Why do people support so many unconstitutional programs?

Are people so selfish that they are willing to give a giant flip of the middle finger to the Constitution simply because they benefit from said violations?

Lets look at just a sample of the widespread abuses and expenditures of our tax dollars that people overlook:

Public education: Article 1 Section 8 authorizes such funding where? (Those of you who use the general welfare clause should have some backup evidence.)

Welfare: Again, the general welfare clause is used to refute my argument, but notice it says GENERAL, and not INDIVIDUAL.

How about gun control? NFA is an infringement. The former Assault Weapons Ban was an infringement. The pile of manure known as the Brady Bill was also an infringement. When does it end?

How about healthcare? Why do so many people look to the government to take care of them? It isnt the feds job, duty, or obligation. Those who look to the government to take care of them should be left to die in the street instead of wasting our tax dollars.

My proposals: Any politician who proposes or votes to pass any legislation which goes against the Constitution is immediately taken out of office, and charged with treason.

Eliminate welfare. Let those who fail do so with the knowledge they wont be able to attack the public wallet for their poor choices.

If eliminating welfare isnt doable, I suggest the following 2 restrictions:

Anyone who is on welfare, SSI, or any other social assistance program loses their right to vote until they are off said program. The last thing we need is more people voting for politicians who promise them more of our money.
Disclaimer: People whine about not being able to take the right to vote away from others, I only need remind them that convicted felons lose their right to vote as well.

Also on the welfare front: Anyone who is on any form of social assistance is must be given the most effective form of birth control available at the time. We dont need welfare people crapping out any more mouths for the taxpayer to feed. If they dont like it, they dont get a check.

All education must be turned over to the private market, thereby increasing performance (poor performing schools wouldnt stay open long) and doing it cheaper than government as well. For those who cant afford it, maybe they should have thought of that before they had kids they couldnt raise.

Personal responsibility left this nation a long time ago, and its time we bring it back. The future of the nation depends on it.

Whaddya think, should I run for office?

Originally posted by slackerwire
Are people so selfish that they are willing to give a giant flip of the middle finger to the Constitution simply because they benefit from said violations?

Lets look at just a sample of the widespread abuses and expenditures of our tax dollars that people overlook:

Wow we could just go on and on for days about this.

Public education: Article 1 Section 8 authorizes such funding where? (Those of you who use the general welfare clause should have some backup evidence.)

I'm not against governmental funded education.

Welfare: Again, the general welfare clause is used to refute my argument, but notice it says GENERAL, and not INDIVIDUAL.

Welfare is a very socialist program, it is better today than in the past but it still needs improvement. The welfare program is set up as a 5 year deal, but there should be benchmarks for recipients to achieve IMO for each year to continue benefits, at the end of five years with the benchmarks all achieved they should no longer need assistance, and would then be contributing members of society.

How about gun control? NFA is an infringement. The former Assault Weapons Ban was an infringement. The pile of manure known as the Brady Bill was also an infringement. When does it end?

It will end with complete gun control. martial law like what happened in New Orleans.

How about healthcare? Why do so many people look to the government to take care of them? It isnt the feds job, duty, or obligation. Those who look to the government to take care of them should be left to die in the street instead of wasting our tax dollars.

Here I also disagree, now I have Very Good insurance, but truthfully their should be certain benefits for citizens of this country and health care should be one of those.

My proposals: Any politician who proposes or votes to pass any legislation which goes against the Constitution is immediately taken out of office, and charged with treason.

This group would include just about every politician since Abraham Lincoln including Lincoln.

I'm not even going to comment on the rest cuz wow conservatives and there narrow view of the poor is just beyond good tastes.

I say we end corporate welfare
I say we end giving Israel 17 million dollars a day

I say I agree with what Ron Paul says.

reply to post by slackerwire


Whether something is stupid versus constitutional are different questions. Some (many) of those things you have mentioned do not work from a policy perspective when run by the federal government but are perfectly constitutional.

Originally posted by LDragonFire


I'm not against governmental funded education.

But the Constitution is.

Here I also disagree, now I have Very Good insurance, but truthfully their should be certain benefits for citizens of this country and health care should be one of those.

Also Unconstitutional.

reply to post by slackerwire


no, the constitution isn't actually against government funded education. it's against federally RUN education.

i also must mention...
if something isn't within the constitution, it isn't unconstitutional.

such as universal healthcare.

and again, such things can be MADE constitutional through the amendment process...

[edit on 12/10/07 by madnessinmysoul]

Simple answer. People want something for nothing all the time whether it's free pills or at the very least not having to be responsible for raising their kids and politicians use such promises and fantasies to buy votes.

You know what's not a Constitutional right? That everyone be allowed a vote. I'd prefer it if people with an actual stake in what happens to this nation be allowed to vote like homeowners, business owners, land owners, hell just the employed be able to vote but as it is any bum on the street can stop swigging from the Listerine for a couple of minutes and cast a vote.

