Pelosi and her 100K in flight tab

Well- if you take the view that the only thing the Government is allowed to do is exactly what is enumerated in the constitution then clearly it doesn't say those things. But doesn't the Preamble to the Constitution - which explains the rationale for the Governments existence- pretty well lay out the responsibilities of government? and then I believe that the Necessary and Proper clause -Article 1 - gives Congress the authority to enact laws not expressly forbidden or reserved to the States - a question which was settled before Andrew Jackson was the President. You guys are about 200 years too late in arguing the powers of Congress. Now you can argue (pretty convincingly IMO) that many if not most of the creations of Congress are the least efficient means to affect those purposes.

We are not too late. It's just that for too damned long the powers of Congress have been allowed to be expanded by Congress to the rediculous levels that exist today. Just because they did it doesn't mean that what they did is right or that it shouldn't be overturned.

As for the "general welfare", that's a red herring. To begin, that very phrase was hotly debated when the Constitution was being ratified because, as you just did, it could be used to mean ANYTHING. Hey! it's in the general welfare for everyone to make $250K a year! Congress, make it so! NOT!

Finally, while Article 1 says what you say it says, Amendment 10 specifically says that unless the Constitution grants them the authority, Congress can't do a damned thing.
 
And for the record...I always wonder about people who justify their arguments, on the right and the left, with "Well, the Founders intended...". I mean, the Founding Fathers were visionaries who established the greatest nation on Earth. But they also lived over 200 years ago. It is now an entirely different world. To me, their opinions on things are pretty much irrelevant to today's policy. Sorry.

Oh well, then. Since the Founders are long dead and it's now an entirely different world, let's simply dismantle what they did. We don't need to have rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness be defined as inalienable; we don't need a Bill of Rights. We don't need a Constitution.

The reason they established what you admit is the greatest nation on earth is because they built a framework that was intended to prevent precisely the kind of runaway, obtrusive, and even repre3ssive government we have today. They had seen it all before and were trying to prevent it. Unfortunately, far too many people have sucked down the "it's a living document!" Kool-Aide and allowed the restrictions to fall apart to the point where we're within a hair of being told that a government bureaucrat will now have the power to decide whether you live or die based upon how much it costs the taxpayer.

Besides, the world really ISN'T all that different. We still have human being trying to impose their will upon other human beings under the guise of authority. THAT is what's being debated here.

Sorry, but some ideas survive long after their greatest champions have passed away. Individual liberty is one of them, and it's under a full-scale attack as we type.
 
And since Ron Paul disagrees, then the argument must be correct? That makes a whole lot of sense. Look, we can argue all day about what is constitutionally provided for as far as congressional powers go. The Air Force isn't in the Constitution, while unless I'm mistaken (could be), the Army and Navy are. Should we therefore get rid of the AF?

The Air Force is part of the armed forces, a function specifically spelled out in the Constitution as a power for Congress.


I wonder how many more flights Pelosi has sent her kids on, on OUR dime, since this thread was started? :rolleyes:
 
The Air Force is part of the armed forces, a function specifically spelled out in the Constitution as a power for Congress.


I wonder how many more flights Pelosi has sent her kids on, on OUR dime, since this thread was started? :rolleyes:



Providing for the general welfare is also a function specifically spelled out in the Constitution....again, as I said, this game could be played all day long. It all depends on what you want to read it as. If you're a conservative, you'll take the "stricter" reading. Liberals will take a "looser" reading. And FYI...I really, really dislike Pelosi and consider her horribly corrupt, along with most of the Democrats and Republicans in Congress. So don't take my posts as a defense of her.
 
Providing for the general welfare is also a function specifically spelled out in the Constitution....again, as I said, this game could be played all day long. It all depends on what you want to read it as. If you're a conservative, you'll take the "stricter" reading. Liberals will take a "looser" reading. And FYI...I really, really dislike Pelosi and consider her horribly corrupt, along with most of the Democrats and Republicans in Congress. So don't take my posts as a defense of her.

I was just getting the thread a little back on topic.

As for "general welfare", it carries the same weight as "to form a more perfect union". In other words, it is a GOAL, not a function spelled out for Congress to perform. It is a goal that would be achieved if Congress remained within its Constitutional boundaries and left the rest of us the hell alone.
 
Should we therefore get rid of the AF?

There certainly have been discussions about the Army absorbing the Air Force. Not because of the Constitution, but regarding the relevance of the Air Force as a stand-alone service.

I wouldn't have believed it had I not heard it from the mouth of an Air Force colonel. It's a reasonable argument to have.
 
Well, I've long held that as (a LOT of) time passes, the only services that will survive will be the Navy and the Marine Corps.

The Navy will drive the starships and the Marines will land planetside.

Who provides close air support will be one or the other.

