Clearly you don't understand the function of the Supreme Court. They do not "interpret" the Constitution, they judge new laws against the restrictions put in place by the Constitution (and that function is outlined in the Constitution). The Constitution can be changed, by the amendment process, not the Supreme Court.

Second, you clearly don't understand the definition of worship either. How is using clarifying statements from the author about a passage the author wrote worship? If you don't agree with the restrictions put in place 200 years ago, then modify them using the process put in place 200 years ago to specifically address that problem. Your issue is you can't get enough support for your position, and so you try to do an end-run around the Constitution, by attacking the basis for the entire country and those that wrote it.

Yes, I have read that before. The main problem with that is James Madison, who wrote the Constitution, explicitly spoke prior to that directly contradicting it. Alexander Hamilton was a noted strong government advocate, and this was part of his attempt to "reinterpret" what was already made clear, much like the Supreme Court, and Republicans, and Democrats, do today. We have very clear indications as to the use of this phrase. Until someone can explain why the author's own explanation is not good enough, I don't see why anyone should care about other people's opinions on the matter.

First, that isn't an "interpretation", that is exactly what is intended, with detail provided by the individual who wrote the document. Second, Madison knew there might be points where the document no longer applied to current society, so he provided a way to change it. It is called the amendment process. If you think the general welfare clause should be expanded, that is how you do it. Third, you need to educate yourself on what the Supreme Court's actual job is. That don't get to decide how to interpret the law - they judge new laws against the Constitution. "Legislating from the bench" is a violation of the separation of powers explicitly put into place by the Constitution.

Finally, let's quote the part of the Wikipedia article you left out:

To sum it up, for roughly 150 years the Supreme Court held that the general welfare clause was constrained by the rest of the document, until they decided it was just too inconvenient and reversed the decision. Since then, they have been on a continual power grab, just like the other branches of government. None of that changes the extremely clear intent of the phrase, and any justification under the claim of "general welfare" is pure bullshit. If you want the federal government to do that, then do it the right way, and pass an amendment. But as far as I am concerned, you are just another petty tyrannical individual propping up bigger tyrannical individuals who happen to agree with your kind of tyranny, because you know you can't get the required support to pass an amendment.

No, it does not. I'm sick and tired of seeing that lie perpetuated over and over by people looking to pass unconstitutional law. The general welfare clause is entirely dependent on the other enumerated powers in the Constitution, none of which gives Congress the power over health care. Madison himself wrote extensively on exactly how that phrase was suppose to be interpreted, and he should know best, given that he wrote the fucking Constitution of the United States. Please educate yourself on the issue.

I find it funny how you claim a government telling a woman to go home and die is a "somewhat" bad example. What would be a horrendous example of socialistic healthcare, shooting her when she walked in?

As far as "better" health care, using what measure? Do you have any actual objective statistics/sources to back up that claim?

The fact is, what you read is, quite simply, untrue. Any licensed physician in America is required to treat a person in an emergency (you can verify this on the American Medical Association's website). As far as the quality of our care, do you have any explanation why people from other countries so frequently travel to the US to get care? Yes, it costs more, but we get vastly better care than any of the socialistic countries. Our hospitals run 24/7, unlike, say, Japan that closes their hospitals at 5PM. The "America" you talk about does not exist, and I feel sorry for you if that is the propaganda you've been given about this country.

Actually, you are full of bullshit. I can name you a country right now. My girlfriend moved here from Russia. Her mother needed dialysis. She went to the public clinic, who told her they had no available machines to treat her, so she should go home. That's right, they sent her home to die, in front of her three children, only one of which would (barely) legally qualify as an adult at the time. That's what the Russian public health care system gives you. You want facts, there's a fact.

Gee, people who read a liberal new site hold conservatives responsible for the current situation? Shocking! You know what is equally shocking? Fox News shows the opposite! Equally shocking!

Now, if you excuse me, I'm going to sit over here and watch both of the three ring circuses point fingers for a while more...

And that is the perfect argument for why science should not be funded by government.