Here, in NH, CT we had a big messup where the local (D) was sending goons to round up the mentally ill and "retarded" from halfway houses, shelters and assistance homes to go cast their vote. One of the "goons" even admitted, after having to chase and catch a screaming and frightened mentally ill patient, to coaching him on who to vote for. He just repeated the name over and over and over. That's democracy for you. If they are so dumb you can't buy their vote with crazy promises and bankrupting policies and wealth redistribution and blatant unearned socialist garbage just round up a bunch of mentally retarded people to vote for you.

This specific situation is currently under review by the state election commission but I doubt anything will come of it.

Quite frankly, and I am saddened to come to this conclusion, most people do not deserve a vote. Anyone who can be swayed by a TV commercial for a candidate should not be allowed to vote.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

no, the constitution isn't actually against government funded education. it's against federally RUN education.

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution specifically outlines what the feds may spend OUR money on. Education isnt located anywhere in there.

i also must mention...
if something isn't within the constitution, it isn't unconstitutional.

such as universal healthcare.

WOW, I would suggest you study up on the Constitution a little bit more.





[edit on 12/10/07 by madnessinmysoul]

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Very true. I would suggest a basic knowledge test be mandatory before anyone walks into a voting booth.

Originally posted by slackerwire

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

no, the constitution isn't actually against government funded education. it's against federally RUN education.

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution specifically outlines what the feds may spend OUR money on. Education isnt located anywhere in there.

But the courts have said that education is part of the general welfare. Again, that doesn't mean that the federal government should get involved in education, but the fact is that they can.

reply to post by slackerwire


i have...

actually, togetic pointed out one part: general welfare.
i'm quite sure a universal healthcare program falls under "general welfare" here.


oh... and speaking of unconstitutional, your reactionary response here is ironically unconstitutional.

Because...

Why would someone want to learn how to fish, if someone is there to just give him a fish


And on a side note, i wonder what the polls would look like if we asked the masses what is the last book they read, with the chocies:

The Constution and founding documents

Any religious book of faith (bible/quaron)

The lastest Harry Poter book

Or... (whatever the name of those trashy magazines are at the checkout line at the Supermarket, GQ or QG, something like that, always advertizing someone is cheating on someone, or someone is a bad mom, you know the one)

I would suspect that we all would be a little depresed at the results... and this is why i carry the constution where ever i go.

Because...

Why would someone want to learn how to fish, if someone is there to just give him a fish


And on a side note, i wonder what the polls would look like if we asked the masses what is the last book they read, with the chocies:

The Constution and founding documents

Any religious book of faith (bible/quaron)

The lastest Harry Poter book

Or... (whatever the name of those trashy magazines are at the checkout line at the Supermarket, GQ or QG, something like that, always advertizing someone is cheating on someone, or someone is a bad mom, you know the one)

I would suspect that we all would be a little depresed at the results... and this is why i carry the constution where ever i go.

And PS, i missed you slackerwire, its been a while since ive seen one of your posts, i thought you went soft.

Originally posted by Togetic

But the courts have said that education is part of the general welfare. Again, that doesn't mean that the federal government should get involved in education, but the fact is that they can.

And in which court case would that be?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


actually, togetic pointed out one part: general welfare.
i'm quite sure a universal healthcare program falls under "general welfare" here.

That is your opinion, do not state it as fact.

oh... and speaking of unconstitutional, your reactionary response here is ironically unconstitutional.

how so?

Before I reply, I just wanted to make an observation:

Most of us (except those of us nearing the age of 100 in years or more) have been born after the establishment of the Federal Reserve system... States rights have been eroded since that time in lieu of the more federalized approach of 'big brother' - our 'savior' from the troubles of a thought-process born of clarity.

All we know nowadays is the unConstitutional approach of our 'big brother'. We've been ingrained since our early years that this federal monster is in line with our Constitution (through our currently horrid public school system, chock another temporary win down for 'big brother') and countless propaganda techniques which end in US citizens rarely questioning what is in line or out of line with the foundation of our nation - the Constitution.

As an honorable plug, we have a chance to turn this around...
That's right! We need a Ron Paul revolution!
And to those of you who say it will not help or that it is hopeless:
Ask yourselves what we have to lose vs. what we have to gain!

(It only costs a little hope and a vote...)

I for one would prefer a non-violent change in our country's direction, potentially even derailing the systematic sweep of the 'brave new world' approach our swiftly federalizing nation is being lead to. Our hopes of using our own political system FOR THE PURPOSE IT WAS CREATED has been carefully undermined over the years, and this past congressional election (where the democrats made a 'clean' sweep) is no different. People voted for the democrats for a change in course... and what we got was more of the same...

Having hope for something better isn't a crime - but giving up entirely should be.

With that said...



reply to post by slackerwire

I wholeheartedly agree with the gist of your argument here. These programs are unConstitutional - forcing EVERYONE to pay and participate in them is A) assuming everyone agrees with said programs, B) a total lack of respect of our free will and right to run our own lives, C) Orwellian in concept, and... well, unConstitutional.

