> throw out the ENTIRE 25 electoral votes in Florida as if they had gone to a different candidate
And this is justice for the voters how?
Given the margin of difference and the likely claims of fraud possible from BOTH sides, it's probable for it to take months or years to figure out what happened in this vote and then there's no way to know for sure( 3000 votes for Buchannan may have been 3000 votes for Buchannan and there's no way to tell because we have a secret ballot ). The loser is either going to have to accept Florida's recount as it is, not challenging it in court, or else Florida's electoral votes must be thrown out to prevent a Constitutional crisis. If they're thrown out, that means that it becomes a matter of nobody garnering at least half of the electoral votes and thus is up to the House. If it doesn't get thrown out, Bush wins(as it appears he will (up by 920 as of right now)) and goes to court for a lengthy period of time, Clinton and Gore get kicked out of office on schedule and due to lack of a President, the Speaker of the House, likely Denny Hastert again, will become president until the courts finish. In effect, denying Bush his rightful win and shortening his deserved term.
all elections results are only published after polls close. So no election news coverage could influence any votes.
In this case, Voter News Service's EXIT POLLS showed Gore leading substantially. The news channel decision desks then decided to announce Gore was winning about 15 minutes before the polls closed in the eastern time zone part of florida and 75 minutes before the polls closed in the western timezone. No actual numbers were released but the news channels seem to do a pretty good job of making it seem like their numbers are the actual numbers.
As to challenges to the ballot needing to be made before the election, if true, this will indeed be the most powerful republican argument.
All of the parties had to approve the ballot before the election and the supervisor of elections in Dade county, the person who made them -- with the intent of helping seniors by using larger fonts, is a democrat. ANYONE could have contested the ballot to get it changed before the elections if they thought it wouldn't be clear.
NATIONAL revote is required where districts whose voting stations have not yet closed do not receive information from other time zones.
The problem being Florida was called while the polls in florida were still opened. That definitely is a problem.
That may ensure that the LETTER of the law is respected, but it also prescribes who the new president will be. If the stories of confusing ballots, people not being able to get new ballots after realising they were confused, ballots going missing, etc., are even partly true then having the republicans vote in their man clearly flies in the face of the "will" of the public.
First of all, I'm not sure which way the House would go since the Constitution proscribes that each state get one vote -- even Texas would go to Gore since 18 of the 30 districts are democrats. If people don't understand their ballot, they need to ask for help. If people are refused a ballot, they need to call in a sheriff to settle the matter( at worst they'll end up with an absentee ballot which can be counted later after their status is verified ). Finally, is is better to have judges rewrite an election by modifying it's votes or would it be better to go by the method proscribed in our founding document? On one had, you end up with a judge legislating( flying in the face of the Constitution ) and on the other you have the rule of law, something TOTALLY indesputable, standing.
did each one of those affect the outcome in the West?
I'm sure that it depressed republican turnout out west, which would have affected the popular figures but probably not the electoral figures. However, what I was referring to by west, admittedly it was vague, was western florida which is a republican stronghold. When it was announced that FL, MI and PA all went to Gore, there were reports of republicans simply leaving polls figuring that the election was over. That would have had a HUGE impact in florida if it's the case. The question is why weren't Ohio and other Bush leaning large states called as early as florida? Is it possible that VNS could have had biased exit polling and that discouraged republicans from voting? You've gotta admit it's pretty irresponsible at best. Part of being a journalist is responsibility and if that means having to wait another hour or two to get your facts right on a story,that's what you need to do. Being first means nothing if it's wrong.
We know that the Rep. kept hold on the house (by a small margin) but it still gives us a pretty good foresight into what would happen
The method by which the House would select the president is that each state would get a vote, not each representative. Take for example Texas... although heavily republican, 18 of the 30 districts in Texas elected a democrat -- meaning Texas would actually vote for Gore in the House. I don't have time to break down every state but I think it'd be a pretty close margin and not necessarily in favor of Bush.
but when you figure Gore has the majority vote and Bush has the electoral you have to wonder what this country is going
Actually, a large reason for the existance of the electoral college is to give smaller states a louder voice. The ~300,000 votes in North Dakota pale in comparison to the 6 million we're arguing about in Florida. If we go purely popular vote, the urban areas then dictate what happens to the rest of the country( we actually have this same problem here in NY with NYC dominating the entire rest of the state in state elections ).
