ROUND 2 IN THE BATTLE TO “KEEP AND BEAR ARMS” .

What you won’t see is that THE ORDINANCE was introduced by a “Made Wiseguy” of the “Chicago Outfit” 1st Ward Alderman “Fred Rotti” of “The 26th Street Crew”. Just Google for the Daley MOB faction of the 1st and 11th Wards, his Homeland Dynasty, Chicago Sun-Times.com has it all.

If were not going to go that route can we stop with the arguments about what’s “good profit” (i.e. a heart surgeon earning $300,000) and what’s “bad profit” (anything by a health insurance company…)

What’s the difference? Hypothetical time. Baseball game, my team is up 1-0, bottom of the 9th inning, other team is at bat, bases loaded, 2 outs. Count to the batter is 3-2. Pitcher throws a pitch. I think it was a strike. Umpire calls it a ball, walks in the tying run. Next batter comes up, and the same thing happens.
In my opinion, the ump was blind. We should have won. If someone asks me what the final score was and I say “1-0 we won” . . . that’s not accurate. “everybody knows we won” . . . that’s not accurate. “we lost 2-1 on some bull$h!t calls” . . . that’s accurate.

I can think that the 1st Amendment covers my public masturbation. My opinion. But for me to say “public masturbation is covered by the 1st Amendment just as the Framers intended” . . . that’s wrong. It isn’t covered. My thinking it should be doesn’t make it so.

What should be the interpretation of the language and what is the interpretation of the language are entirely different conversations.

“James Madison (again!), objected to this reading of the clause, arguing that it was inconsistent with the concept of a government of limited powers and that it rendered the list of enumerated powers redundant. He argued that the General Welfare clause granted Congress no additional powers other than those enumerated. Thus, in THEIR view the words themselves served no practical purpose.”(emphasis added)

James Madison does not equal the Founding Fathers. As you note, others believed differently. So from James Madison disagreeing, you have “them” putting in language (both in the Preamble and the main body of the document) that nobody thought served any purpose whatsoever. For a bunch of lawyers and statesmen . . . that is staggeringly hard to fathom. They used the same phrase twice, both to state their goals and to specifically enumerate a purpose. Legislatively, that is enormously significant. The Founders were well aware of the importance of both saying something and not saying something — as an example, they attached a qualifier to the 2nd Amendment and didn’t to any other of the Bill of Rights. They knew exactly what they were doing. To say that they just repeatedly used that language, but nobody intended for it to have any impact whatsoever, is uncredible to me.

Yes, James Madison expressed opinions. So did Alexander Hamilton. Thomas Jefferson. Many others. That James Madison said, at one point, that was what he believed, does not make it the meaning of the language that all delegates believed without question. Reading their correspondence back and and forth, following the debate, shows not only different views, but the evolution of ideas.

In regards to the idea that the Founders wanted a standing Army . . . I don’t know what else to say. From where I’m sitting, it’s pretty clear that they didn’t. From a jurispridencial perspective, linguistic perspective, historical perspective . . . they didn’t. Saying “yes they did” seems to me to fly directly in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. I can’t just ignore that evidence, so I guess I’ll just have to respectfully disagree with your assessment.

How about internet business? E-Bay doing well? Yahoo? Google?

How about the Federal government has carved out a special tax break for internet commerce and advantage that local commerce can’t match.

Then there’s the fact the the internet exists solely because millions of tax dollars were poured into research into survivable networks for warfare.

It was Stanford and other university undergrads who took advantage of access to facilities and naivete on the part of many universities to start firms like Cisco, Sun, and others launched in no small part due to the largess of tax dollars that supported the universities.

The universities themselves exist more often than not because of tax dollars. Private colleges benefit from tax breaks and from Pell grants and subsidized tuition assistance from Uncle Sugar.

And who were many of their first large customers: the United States military and other universities.

Your tax dollars at work. Again.

Virtually unlimited reliable electricity from grids created from tax dollars. Highways to move their goods.. tax dollars. Basic research from NASA to the CDC.. tax dollars.

This idea that these companies somehow spring into existence and shower cash on their owners and employees with nary a bit of support from Uncle Sam and only through pure entrepreneurial sweat is ludicrous, a fantasy of the Randians.

Wrong. The Founders acknowledged the necessity of a standing Army and took pains to ensure civilian control (President as Commander In Chief). If they didn’t envision a standing army why enumerate the President as CinC and civilian control. If there was to be no standing army why even mention civilian control at all? The Militias were State run, not federal. The Militia was meant to supplement the Standing Army because it was supposed to be being small, not replace it. I do agree with you that the Founders had major concerns about a standing army. They believed they had sufficient controls in place to avoid a military take over.

