Comment Re:Its all about the command line stupid.... (Score 1) 531
99.999999% of Ubuntu users
Have you reviewed Bug #1?
99.999999% of Ubuntu users
Have you reviewed Bug #1?
The common defense is supposed to be in retaliation to direct threats on the nation. As in another nation imminently about to attack us. The actual threat to the U.S. by the U.S.S.R. was wildly over-estimated by the special interests that Eisenhower warned about.
That Congress passes a law in the name of something does not mean that what they do is constitutional. Even if the Supreme Court approves of the law, even that does not make it constitutional. The only check on the Constitution is the people. Unfortunately, most of us know nothing about the Constitution, which is a document with meaning much much deeper than the pure text that you quote.
It is my responsibility to question the 'powers' of Congress. The legal scholars I read are people like Andrew Napolitano and Thomas Woods. Here is an excerpt from Woods' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History:
...on the eve of his departure as president in 1817, Madison vetoed the "bonus bill," which authorized federal expenditures for constructing roads and canals. In his veto message, Madison wrote that the use of federal funds for road and canal building was a good idea, but he insisted that the Constitution would have to be amended first to make it possible. As matters stood, the federal government had no constitutional authority to do such things.
Madison dismissed the claim that the proposed legislation could be justified by the Constitution's clause authorizing the federal government "to provide for common defense and general welfare." To the extent that politicians today even bother to justify federal legislation on constitutional grounds, they appeal to this clause. But to argue this way, Madison said, would render "the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them." If the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution authorized the Congress to do anything that tended toward the general well-being of the country, then why had the Framers bothered to specifically list the powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8? This very fact logically precluded the possibility that the general welfare clause constituted a broad, open-ended grant of power.
Madison continued to promote this view in the years that followed. In 1792 he argued:
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.
What Madison warned about is precisely what has come to pass today. So far has Washington drifted from constitutional government that the question of the constitutionality of legislation, which was so central to eighteenth- and nineteenth-century congressional debates, is no longer raised.
You ad hominem attack does nothing for your argument.
Reviewing how it is that Congress is authorized by the Constitution to fund NASA, 'cause it ain't.
A lot of these people have dedicated their entire lives to understanding the vast sciences and engineering to make it into this program. They have both incredible talent and well developed skills necessary for their highly specialized trade. It's obvious we need to create another multi-billion dollar taxpayer funded program for them so their talents don't go to waste.
In unrelated news, my industry sales were down 40% in 2009, continue to drop for the first quarter this year, and my unemployment is about to run out.
You've got the right idea, but maybe state it a little clearer:
The more jobs available, the more competition between employers for qualified employees. The more competition between employers for qualified employees, the better the wages, conditions and benefits.
Being 'beholden to their corporate overlords' means that they support increasing the employment rate in their countries. I don't see this as a bad thing.
8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss
