Gatorman

Well, as I said, there are further things out there, I just happen to be working and not looking that hard. Specifically, the definition of Welfare when the Constitution was written had 2 definitions. Definition for 'people' and definition for 'states'. In Constitution is specific when a power refers to 'the people', IE: welfare for people. This is not one of them. Also, James Madison was very specific in his arguments that the general welfare clause did not give any new powers. It was meant to allow the government to spend money for the welfare of the United States, IE: The states and the governments, to excercise the powers granted elsewhere. Further search brings about: WikiAnswers - What does general welfare mean Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever That is the predecesor of our general welfare clause. It was determined that they did not grant the government the ability to raise income to pay for laws. So, you have article 8 granting them federal government the ability to raise money to pay for the laws it passes that are for the general welfare of the states. This is not a power to provide for the general welfare of the people. Either that, or our forefathers were severely disfunctional, in that they created a document to form a limited government, were specific about powers the government could excercise and which ones where applicable to providing to the people, and then threw all that work out and said 'Government can do whatever it wants.' Sorry, I don't see our Forefathers being that stupid or Heavenly Father inspiring such a worthless limitation on power.

Further, the other side of the section you referred to only applies to the governments ability to tax to use the powers laid out elsewhere. It does not grant them further powers.

Except, that is not how our General Welfare clause is written and meant...Here is one source, though there are others: A General Welfare clause is a section that appears in many constitutions, and in some cases in charters and statutes, which provides that the body empowered by the document may enact laws as it sees fit to promote the well-being of the people governed thereunder. Such clauses are generally interpreted as granting the state a power to regulate for the general welfare that is independent of other powers specified in the governing document. The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. However, it is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. Unlike most General Welfare clauses, however, the clause in the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted as a limitation on the power of the United States Congress to use its powers of taxing and spending. The narrow construction of the General welfare clause is unusual when compared to similar clauses in most State constitutions, and many constitutions of other countries. An international example is provided by a report from the Supreme Court of Argentina: “ In Ferrocarril Central Argentino c/Provincia de Santa Fe, 569 the Argentine Court held that the General Welfare clause of the Argentine Constitution offered the federal government a general source of authority for legislation affecting the provinces. The Court recognized that the United States utilized the clause only as a source of authority for federal taxation and spending, not for general legislation, but recognized differences in the two constitutions.[1]

See, this is part of my health care debate as well. Personal responsibility. It is why I am for creating some new laws to allow those who can't afford to be able to choose to get it and to make sure those with pre existing conditions are able to get it. However, when they require that I get it, I have objection. Instead, governments roll is not to make me take care of myself, it is to make sure I have the freedom to choose it. In other words, if I choose not to have insurance, I am responsible for that fact and the doctors and hospitals should have every right to restrict the services they provide. My choice, my responsibility, my consequences. Hence why I am okay with usage taxes. So, if someone wants to smoke, fine. Put taxes on the cigarettes and enforce those funds into healthcare to cover costs for secondary smoke damage. Also, allow insurance companies and hospitals/doctors to refuse to serve smokers who don't have insurance to cover their chosen damage.

Well, I put Bush in the same category as Obama, Hillary, Bill, Huckabee, Romney, etc, etc, etc. I don't support ANY of them. I railed against Bush as well. I believe that the standard Republican and the standard Democrat politician will both lead us to the same place, a broken and corrupt nation. They will just take different paths to get there. There are exceptions. And, there are degrees of how bad they are for the nation. But, in the end, I can not support any of those types of people.

I asked my mom and step dad, both current or retired hospital presidents, when the problems with the health care system really kicked in. Both of them believe the government has to do something. Both of them understand medicare/medicaid, etc, and the pay system very well. Both of them had the same answer. The problems with our health care system began when the government created Medicare originally. When our government got into the insurance and health care business, the model changed for the worse. I am flabbergasted that, with that knowledge, they think that the government is the solution. But, they believe the problem has gotten too big for anyone but government to fix it. I fear this fix as much as I fear the previous fix. I truly believe we are looking at the definition of insanity. To keep doing the same thing that has failed or caused the problem <Asking government to fix it> and expecting a different result.

Which is a good thing that the US Government is a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy. Because, our government is still bound by the Constitution and to gain new powers, the Constitution must first be changed. Until then, the majority can call for relocation the US to the Moon, if the Constitution does not give power to the government, it doesn't matter.

Please tell me this...Why should the government be able to 'require' us to have health insurance?

Elphaba - In my own personal study, I have found evidence that I believe points to the constitution hanging by a thread. And, as an Elder, a follower of Christ, and a believer that the Constitution is inspired by Heavenly Father, I have a responsibility to defend it. That means, even when defending it seems to go against what I want. So, I do. I will defend the Constitution, with my life if needed. The greatest threat to our Constitution is us. We refuse to wake up and elect leaders who believe in what it stands for. Instead, we elect the popular, handsome, elequent speaker, who really doesn't care that our nation is inspired by Heavenly Father.

Well, from my perspective, the Consitution is hanging by a thread today. We allow our government to trample it at will, just because we get a cookie out of the deal. We continue to elect the same people or type of people to office, because, of what they will get for us. Yes, this is a generalization and not pointed at anyone person. But, in general, I believe that both of the major party platforms are based on gross violations of the power and authority of our constitution. So, no free passes for either side from me.

Asking the question is not wrong. It is when people refuse to accept that an answer truly can be "Pray and receive your own answer, for we are not commanded in all things".

There is no edict saying no. So, it is up to each set of parents to pray and ponder and decide for their own family.

I will refrain from discussing the court...LOL And, to answer another question, my understanding of our Founding Fathers, Constitution, form of government, etc, is similar to how I understand the church. It comes from studying history, writings, etc, then applying my own common sense. <Note, I am not suggesting it is 'common sense' in this case, meaning the same sense everyone has. If that makes sense. :) > So, can I quote chapter and verse of books? No. Can I tell you what specific books and things I have read? No. But, I could not have told you why I believed that the church and the Book of Mormon were real before I ever read them. Instead, I had studied and pondered the material I had at hand <Bible, teachings of the Episcopal, Catholic, Baptist, and Methodist churches> and applied my own prayer and sense to it. I knew what I believed, I just had not found the church that fit that mold. Same for the Constitution. Now, I can tell you specific teachings by our prophets... 1 - The Constitution is inspired by Heavenly Father, as it was written. 2 - Joseph Smith ran for President, knowing he would not win, so that the Saints would have someone good to vote for. 3 - The many writings and teachings of Ezra Taft Benson and that teh welfare system, as it existed in his time, was wrong. 4 - That for the Constitution to hang by a thread, it will have to become common place for it to be trampled on. That is what I believe we have today. And, I don't blame just one party or the other. They both do it. So, yes, I believe that the Constitution is being trampled on by all three branches of government. I believe, as a whole, not individuals, that all three are corrupted from what they are supposed to be. Yet, I also believe that we are supposed to follow the leaders of our lands, even when they are wrong. Hence the article of faith that addresses it. I just don't have to support them or suggest that there usurpations of power are okay.

No, it is not incorrect. It is a different interpretation of the Constitution. And, I agree, I believe all of our troops should be back in the US. But, that is a different argument.

You know, I wish our founding fathers were still alive today, so that we could ask them. Ask them how they could have been so genius to create the Constitution and, in doing so, create a government whose power was restricted and bound by specific duties they were allowed to do. A document whose words ensured that the government could no longer act to do anything it wanted, because, it was specifically laid out what it could do, then turn around and absolutely destroy that document by putting in a Get out of jail free card for the government. I am sorry, but, the general welfare clause is not a power enumerated to the government. There powers are specifically enumerated. The general welfare clause, as I understandgit, refers to the fact that any laws or use of tax dollars are required to apply to all equally. In other words, it would be illegal to create a system or use of those funds that only helped certain people. If they were going to create a welfare system, then, it had to be available to help all people, regardless of status. You could not create systems to help blacks, women, etc, because that would not be using the funds for general welfare, it would be using them for targetted welfare.

