Gas price up a $1 a gallon
in [Technical]
|
From: Scott Dorsey on 29 Mar 2010 13:39 Roger Blake <rogblake(a)iname.invalid> wrote: >On 2010-03-27, Scott Dorsey <kludge(a)panix.com> wrote: >> I'd look in the preamble under "promoting the general welfare" personally. > >I'd look at the historical basis of that personally, and discover that >it is supposed to be a restrictive rather than an expansive clause, >such as what James Madison had to say about it: This may have been originally true, but the general interpretation has changed a bit in the past couple centuries as the Supreme Court has in general expanded interpretation of the constitution. For example, non-white non-landowners are allowed to vote (although it did take an amendment for women to get the franchise). >Given that a fundamental axiom is that the intent of the law maker is >the force and intent of the law, how do we get to an authoritarian >central government dictating to individuals that they must buy specific >products and services without shredding the Constitution into confetti? I don't think you have any notion what an authoritarian central government actually is. The stuff you are complaining about are laws created by elected representatives who are put into place by the people. If you don't like the laws, vote the representatives out. Now, mind you that you can make a good argument that the representatives are not effectively representing the people because they are instead driven by money, but that's not the argument you're making. >> But, if you require that everything has to be specifically enumerated >> as a line in the constitution, we'd better get rid of the national >> transportation system and shut down all the highways. Regulation of >> gasoline quality? I don't see anything about that in the constitution, > >So you believe that "the end justifies the means" and that government >should be given unlimited power to do whatever politicians decide is >needed at any given moment. May your chains rest lightly upon your >shoulders. No, I don't. But I don't think that just because the internet is not mentioned in the constitution, the government shouldn't regulate or finance parts of it. The constitution was specifically made somewhat open-ended because the world changes. This is a good thing. >(Of course any of the items you mention could be lawfully implemented >via a constitutional amendment. The constitution was designed as an >extensible document.) Common law extends it as well as amendments. You may not like the common law (and I certainly don't like a lot of it), but you can't just ignore it. >> some of it I strongly support, and it's certainly an improvement over the >> horrible disaster we've got right now. > >I see no "horrible disaster." Even if there were, in the absense of a >Constitutional amendment I certainly see no lawful authority for the >scheme that has been enacted. You might try going to a doctor sometime and just seeing how bad the system really is. Now, it's true that the new law doesn't address some of the most serious problems (for example, it's very expensive to become a doctor, and so there is a shortage of doctors, especially in lower-paying fields like primary care... and because there is a shortage of doctors, organizations are less apt to fire incompetent ones). And it doesn't address the ballooning cost of health care. But the free market has failed to do so, and it seems reasonable for the government to step in when the free market has not worked. You may not feel this way. If so, feel free to vote. It's a pretty powerful thing, the vote. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: aemeijers on 29 Mar 2010 18:43 Roger Blake wrote: > On 2010-03-27, Scott Dorsey <kludge(a)panix.com> wrote: >> I'd look in the preamble under "promoting the general welfare" personally. > > I'd look at the historical basis of that personally, and discover that > it is supposed to be a restrictive rather than an expansive clause, > such as what James Madison had to say about it: > > "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." --James Madison > > Likewise, the much-abused commerce clause was intended to be restrictive, > its intent was to prevent tarriffs and trade wars between the states, > to to have central government managing every aspect of our lives. Don't > take my word for it, Madison said so himself: > > "Yet it [commerce clause] is very certain that it > grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing > States in taxing the nonimporting, and was intended > as a negative and preventive provision against > injustice among the States themselves, rather than > as a power to be used for the positive purposes of > the General Government, in which alone, however, the > remedial power could be lodged." -- James Madison > > The words of the Constitution do not exist in a vacuum, the Framers > left behind plenty of evidence as to what their intentions were. > > Given that a fundamental axiom is that the intent of the law maker is > the force and intent of the law, how do we get to an authoritarian > central government dictating to individuals that they must buy specific > products and services without shredding the Constitution into confetti? > >> But, if you require that everything has to be specifically enumerated >> as a line in the constitution, we'd better get rid of the national >> transportation system and shut down all the highways. Regulation of >> gasoline quality? I don't see anything about that in the constitution, > > So you believe that "the end justifies the means" and that government > should be given unlimited power to do whatever politicians decide is > needed at any given moment. May your chains rest lightly upon your > shoulders. > > (Of course any of the items you mention could be lawfully implemented > via a constitutional amendment. The constitution was designed as an > extensible document.) > >> I think it was Jefferson whose attitudes you are objecting to rather than >> Obama's. > > Looking over Jefferson's concerns about authoritarian government in > places such as: > > http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0900.htm > > I don't see much that would lend support to the objectives of the > thugs currently in power. > >> You might also want to try looking over the actual health care proposals >> and some of what Obama has said. I disagree with a lot of it too, but > > I disagree with ALL of it. My health is not a federal issue. > >> some of it I strongly support, and it's certainly an improvement over the >> horrible disaster we've got right now. > > I see no "horrible disaster." Even if there were, in the absense of a > Constitutional amendment I certainly see no lawful authority for the > scheme that has been enacted. > Well, in the case of the national transportation system, the constitution does mention 'post roads', and 'provide for the national defense'. Roads are real handy for toting mail and moving troops and war material around. Ike's Autobahn even has 'and Defense' in the official program title. -- aem sends...
From: Scott Dorsey on 29 Mar 2010 19:08 aemeijers <aemeijers(a)att.net> wrote: >Well, in the case of the national transportation system, the >constitution does mention 'post roads', and 'provide for the national >defense'. Roads are real handy for toting mail and moving troops and >war material around. Ike's Autobahn even has 'and Defense' in the >official program title. That's a good point, I had forgotten about that. I think 'post roads' might even be possible to stretch as far as the internet too. The truth is, we have had an awful lot of both good and bad things financed under the name of defense. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: KG on 4 Apr 2010 12:34 On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:27:17 +0000 (UTC), APLer <APLer(a)floor.tilde> wrote: >aemeijers <aemeijers(a)att.net> wrote in >news:S_KdnYaWLOcWBDLWnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d(a)giganews.com: > >> hls wrote: >>> The price of gasoline is not the worst thing that could result from >>> Obama's presidency. It hasn't any thing to do whit the president. The energy company's have bought and paid for our government and they will continue to use it as they see fit. Over 2 years ago they started permanently closing their older refineries stating that they are unprofitable to operate. Wait until the economy improves and watch them increase the profits by billions again with the refinery bottleneck. ***************** Thank You kgsAT(a)msbx.net To reply to this email please remove the AT after the kgs in the reply to address as shown above. Never ever under estimate the incompetent.
From: Roger Blake on 4 Apr 2010 12:49
On 2010-04-04, KG <kgsAT(a)msbx.net> wrote: > It hasn't any thing to do whit the president. It will if the Anointed One signs the threatened cap-and-loot bill which the Dimrats want to push through. That will raise energy taxes through the roof, all with His blessing. -- Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled due to spam.) "Obama dozed while people froze." |