I must be missing something here. The Washington Post originally claimed Al Gore said, "The hurricane scale used to be 1-5 and now they’re adding a 6." A correction was issues that claims he actually said, "The scientists are now adding category six to the hurricane....some are proposing we add category 6 to the hurricane scale that used to be 1-5." OK, but so what? Don't both statements essentially mean the same thing, even if the quote wasn't correct? Even worse, aren't both still false, as Chris Vaccaro, director of the National Weather Service’s office of public affairs, said in response, "No, we’re not pursuing any such change. I’m also not sure who VP Gore means by 'they.'"? So regardless of whether Al Gore was misquote, the result is the same - a false claim of adding a category six to the hurricane chart.

As another individual currently living in Maryland, I agree. If you come upon any effective efforts to oust her and those like her, I would be interesting in hearing about them.

Except that isn't what 'living, breathing document' means. You can check the Wikipedia article 'living constitution' for full details, but basically a 'living constitution' can be summed up as rules that are interpreted according to the current societal values. Under the rules of a 'living constitution', things like the thirteenth and nineteenth amendments are meaningless because 'liberty' and 'man' would be simply redefined to include those individuals previously excluded. In fact, the existence of procedures to amend the Constitution of the United States is exactly why the idea of it being a 'living constitution' is flawed. When the people realize something isn't right, the people should pass amendments to cover those scenarios. Of course, this requires a population that has a much better understanding of our government, such as the fact that an amendment process exists, and the federal government can only do things explicitly listed in the Constitution, and so on.

Whether I like it or not, I do expect foreign governments are (at least attempting) to watch any American citizen they have an interest in. That's the way spying and espionage works, and has worked for every country that is or has been in existence. If you honestly believe the UK does not have it's own intelligence services doing the exact same thing, then you are in for a very rude shock in the future. Hell, didn't you guys come up with James Bond, who is based in part on the very real life of Ian Fleming?

While prior to this point lack of resources have prevented foreign governments from collecting data on everyone, that is simply no longer the case. I suspect random bits of my internet history is sitting in many foreign governments' systems (and many foreign citizens' internet histories are sitting in American systems). However, there is a key differences between my government having my data and some foreign government having my data. The Chinese, Russian, UK, Australian, and other governments have very little control over me, and I don't have much control over them. So while I'm not really happy about it, I'm not really all that concerned about it either.

However, my government does have some control over me, and I it. That makes us, to some degree, adversaries. As the recent revelations about the IRS illegally targeting political groups contrary to the current government, there is reason for politicians to find information about me and use it to try to disenfranchise me, either directly by finding some act I have performed that can be construed as illegal, or else behind the scenes through blackmail, manipulation, or frustration. Further, the American constitution explicitly prevents collection of information about American citizens anywhere and anyone in America regardless of citizenship status, except in very specific circumstances (usually requiring a warrant) - something other countries don't necessarily have. So there are many reasons why I am okay with your privacy being violated by my government, and mine not. In a perfect world, I'd prefer no one's privacy being violated, but I don't live in a perfect world.

Of course, it is really hypocritical for a citizen of the UK complaining about privacy violations by a foreign government, given how your government has been increasing surveillance of their own citizens with very little outcry.

I won't speak for all gun rights advocates, but the ones I know don't use the comparison of cars to guns in reference to the restrictions - its gun control advocates who do that. When most (I won't presume to speak for all) gun rights advocates compares cars to guns, it is to point out the fact that if gun control advocates truly cared about saving lives, they would be equally as active in caring about car deaths, which are higher. Since they aren't, it is clear there must be something else that gun control advocates are concerned with in addition to (or instead of, depending on the specific individual) the deaths. So in context, it is a full comparison. The parent is essentially expanding the context further than the grandparent, and as I pointed out, there didn't seem to be any logic behind it, given that cars have more restrictions than guns, and yet cars cause more deaths, so where is the societal benefit to expanding car restrictions to guns? That is the kind of thinking I just can't comprehend.

You have a very odd definition of "exceptional". The total number of people who died or are injured due to mass shootings in the last ten years are fewer than the number of people who die in a single month due to car accidents. This is really no different than 9/11. Slashdot by and large seems to agree the government massively overreacted to that tragedy, and far more people died in that than in the mass shootings since then. Unless you think America's response to 9/11 has been reasonable, please explain to me why the rights of the people should be taken away for these tragedies but not the other?

I don't understand this kind of thinking - automobiles kill more people than guns do with those restrictions in place, and that is an argument in favor of implementing the same restrictions that automobiles have on guns? Why?