Just thinkin' ahead! :thumb:
 
Well, I've long held that as (a LOT of) time passes, the only services that will survive will be the Navy and the Marine Corps.

The Navy will drive the starships and the Marines will land planetside.

Who provides close air support will be one or the other.

Just thinkin' ahead! :thumb:




Why does the Navy drive the starships? The AF already has the space warfare for itself. And why the Marines, for that matter? I get what you're saying, but I'd see Army and AF surviving, not USMC and Navy.
 
Well, I've long held that as (a LOT of) time passes, the only services that will survive will be the Navy and the Marine Corps.

The Navy will drive the starships and the Marines will land planetside.

Who provides close air support will be one or the other.

Just thinkin' ahead! :thumb:

I think you mean Coast Guard, Marine Corps and Army....after all, the Coast Guard is the HARD NUCLEUS about which the Navy forms in a time of war. :thumb:

If you watch Event Horizon, the space ship in that movie is....Coast Guard....even has Coast Guard shoulder boards for the officers on board, and a USCG racing stripe on the side of the ship.

Here is the ship....notice at the top of the ship...midway back.... Coast Guard racing stripe....I rest my case.

http://application.denofgeek.com/images/m/75spaceships/main/Lewsi_and_clark.jpg
 
Well, I've long held that as (a LOT of) time passes, the only services that will survive will be the Navy and the Marine Corps.

The Navy will drive the starships and the Marines will land planetside.

lol I've said the same thing before.

The first spaceships would be AF, but the Navy would eventually take over.
 
Why does the Navy drive the starships? The AF already has the space warfare for itself. And why the Marines, for that matter? I get what you're saying, but I'd see Army and AF surviving, not USMC and Navy.

how do you see both army and af surviving but not usmc and navy?
 
Bruno - Well said regarding constitutional powers.

As much as I hate the over expansion of the federal government, as Bruno articulated the universally accepted interpretation of the constitution is that congress is NOT limited to only the powers as per explicitly mentioned in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution. It is clearly articluated in A. 1 S.8 as a power of congress, " raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy" but not a Navy.
The Air Force would not exist were it not for this interpretation, neither would NASA, or the DEA, FBI, CIA and a host of other important organizations which aren't mentioned in the powers of congress. I'm sure most would be glad for the elastic clause at this point, unless you would rather have amended the constitution a million times.
So, Zaphod while I 100 percent agree with you about the absurd over expansion of our government, the argument that it is wrong because the expansions aren't outlined in powers of congress is incorrect.
 
Last edited:
lol I've said the same thing before.

The first spaceships would be AF, but the Navy would eventually take over.



Hahaha, the Air Force would keep delaying the spaceship production schedule. At some point Congress would pull funding and the Navy would produce them, but they wouldn't all work, and would spend so much time in dry dock.
 
So, Zaphod while I 100 percent agree with you about the absurd over expansion of our government, the argument that it is wrong because the expansions aren't outlined in powers of congress is incorrect.

This statement only applies to people who accept that because it's "been done" it is correct. It was wrong with Chief Justice Marshall, and it still is.

If there's anything Dred Scott taught us....the Supreme Court isn't always right.
 
This statement only applies to people who accept that because it's "been done" it is correct. It was wrong with Chief Justice Marshall, and it still is.

If there's anything Dred Scott taught us....the Supreme Court isn't always right.

So you would rather amend the constitution a million times? Like that would work...
Marshall's decision in Mculloch V. Maryland has been the foundation for the way our government has operated effectively for almost 200 years, the supreme court is not infallible, but errors as egregious as those in Dredd Scott and Plessy tend to end up not standing. I think clearly America has not seen Mculloch v maryland in the same manner.
 
Last edited:
No, I would rather the bulk of the force of government rest at the state level. There is no reason to think the federal government has it "together" more than a state. Heck, California has a larger economy than many countries.

We live in a world where we're comfortable with the federal government using it's power. 200 years ago (a blink of the eye in Europe), people were more comfortable with state power. United STATES.
 
Dred Scott not standing wasn't the REAL concern....a nation divided and a civil war with the kind of carnage we can only "dream" of would be...
 
Fair enough. I would still contend that there are concerns only the federal government can be effective at addressing, and the necessary and proper clause provides the authority to do so. Just a respectful difference of opinion.:thumb:
 
Why does the Navy drive the starships? The AF already has the space warfare for itself. And why the Marines, for that matter? I get what you're saying, but I'd see Army and AF surviving, not USMC and Navy.

Because the Air Force can't navigate for crap nor handle anything bigger than a small bomber, and because the Army isn't trained for expeditionary missions like the entire USMC is.

Besides, who wants to entrust the freedom and security of the entire planet to Woops and Zoomies?

So THERE. :thumb:
 
Back
Top