Finally I think the press rigged this for the ratings.
We definitely agree there. The media stands to gain a lot of money in advertising revenue by making the election draw out as long as possible. The whole purpose of the Voters News Service, which is made up of the major news networks, is to help them "guide" their coverage. I don't see why we can't just wait 12 hours and wake up to see who won the election (of course, that means less ratings and thus less money for the tv news companies) rather than calling states before their polls close or influence the western states by calling the major eastern states early.
I've been thinking this morning about the elections... My calculations on the statiscal probability of the outcome currently shows Bush winning by a 540 vote margin. Either way with a number that close and all the controversy over fraud/misvotes/the early call, both campaigns have the ability to challenge the outcome in court. More on that in a minute... but if you go back to the 1960 election, Chicago and other areas were ripe with fraud benefitting the dems and Nixon, being the leader that he was, got up and said that he wouldn't challenge the vote because it was in the best interest of the office of the presidency to let it stand. Kinda funny that the man later nearly brought down with an impeachment cares more about the rule of law than the man who got off on the iced tea defense, huh?
Anyways... The ballots in Miami-Dade county should stand by law because all challenges to the ballot format must be made before the first vote is cast and ALL voters and campaigns in that county received an instructional copy of the ballot weeks before the election. That leaves outright fraud( forged absentee ballots, dead people voting, etc ) and the suppression of republican voters in the west(due to the early miscall of Florida going to Gore) as the most likely challenges.
I think a court ABSOLUTELY must not allow a revote. It would be unfair for one county or one state to have the power to elect the president knowing the status of the rest of the vote before walking into the booth. It also wouldn't be fair for a court to statistically modify the vote of Miami-Dade county based on demographic or other information as the votes were cast and if people were truly unsure of their vote, they could have asked for help from the officials at the polling center.
If there isn't a decisive winner, I think the ONLY fair thing to do, and this may rise to the level of a decision by the Supreme Court, would be to throw out the ENTIRE 25 electoral votes in Florida as if they had gone to a different candidate. Because neither man received a majority of the electoral votes(270), the Constitution says it is up to the newly elected House of Representatives to select the President. It seems the only way to ensure the rule of law is obeyed.
Military spending: $280 billion
General government, enforcement and administration: $36 billion
Social Security, Medicare, and other retirement: $650 billion
Net interest: $243 billion
Physical, human and community development: $144 billion
Social programs: $303 billion
Total spending: $1,683 billion
Percentage spent on administration: 2.14%
Miltary: 16.7%
Interest on debt: 14.4%
Stuff the federal government has no Constitutionally permitted business in + pork projects: 65.2%
you have spent how many trillion building nuclear weapons you know you won't use?
The whole reason why they'll never be used is because they're there. Nobody would dare attack us because they would see a massive amount of retaliation from us. You wouldn't go to a gun show to mug someone, would you?
When you read "up to X" in advertising literature, they are not guaranteeing that they'll be able to provide "X", just that they aren't able to provide "X+1".
but to claim up to X, it has to be possible to achieve X. I never expected to get 10Mbs transfer rates - I understand network congestion and cable's shared bandwidth system. However, before the cap, it was possible to achieve 10Mbs under perfect, though unlikely, conditions. I signed onto up to 10Mbs not up to 2Mbs.
As for Port 25 blocks... 95% of those who want to host an SMTP server are doing it for relays or their own spamming enterprises. The other 5% are doing it as a part of their technical consulting
...and I fall into neither. I like having the flexibility of setting up addresses on my box to monitor where spam is coming from( ie, when I need to fill out registration information for webpages, say the NYTimes, and I want to see if they're giving out my address ). While I have procmail sort my mail into various folders for each mailing list, some people may want to set up an address for each list. Also note that port 25 outbound is open so you can still spam people senseless.