Well, I wish Mormonism made people more palatable as politicians. But, it is Romney's political record that disqualifies him from getting my vote, not his religion. I would never vote for Harry Reid or Orrin Hatch either, not because they are LDS, but, because of their records.

Except, the Constitution specifically grants them that authority. So, we did reassign that authority to the Federal Government. Well, the Federal Government should only be funding interstate commerce cooridors, not state or local highways. And, the Federal Government should only be taxing us based on those roads. Further, excise and usage taxes ARE Constitutional. Except, we did create the government in the Constitution. Now, if we could just reign in their pay so it was not a cushy job people wanted. Make it a true sacrifice to serve, like it was supposed to be. Again, please show me where in the Constitution we specifically laid out the authority for the Federal Government to provide health care or health insurance for all people in the land? And, yes, if I believed we should be spending more on our military and that our government was doing efficiently with the money it already has, I would consider putting more in. However, I have already pointed out that military is Constitutional authorized and, in fact, mandated. So, that really isn't a fair argument. Through our Constitution, we agreed to have our government levy tarrifs, duties, and taxes to raise and maintain an army. We have the power to raise a common defense between neighbors, etc. So, we can assign that authority to the government. But, do we have a right to walk into our neighbors house and take money from him, whether he wants to give it or not, to pay for another neighbors health care? If I don't have that ability without committing a crime, I can not assign that authority to the Federal Government. The Federal Government's power is not some creation of nothing. It is nothing more than the people, by contract, agreeing to allow the government to act as their agent, to excercise authority and power the people already have. If the people don't have it, they can't reassign it.

Obama believes that the Government is better suited to use our money for...Not just healthcare, but many things. Ergo, to set the example, why is Obama not providing more of his income, voluntarily, to the government? My objection is not to people getting health care. Or access to insurance. Or, whatever. My objection is to me being forced to pay for it for them. It is to me not having the ability to choose whether or not I need health care. It is to the Federal Government doing something else that is in excess of the powers granted unto them in the Constitution. I have said I am for some of the insurance reforms. I am absolutely for tort reform. I am absolutely for getting government influence out of the pricing structures and allowing the people to set the prices again, like in other businesses. So, please stop the discussion about us not wanting Bob, Mary, or Grandma Jo to get health care. I have not seen ANY of us ever say that.

thews - I think I see what Traveler is saying that you are missing. Let's take an excercise here. Assumptions are that DNA testing is correct. If DNA testing is correct and it shows that there is no single common ancestor between the indians and hebrews for more than 20 generations, then, the BoM is false. This is your argument. However, if there is no common ancestor for more than 20 generations, then, doesn't that also prove that the biblical time line for Noah or Adam is disproved. Your evidence also makes the point that Adam and Eve or Noah would have been MUCH further back than the bible supports. So, if the DNA is trusted, then, neither the BoM or bible can be true, because, DNA disproves what is believed in them. At least, that is how I am reading what he posted. You can't take one DNA 'fact' and ignore another.

Well, I don't believe it is right. But, what is stopping President Obama from doing it today? That is my point. If he believes it is the right answer, why isn't he already paying extra taxes and setting the example? I am not suggesting that we should be paying more taxes, I am suggesting that the Obama's and anyone else who believes in these actions, should be voluntarily doing what they believe should be forced on the rest of us.

Well, being LDS does not make one automatically a good candidate.

I don't want to demonize them. Just see them act according to what the preach. And, good people can make bad leaders.

Science and 'facts' are evidence, not proof. My testimony is proof of the evidence I have. So, assuming change in that testimony through faith, then you can provide all the facts and science in the world. I am not concerned with worldly answers.

So, why not give the extra to the government and trust them to do properly with it?

*shakes head.