“What the hell does that mean? The terms of the Constitution were designed to work within the Constitution? Well . . . yes. So the “general welfare” was not designed to promote the “public welfare”? What’s the difference between “general” and “public”?”

At the time the Constitution was adopted, some interpreted the clause as granting Congress a broad power to pass any legislation it pleased, so long as its asserted purpose was promotion of the general welfare. One of the Constitution’s drafters, James Madison (again!), objected to this reading of the clause, arguing that it was inconsistent with the concept of a government of limited powers and that it rendered the list of enumerated powers redundant. He argued that the General Welfare clause granted Congress no additional powers other than those enumerated. Thus, in their view the words themselves served no practical purpose. I freely acknowledge that there is case law that out there that sets a different prescedent. I just disagree. It’s my opinion, one I am still allowed to express.

“Another term for hypothetical is straw man.”

No, it isn’t. A hypothetical is an example used to make a point. A “Straw Man” fallacy is an intentionally inappropriate hypothetical intended to re-direct the discussion to an easily defeated non-issue . . . designed to imply that the analysis against the non-issue is applicable against the original (avoided) topic.

An example of a straw man fallacy from Wikipedia:

“(Hypothetical) prohibition debate:
Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer.
Person B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.

The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e., ‘unrestricted access to intoxicants’.”

Here’s another, more relevant example of the StrawMan fallacy:

“My point is that it’s not the governments responsibility to provide an equity of outcome, only opportunity.”

My argument, and the hypothetical I provided, had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with “equity of outcome”. Rather than addressing the question, you re-phrased it into “Pure Marxian Communism vs. Individual freedom”, because that is a much more simple and emotional argument to make.
Are you claiming that a Fire Department is Communist? Are you opposed to having a Fire Department? Does using communal resources for the common good (stopping fires) have anything to do with “equity of outcome”? No.

THAT is an example of a StrawMan Fallacy . . . usually indicative of a panicked and weak defense.

“My reading of Constitutional history leads me to believe the framers were talking about promoting the general welfare within the bounds of the Constitution, not trying to promote public welfare programs outside their intent.”

What the hell does that mean? The terms of the Constitution were designed to work within the Constitution? Well . . . yes. So the “general welfare” was not designed to promote the “public welfare”? What’s the difference between “general” and “public”?

If your readings have suggested that the Founding Fathers didn’t consider “general welfare” to apply to the body of citizens, might I suggest the Federalist Papers?

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers #26:
“The citizens of America have too much discernment to be argued into anarchy. And I am much mistaken, if experience has not wrought a deep and solemn conviction in the public mind, that greater energy of government is essential to the welfare and prosperity of the community.”

James Madison, Federalist Papers #45:
“Is it too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object.”

Liberal whining hippies! What do they know about the Constitution?

re: Standing Army vs. Militia vs. Standing Navy

I agree with you 100% . . . read and learn.

U.S. Constitution, Art.1, Sec. 8, Cl. 12:
“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;”
U.S. Constitution, Art.1, Sec.8, Cl.13:
“To provide and maintain a Navy;”

Notice the different phrasing in these two Clauses. For the Navy, the Congress has the duty to provide and maintain. For the Army, the Founders specifically and explicitly used different terms: “raise” and “support”, and also expressly pegged a limited timeframe on that support, whereas there is no time limit on the Navy.
There is a phrase in legal analysis that explains this: “expressio unis est exclusio alter” (my apologies for the most-likely misspelled Latin). Rough translation: “The inclusion of one is the exclusion of the other”, meaning if the writers made it a point to explicitly include (or exclude) terms and restrictions, it is logical to presume that their failure to include/exclude those terms elsewhere means they intended a different meaning. The Founders when out of their way to limit the Army. They didn’t with the Navy. Therefore, they intended that these two things be treated differently.

U.S. Constitution, Art.1, Sec.8, Cl.16:
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

The Army was to come from the State Militias, to be called up as necessary for the defence of the Nation, and then disbanded back to the Militias once the need had passed. The States were tasked with appointing officers, not the Federal government. The Founders feared a standing Army so much, they not only tied the Federal government’s hands with keeping a standing Army roaming around, they wrote the 2nd Amendment to support the Militias right to exist:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The language is a modified version of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which makes the point more explicitly:

“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

Still not convinced? Federalist Papers, #8, 23, 26, 29, 46, just to name a few.

This was a MAJOR concern for the Founders. The debate was well documented. America’s view of the issue has changed over the last few hundred years, but to say that the Founding Fathers envisioned a standing Army, and wrote it into the Constitution, is utterly wrong.

@digitus:

“One of those games seems to be that the Tenth somehow gives “the people” the right to simply opt out of whatever government program or ignore any law they don’t like. Or, even sillier, that any individual can decide what’s constitutional and what isn’t.”

Isn’t it amazing? Like these questions have never come up before in the history of the country. If only there were some governing body to settle disputes like this. Something like a Court. But it would have to be the Ultimate Court so its decisions could be final. I wonder what we could call it . . . The Ultimate Court? The Maximum Court? Something that suggested its interpretation was the Supreme opinion on the issue. I know! The Super-Duper Court! That’s got pizazz!
Probably would have to be a co-equal branch of Federal government . . . but maybe since they had the ultimate decision power they could be gimped by lacking any ability to affirmatively make rules. Yeah . . . they could be limited to only deciding questions of interpretation that are brought before them! And they could write their decisions down, so we wouldn’t have to re-argue the same questions over and over again.
I can’t believe the Founders didn’t think of this. Really sloppy work, setting up a government and failing to include some form of dispute/interpretation resolution.

Look up the definition of ’sarcasm’.

“Let me ask you this: can you give me an example of un-regulated capitalism inherently reaching an equitable equilibrium? One? The examples of de-regulated capitalism becoming destructive are legion. If you can’t give a single example of unfettered capitalism “working” in equilibrium . . . then why the hell would I expect it to work now?”

“Unregulated Networking Industry Thrives In Retail”
http://www.retailsolutionsonline.com/article.mvc/Unregulated-Networking-Industry-Thrives-In-Re-0001?VNETCOOKIE=NO

How about internet business? E-Bay doing well? Yahoo? Google?

No one wants a return to the robber barons but I see unfettered capitalism as an answer to most of our problems. Under Reagan, America experienced job growth and an increase in the standard of living never before or since reproduced. Take off the shackles and watch the private sector go.

My reading of Constitutional history leads me to believe the framers were talking about promoting the general welfare within the bounds of the Constitution, not trying to promote public welfare programs outside their intent.

Your reading can lead you anywhere you’d like it to, but like I said above, interpreting the Constitution isn’t like deciding what the bible means. There’s a carefully defined way to do the former and the latter is up for grabs.

Do? Yes. Pay? Maybe. Income tax has been ruled as Constitutional so there certainly is prescedent. So, if you want mandated health care all you have to do is get a Constitutional amendment and I’ll argue it’s legal. Simple, no?

I hope you’re not trying to say that the government has less power to tax than it does to send people off to die. And we don’t need any such thing as an amendment to set up a government run health care system. We already have several and they were established in the way that any new or additional system will be established: by the power of Congress to pass legislation. Your side can challenge it on constitutional grounds after it becomes law. Good luck with that.

Another term for hypothetical is straw man. You can demonstrate anything you want. What if the sire department is all volunteer and late to respond? What if their equipment is outdated and doesn’t work properly and the fire fighters and poorly trained and your business goes up in flames anyway? My point is that it’s not the governments responsibility to provide an equity of outcome, only opportunity. Success or failure is an individual responsibility. Government literally cannot guarantee everyone will always come out ahead so if they can’t for everyone who gets to choose who wins and who fails?

“‘. . . and general welfare’

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1:”

My reading of Constitutional history leads me to believe the framers were talking about promoting the general welfare within the bounds of the Constitution, not trying to promote public welfare programs outside their intent. Promote the general welfare is a crutch used by the left to defend programs that are extra-constitutional at best. No, health care is not constitutionally defensible as general welfare.

“Since we’re playing Tenther games here, I’ll also note that Art.1, Sec.8, Cl.12-13 make pretty clear that a standing Army is Constitutionally prohibited — so I can assume you demand that the United States Army be abolished?”

“In its totality, the Convention arrived at a very important set of decisions concerning military matters with relatively little disagreement. The delegates were able to resolve the thorny issue of potential abuses of power by inserting the Army, Navy, and militia into the same carefully structured set of checks and balances that applied throughout the Constitution. To promote efficiency, it placed the regulars under the national government, at the same time providing for a dual system of defense by dividing responsibility over the much larger militia establishment with the states. While the national government might employ the militia for the common defense, that authority was checked by the states, which retained authority to appoint their militia officers and to supervise the peacetime training of citizen-soldiers. The Founders were able to create a standing army, the hobgoblin of the Anglo-Saxon world for more than a century, by establishing much tighter civilian control over the armed forces than existed in any contemporary European country. A civilian President served as Commander in Chief; the Senate had to concur in the appointment of all senior officers; and the House of Representatives controlled financial resources. Furthermore, Mason’s inclusion of a provision for limiting appropriations for the military to two years made the legislature a full partner with the executive in military matters.”
“http://www.history.army.mil/books/RevWar/ss/ch4.htm

Read and learn.