Re:Wrong, Russia is still broke.
on
Mir Lives
·
· Score: 1
whereas the U.S. military gets over $600 billion
The military budget was $280 billion for 2000 and $300 billion for 2001.
I picked up RR as soon as it became available in my area. I listened to all the ads selling "up to 100x the speed of a modem" and the fliers offering "up to 10Mbs down." Within a week of my getting service, RR instituted a cap of 2Mbs down (384kbs up) without notifying the users. In fact, it took something like 18 days for the general manager to even admit that a cap had been put in place and it was only announced in one local newsgroup - nothing sent in the bill to notify users. They've conveniently changed their advertising to now say "up to 50x modem speeds." and they're talking about setting up a multi-tiered system where "power" users can buy back the bandwidth capabilities we were originally promised... for a higher fee. But they make it look like something special because they "may" lift the incoming port 25 port block(No! you can't run your own mail server even though ours is overloaded and constantly crashing so we can't guarantee reliable delivery). OTOH, they haven't bitched about my box running servers. Unfortunately, I live in the middle of rural western NY and don't have any other broadband option available right now. Some of the local RR users have been writing the NYS Attorney General's office and the Public Service Commission... one has also started a site to help broadband users who are getting the shaft at http://www.broadbandwatch.org
Unless you earned more than 130,000 and have no kid or going to have inheritance more than several millions, you probably will get similar tax-break from both of them. Check out Citizens for Tax Justice. It's a liberal leaning group. So, if you're in the higher income brackets, they'll only exagerrate your tax-break from Bush plan:).
Look at some of Algore's tax cuts a little closer. Take his version of eliminating the marriage penalty. You don't get a tax cut if you itemize your 1040. IOW, if you have a mortgage, like a HUGE number of married couples do( and you don't even need to be mindlessly rich to mortgage a home in most of the country ), you don't get a tax break. His tax cuts amount to government dictating exactly how you should live your life if you want to be blessed with a tax cut.
it's reckless to spend over the estimated-surplus, which nobody knows whether it'll actually be there, for a large tax-break, expanded military, etc.
There is no such thing as spending for a tax break. The government doesn't own the money, it belongs to the people whom paid it. Which is riskier when it comes to spending against an unknown surplus, a tax cut now which could be raised back to current levels if need be or creating $2-4.6 trillion( depending on who's study of Algore's economic plan you believe ) in new, permanent spending because once an entitlement goes into place, it's nearly impossible to get rid of it? If the economy slows and we don't get the surplus, we're either stuck with raising taxes back to where they are now OR raising taxes higher than what they are now to provide for the newly created entitlements. Which is the real risky scheme?
To the moderators: -1 Comment against Algore, -1 Truth about taxes and spending, -1 Flamebait against big government, -1 Didn't promote Nader, -1 Didn't promote class warfare. Maybe CT should suspend moderating on the politics articles comments since moderators like to mod posts down for not simply agreeing with them.
This shows only the problem of guns - criminals will choose the weekest point.
The genie is already out of the bottle... there is no way you're going to eliminate guns from the hands of criminals in the US so the best thing to do is to have an educated and armed populace to defend themselves. If a criminal thinks he may die in the commission of his crime, chances are he'll think twice about doing it.
What lots of people don't realize is that jail doesn't rehabilitate anyone.
Jail isn't about rehabilitation. It's about paying back society for your crime. The root of the word "penitentiary" is penance... which is defined as punishment to show repent for wrongdoing. We're too easy on criminals today... instead of making them pay for committing a crime, we treat them like they're the victim. They aren't. The chose to commit an act against society and deserve to pay the price for that willful violation of the law.
If you want to fight do something about society, take care that there is no reason to commit a crime.
