It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do people support so many unconstitutional programs?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Regardless if one agrees or disagrees with the nanny statism that has come about the 10th Amendment properly lays the responsibility with/on the people and states.

The move towards direct Senatorial elections effectively removed the states legislators/assemblies power and handed it over to the people with elections and control of both houses of congress.

We only have ourselves to blame if you disagree with todays federal governance and largesse.

On the otherhand same goe's if you don't believe the nanny state doe's enough.

As far as the contitutionality question raised in the initial post, its a moot point according to the tenth amendment.

Maybe this is why the founders formed a REPUBLIC instead of a democracy, realizing the danger.

Phoenix, read my siggy!

[edit on 15-12-2007 by Phoenix]




posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   
First, regarding the constitutionality of certain programs... Most of them are covered by the first clause of Article I, section 8. "General welfare" goes pretty far beyond "tax breaks for billionaires" y'know.

Now as for the other stuff... SlackerWire is right. It's not his responsibility to take care of people with bad jobs. Nobody says it is. He may think that's the case, but it's certainly not.

However, as others have pointed out, Slacker's life largely depends on the people he describes as "Stupid" because, in all likelihood, he cannot grow his own produce or handle his own livestock for food, he can't do his own taxes, probably is unable to build his own house, change a tire, fight fires on his own, etc.

It is thus in his own self-interest - which as far as I can gather, is the only interest he has - to ensure that these people receive enough compensation for their services and products in order to keep them content, educated, and healthy. Since we are in a capitalist economy we cannot rely on employers to pick up the tab on this, so it falls to the government to provide the backup for these service providers. It's in the best interest of the nation as a whole.

Which takes us back to the "general welfare" thing, doesn't it?

And, for those of you arguing about state's rights... Are you really so clueless as to think that a system that was completely unworkable at its inception would somehow magically work today? It was unmanageable when there were 13 states, and only got worse and worse as more got added. Sometimes, folks, those old dudes in wigs got it wrong, and this is one such case. Now if you want to utterly screw over your country in the name of literalist idealism, please, find a country stupid enough to take you up on it.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire

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.


"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"
...."Then let them die and reduce the surplus population..."
Ebenezer Scrooge
Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol"

And a merry Christmas to you, Uncle Ebenezer. You will be visited by three ghosts. . .

[edit on 17-12-2007 by Sestias]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 


or a lack of pure democracy could just be the impractical nature of having direct votes on every issue when you have an incredibly large area to cover with late 18th century level communication...



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join