Comments on: How is a Federal Minimum wage Constitutional?

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:22:15 +0000

Shenzhen…. concur. They start reading with what they want it to mean in their mind, then twist.

I think, lately, it is worse though. Lately… they just ignore the Constitution.

By: Shenzhen Paniolo

Shenzhen Paniolo — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 09:17:24 +0000

An old technique that has become much more abused in recent years called “proof texting” was used by questionable theologians to find passages that could be twisted in Scripture to support their views – regardless of obviously opposite meaning when read in context. The same technique is applied to the Constitution to misrepresent it as was done with Scripture. It gives our country a bad name by misrepresenting our foundation just as proof-texting (singling out verses that may sound like they support your idea and suppressing others) has done with religion. In the early years of our country, people would have been shocked at the misrepresentation that is common today.

By: Ken

Ken — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:41:40 +0000

Hi John… I agree, right now they interpret it as pretty much anything.

By: John Ashman

John Ashman — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:30:41 +0000

Also, the use of the term in the preamble is virtually meaningless as it is an introduction to the Constitution, not a legal part of the Constitution.

By: John Ashman

John Ashman — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:22:42 +0000

Thomas Jefferson explicitly explains the term “general welfare” to be of the union, not of the people. And that the powers the federal government can wield for the general welfare of the union are specified in Article 8. If it is not in there, it doesn’t exist and requires an amendment. He also stated that to find the ability to just do any old good thing you want in the words ‘general welfare’ would render the entire article meaningless and pointless.

By: Ken

Ken — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:28:54 +0000

That is not it at all. My definition was pretty precise – help EVERYBODY. A major highway can do that. A local beltway, not so much.

Yes there will be some disagreement, but around the edges of General, not some population that is a decimal point of the total public.

This is obvious. Those in the “it can do it all” are the ones following policy preferences. There are things I think are good ideas that aren’t enumerated in the Constitution. I’d like an amendment, not an invention.

By: General Welfare

General Welfare — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:26:51 +0000

[...] Carl opined a definition of the â€œgeneral welfareâ€ clause so broad as to essentially gut the entire idea behind the Constitution (a Federal government with [...]

By: Carl Nelson

Carl Nelson — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:17:28 +0000

Isn’t the Constitution a great instrument? We can find in it support for the policies we support and opposition to polices we oppose. BTW: the debate over the propriety of “internal improvements” is about as old as the Constitution itself.

By: Ken

Ken — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:33:45 +0000

Highways are “general welfare” mostly…. I15, is. I295 around Salt Lake, I’m not so sure about.

I wasn’t referring to what I can do now WRT firearms but what I believed you interpreted the 2nd amendment as from many discussions.I figured tortured logic could work in all parts of the Constitution.

WRT Iraq… you will remember that my view of it was that Iran was the real threat (to the common defence). Encircling it meets that test for me. Turning Iraq into a 3rd rate corrupt Democracy doesn’t. I wasn’t particularly happy with that part of Bush’s plans. I can grant them, however, that it would be useful if we had an ally encircling Iran for us and so I give them leeway on methods.

By: Carl Nelson

Carl Nelson — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:42:42 +0000

Do you enjoy living in St George, which would be a dusty isolated desert town without all the “general Welfare” work that went to building highways and airports and Hoover Dam and corralling the Colorado River to enable Las Vegas?

“lock up liberal commenters” is specifically treated in other parts of the Constitution under individual liberties. “bearing arms” is also treated elsewhere, and considering how you are able to buy, hold, and shoot guns, and boast about it openly, you’ll have a hard time convincing anyone you are being unduly restricted.

I suppose you also think that invading Iraq qualified under “provide for the common Defence”.

By: Ken

Ken — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:26:19 +0000

dictionary.com:

“general”:
applying to all or most members of a category or group; “the general public”; “general assistance”; “a general rule”; “in general terms …

Paying 1 million out of 350 million hardly qualifies as “all or most” members of the general public.

I’m impressed with the mental gymnasitcs that has that line from Article 1 allowing anything but somehow the 2nd amendment doesn’t allow the keeping and bearing of arms.

By: Ken

Ken — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:22:17 +0000

That makes no sense. It sounds like something Sotomayor might say.

The sentence means they can take money to promote the general welfare of the US. So , using that tortured logic, THEY should pay the minimum wage, not force me to. But even then, money to specific people is hardly the “general welfare”. Defending our borders is – but they don’t do that.

Your interpretation means they can do anything. Even lock up liberal commenters, for the General Welfare. How would you feel about that?

By: Carl Nelson

Carl Nelson — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:23:22 +0000

Article I Section 8 “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”

“provide for the general Welfare” is a broad area of authority with no restricting definitions in the Constitution that would prohibit minimum wage laws.