run ignorance or stupidity, so I reread the
Constitution, looking to see whether an amendment had been passed
authorizing Congress to spend money on bailouts for airlines, prescription
drugs, education, Social Security and thousands of similar items in today's
federal budget. I found no such amendment.

Being thorough, I reread the Constitution and found what Congress might
interpret as a blank check authorization -- the "general welfare clause."
Then I investigated further to see what the Framers meant by the "general
welfare clause." In 1798, Thomas Jefferson said,

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but
only those specifically enumerated."

The Constitution's father, James Madison said:

"With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,' I have always regarded
them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To
take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the
Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not
contemplated by its creators."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is precisely the notion of the preambe giving unlimited powers that got
us into the mess that Mike finds offensive. Yet how many become
extraoridinarily evasive when faced with these points from the very people
that wrote the Constitution in the first place?

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
We could dabate whether these fall under "provide for the common welfare"
but lets not.


There's nothing to debate. The notion of the Preamble granting Carte Blanche
is probably the most blatent myth of the modern era.


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
I would argue that national parks and medical R&D are National issues
and
as
such should be funded at the National level.

And neither are government issues...state of federal.


An artifical rain forest in
Iowa is clearly not a National issue

Quite! That would be one for Disneyland.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we want!
Pork
spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to contain
it.
Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I read
(I
think it was by the CBO or GAO).


In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government
spending was pork/waste.

But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want (you
probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what
your
NEIGHBOR wants.

"What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." - P.J.
O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_.



I agree completely. Everybody wants lots of things if they don't have to
pay for them. The federal government should stick to national issues,
defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce, national parks, some
research ect. The state governments should stick to state issues, state
highways, law enforcement and so on. Local projects should be funded
locally. If Anaheim needs a railway to Disneyland which is only going to
benefit Anaheim hotels, I don't see why someone in New York should pay for
it. All pork spending is a result of people wanting things they don't have
to pay for.

I don't have any pet projects that I expect someone else to pay for.

Mike
MU-2

These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and other
border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal government
refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as responsible foe
the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is Uncle Joe in
California.

wrote in message
...


Mike Rapoport wrote:

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we
want!
Pork
spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to
contain
it.
Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I
read
(I
think it was by the CBO or GAO).


In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government
spending was pork/waste.

But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want
(you
probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what
your
NEIGHBOR wants.

"What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." -
P.J.
O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_.



I agree completely. Everybody wants lots of things if they don't have
to
pay for them. The federal government should stick to national issues,
defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce, national parks, some
research ect. The state governments should stick to state issues, state
highways, law enforcement and so on. Local projects should be funded
locally. If Anaheim needs a railway to Disneyland which is only going
to
benefit Anaheim hotels, I don't see why someone in New York should pay
for
it. All pork spending is a result of people wanting things they don't
have
to pay for.

I don't have any pet projects that I expect someone else to pay for.

Mike
MU-2

These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and
other
border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
government
refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
responsible foe
the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is Uncle
Joe in
California.


No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same benefits as
legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember the
idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter than Uncle
Joe.

These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and
other
border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
government
refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
responsible foe
the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is Uncle
Joe in
California.

No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same benefits as
legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember the
idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter than Uncle
Joe.

Bull****. That was a desperate act of pandering by the former governor. The
majority of residents were really ****ed. Thus, that law was repealed before it
went into effect.

Bsides, you're choosing to miss the point: the *federal* government has failed
to enforce the borders, causing all kinds of intended and unintended
consequences.

wrote in message
...


These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and
other
border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
government
refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
responsible foe
the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is
Uncle
Joe in
California.

No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same benefits
as
legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember the
idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter than
Uncle
Joe.

Bull****. That was a desperate act of pandering by the former governor.
The
majority of residents were really ****ed. Thus, that law was repealed
before it
went into effect.

Bsides, you're choosing to miss the point: the *federal* government has
failed
to enforce the borders, causing all kinds of intended and unintended
consequences.

It is also the Ninth Circuit that forces California taxpayers to pay for
illeagl's medical bills and schooling.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...


These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily,
and
other
border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
government
refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
responsible foe
the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is
Uncle
Joe in
California.

No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same
benefits
as
legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember
the
idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter than
Uncle
Joe.

Bull****. That was a desperate act of pandering by the former governor.
The
majority of residents were really ****ed. Thus, that law was repealed
before it
went into effect.

Bsides, you're choosing to miss the point: the *federal* government has
failed
to enforce the borders, causing all kinds of intended and unintended
consequences.

It is also the Ninth Circuit that forces California taxpayers to pay for
illeagl's medical bills and schooling.

Nonsense. It is the California legislature that enacted many laws to
provide free just about everything for illegal aliens. If California was
not so desirable for the wet backs there would not be the tremendous influx
of border jumpers. California deserves everything it gets including Arnold.
Why don't we hear about other border states having the problems California
is having?