Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
The healthcare issue, as it has been since day one, is federalism vs. anti-federalism. DK interprets the General Welfare clause through the lens of the anti-federalists and people like, say, me, view it more from a federalist perspective. Because that's an argument that's simply not going to be won, though, the issue has to simply be stripped of ideology down to the brass tax (no pun intended) of what's best for the country. We already have plenty of threads on the merits of something like single-payer, so I'll leave that conversation there.
Thinking of the General Welfare clause in a wider scope, though, requires one not just to read the scribbled notes of the founding fathers, but also the case law dealing with it. The judicial, after all, is responsible for rendering the official interpretation of a given law. FDR's new deal was given the stamp of approval from the Supreme Court, therefore those powers are not unconstitutional. Whether one agrees with those judges or not, for now it's legal. The Supreme Court adopted a more expansive view of the General Welfare clause than most anti-federalists are comfortable with. You can call it fascism or tyranny or Christmas, but it's not unconstitutional, at least not until there's another ruling on it.
|
so if the supreme court decided tomorrow that because todays threat of terrorism is so great, that searches of homes based on anonymous tips no longer need warrants because such a dangerous threat to life exists, that would be constitutional?
I think not, not anymore constitutional than if the supreme court said tomorrow that there is no individual right to own arms.
you should read up on 'the switch in time that saved nine' for a better look at WHY roosevelts policies all of a sudden came up hunky dory constitutional.
---------- Post added at 03:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:44 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
I think if Hamilton wanted what he says he wanted, then the Constitution should have been clearer and/or more specific about it. It's generally poor form for a country to write important, nation defining documents one way, and then say in other speeches/letters "well, what we MEANT was...."
And if the preamble has no legal binding, then neither do any of the letters and speeches of the Founding Fathers that concern the Constitution.
|
the problem you have with that is that those writings were made available to the people of the states so that they knew EXACTLY what they were voting to ratify. Those letters explained in clear terms what meant what. It's self defeating to ignore them now for interpretations by 9 black robed tyrants 200 years later.