You're living in some socialist utopian fallacy if you think this is even possible. Humans have shown time and time again the willingness to commit a crime even if there is no reason to commit one. Nobody's desires are the same as everyone else's... Some people are simply wired wrong... even rich people commit heinous crimes despite the fact they have everything they could ever need. Make someone think twice about having to do hard time for committing a crime and keep the prisoners locked up for the full term of their sentence and suddenly the desire to commit crime will plummet.
perhaps you should complain about the lack of protection the polics can provide to you and your family due to inadequate laws, i know in australia you dont need to wait for someone to shoot at you before the cops come round to your house.
...and when people abuse it to annoy someone they don't like? How many more cops do we need if they're going to investigate every claim in a population of ~300 million people? Why should I wait for someone else to protect me if I can protect myself? You know why the US hasn't been invaded in decades? Becuase we have enough force in our defense to make it overwhelmingly improbable that someone who did it could survive. We don't depend on the UN or NATO to say they're going to defend us... we do it ourselves because the UN (or your local sheriff) can't always be there. What happens when an armed (doesn't matter which weapon) criminal breaks into your house in the middle of the night unannounced? Who's going to protect you?
let alone child to be concidering killing someone let alone sitting with a loaded gun waiting to do so.
I wasn't "considering killing someone", I was prepared to defend my right to life when the police refused to protect it. There is a HUGE difference between setting out to take someone's life and taking the life of an attacker in defense of your own.
What happenes when you get mad at someone, say your wife cheats on you with him.
I blow it off... I'm an atheist but I have morality. It's not right for me to kill someone unless it is in defense of my person( or my family ). Going on the offense with a gun would never enter into my mind because I was taught to respect the life of others. You'd better believe I'd be pissed... but rather than being foolish, I'd settle it in a civil manner. Now, if someone were to attack/rape my (future as I'm not married) wife , they'd better be ready to die for their crime if I catch them. It's all a matter of how you use a tool - a matter of offense or defense.
In your mind using a gun is a legitimate way of solving a problem, and its not.
In my mind, a gun is a legitimate way of defending myself and my family from harm( I also hunt deer for food which is yet another legitimate use ). It would be no different than picking up a knife, baseball bat or golf club or any other nearby pseudo-weapon when you're threatened. For some reason, you've bought into the propaganda that guns do nothing but harm people offensively... in fact, they're one of the greatest deterrents of bodily harm when used in defense. Making it illegal to own guns means only the criminals will have them... which means your best defense has become a criminal's best offense.
Someone who is determined to kill you will kill you and if he knows you have a gun, he will take it into account.... And how many lifes are taken because of this? If the robber knows that he has to expect weapons, he will just "protect" himself better as well.
Take a look at states with concealed carry laws. Violent crime has gone down even further in those states precesely because a criminal doesn't know if his next victim may kill him. Where do we see some of the most violent crimes today? Airports... because the criminals know that their victims are unarmed. How often do you hear stories out of major tourism places like Florida regarding foreigners being targetted? Criminals have to think twice before they go after someone who's armed
Where shall this end? Is some property really more worth than a life?
When criminals realize they will either spend the rest of their life in prison doing hard time or be killed by attacking an armed victim. Crime persists today because the penalties for committing them are too light. If a criminal is forced into hard labor in a system that supports PENANCE, he'll think twice before committing some crime against another human or society at large. If they think they're going to get their wrists slapped or suffer a mild punishment of 3 meals a day, cable tv, free college education, free weight room, etc, what provides the impetus for them to act in a legal manner? It sounds nice to think we can rehabilitate people but something like 75% of all parolees violate their parole and go back to prison... we need to tell them "If you commit a crime, you will be punished for it... and you can't blame society or your parents. You're not a victim... you committed a crime of your own will." Is property worth more than life? Certainly not... but only some violent crimes are caused by desire of property - many are the result of a desire to hurt another human (see rape, serial killing, bombings, etc). Would you want your mother to be able to have some amount of self protection from a rapist or would you rather her tell the attacker "but you're only supposed to want my property"?