The apparent (and Constitutional!) solution is much more simple than anything I've heard here though... Rather than have a definitive YES or NO statement for the whole country, why not make the choice in alignment with what the Constitution was created for and let it be a state issue?

Want to live with no health care? Go live in State A, they use it and pay for it.
Want to live without health care? Go live in State B, they get by fine without it.
Want to live where public education is run privately? State C is all about that.
Want to live where public education is run by the state? State D is all about that.

When these issues are correctly turned over to the states, we lose the murk and people get exactly what they want. And chances are great that people of like mind will conglomerate together and instead of having a different state for every issue, we'll just have a state for each economic/political philosophy.

I've said it once and I'll keep saying it until the end of time, local governments should run LOCAL AFFAIRS! It's a surprisingly new (and yet ancient) philosophy, but it has withstood the test of time for a reason...

Originally posted by TrueAce

The apparent (and Constitutional!) solution is much more simple than anything I've heard here though... Rather than have a definitive YES or NO statement for the whole country, why not make the choice in alignment with what the Constitution was created for and let it be a state issue?

Want to live with no health care? Go live in State A, they use it and pay for it.
Want to live without health care? Go live in State B, they get by fine without it.
Want to live where public education is run privately? State C is all about that.
Want to live where public education is run by the state? State D is all about that.

When these issues are correctly turned over to the states, we lose the murk and people get exactly what they want. And chances are great that people of like mind will conglomerate together and instead of having a different state for every issue, we'll just have a state for each economic/political philosophy.

I've said it once and I'll keep saying it until the end of time, local governments should run LOCAL AFFAIRS! It's a surprisingly new (and yet ancient) philosophy, but it has withstood the test of time for a reason...

Thats actually a really good idea, but I would add one suggestion:

Laws stating that the socialist states (CA, MA, & a few others) would never be entitled to funds from any of the freedom loving states once they realize their socialism bs just doesnt work.

reply to post by slackerwire


Absolutely prevent them from getting funds from other states. I don't know how many times some wealth-redistributing federalist here in CT would argue with me that AZ gets more money from the fed than it pays in because of states like CT and NY paying so much and getting so little as a point that the fed needs to dictate welfare. I mean, they don't even hear the words coming out of their mouths! They're simultaneously complaining about and supporting the same position

When I try to explain to them I feel the same way that's why federal bull like this has to stop they get all defensive and pretend they didn't say what they just said. It's making my hair fall out.

One additional point I dont understand is why states are afraid to stand up to the feds.

For instance, I live in Las Vegas, NV, and the freeways out here arent designed to hold the amount of traffic that we have. For the past few days, the local news and talk radio has been going on and on about how the feds are dictating that if we want federal highway dollars, we must put in HOV lanes on any freeway expansion, even though studies have recently shown they arent effective in reducing congestion. I called into my local AM talk show this morning and suggested that the state government should tell the feds if thats the way they want to play, NV should simply stop remitting all tax revenues due the feds. The hosts of the radio show couldnt believe I was actually saying something like that. They acted as if its out of the realm of possibility.

The feds have continually used our own money as blackmail leverage, usually in the form of withholding highway dollars until the states decide to accept the feds jamming things such as DUI limits, a mandatory recognition of the MLK holiday (in Arizona), etc etc down our collective throats.

At what point will some courageous governor stand up, give the feds a giant middlefinger, and say we wont be playing the game your way?

[edit on 10-12-2007 by slackerwire]

Originally posted by slackerwire
Thats actually a really good idea ...

Why, thank you! Your compliment is appreciated.

Originally posted by slackerwire
...but I would add one suggestion:

Laws stating that the socialist states (CA, MA, & a few others) would never be entitled to funds from any of the freedom loving states once they realize their socialism bs just doesnt work.

Of course! I think that goes without saying...
Thus it was why I did not (or so I'll claim).

Depending on what religious backgrounds each state was composed of (in that case, some states might choose to live in poverty because their system of life was inspired by such), the richer states would provide a good example of a stable socio-economic foundation and poorer states could hop on the bandwagon at their leisure (taking from your example). In this case, I know the richer states would be more than happy to assist them, as trade would increase and thus make BOTH states richer and more prosperous...

...Of course, this system would only work if we had a currency backed by REAL money (as opposed to fiat money). IMHO, the sooner we take the necessary steps to rid ourselves of the Federal Reserve system, the sooner we can begin to live life abundantly! I'm even for a gradual step-down of the FR if an immediate overhaul would create too much instability.

At this time I'd normally ask if I should run for office myself... but I'm really just expressing views that have already been stated - by Ron Paul nonetheless!

He'll make a great president BTW.

Originally posted by slackerwire
That is your opinion, do not state it as fact.

ah, so you're going to say a lack of healthcare is a good thing?
sorry, it's not really a matter of opinion that having ready access to healthcare

also...education is a part of the general welfare, that's just common sense.

how so?

can't make any laws that turn massive numbers of people into criminals, it's unconstitutional.
let alone the whole fascism thing of charging all who disagree with you with treason...