Who said it had to be locked so that you can't get to it? Obviously you are able to unlock if need be. What if your dad had his guns locked in a drawer or something, would that have prevented him from getting them out? No. You could say the few seconds spent unlocking it could prove the difference between life and death, but if its that close, you're probably screwed anyway.
FWIW, he kept them unloaded in a gun rack (which did have a lock but he usually didn't bother). It was his choice to do so just like it was your dad's choice to keep his (presumably loaded) locked in a drawer. The problem with a lot of these gun mandates are they're exactly that - mandates. You have to keep a gun lock on when you're not using it. You have to keep it locked in a gun safe when you're not using it. There are situations where that may not be good for someone, especially if they feel threatened or don't have kids running around. I don't think the government should have the ability to determine what steps you have to take to protect yourself because they vary too greatly between individuals. I certainly don't know what's best for my neighbor so how could the some bureaucrat in DC know what's good for him?
But kids, especially little ones, don't always listen, no matter how much you tell them. I think your dad took a pretty big risk that you would listen, even with the education he gave you.
Again, this is something best left up for a parent to decide rather than a government. I was mature enough at 7 to have my own gun. Little Joey may be mature enough to watch a scary movie at 10. Franky may not be trustworthy enough to play down at the playground without supervision at 12. Suzy may not be stable enough to use a knife at age 15. I don't think the government can effectively determine what's best for everyone because everyone is GREATLY different. The best we can hope to do is give parents the education they need to help make decisions for their children. I don't have a problem with the movie rating system being used as a rough guideline to let parents know the severity of the flick. I don't have a problem with a violence rating on games. I don't have a problem with minors not being able to buy their own firearms. I do have a problem with a government that would say "Children are not allowed to see x until age y else their parents will be prosecuted and face z years in prison" or "Parents who give their children (some type of) access to guns are psychopaths who need to be locked up to protect their children from their harmful influences." I believe individuals are the ones who can best determine their own needs and that government is too broad and distant to effectively mandate those needs.
I don't see how securing your guns at home, or putting safetly locks on them so that kids can't opperate them infrindge on your right to own/use them.
Back in 1991 (I was the ripe old age of 14), my mom's new husband raped her, grabbed a gun and told her he was coming to kill my dad, sister and me. Upon notifying he cops of his threat, they said they couldn't do anything until he actually came after us. My Dad and I loaded our shotguns, turned off the lights and waited for him to show up (which he never did since my mom filed charges and he was picked up on the rape count on the way here). Sure, we ended up not needing the gun in this case when our lives were threatened but what about people who've received anonymous death threats and the police refuse to help? Should they be forced to keep their gun locked away where they can't get to it? What happens when a (illegally obtained) gun-wielding thug breaks into your house at night to rob you? "hold on Mr. Robber, let me take my gunlock off before you shoot me." Even if the crook didn't have a gun, he could just as likely have a knife, baseball bat, pipe, whatever. Millions of crimes are PREVENTED each year because of the threat of a gun wielding defender.
I'm all for the 2nd amendment, and i think by law all head of households should be required to take a gun saftey course, and own a gun w/ammo.
Take this a step further. Teach kids in schools what guns actually do. We have fire prevention week in most schools and one day the fire department will come in and explain fire escape techniques. Why can't we have an officer come in and talk about gun safety one day a year? He doesn't need to teach kids how to clean a gun, aim effectively, etc... just teach them that guns kill and when you kill someone, they don't come back - EVER. One of the most effective things you can do is set a watermelon out in a field and shoot it to show what happens when a bullet hits someone's head.
But requiring that they be locked in a closet? That would only seem to be the common sense thing to do if you have guns and kids....my dad did it so i wouldn't play with something i didn't understand.
I grew up with guns in the house. My earliest memories of them were my dad telling me to NEVER touch them unless he was around and gave me permission. I was taught exactly what they did and how they worked. I learned to respect the awesome amount of damage they can do. I saw first-hand what a 12 gauge slug can do to a living body (deer). He gave me my first gun( a 22 rifle ) at age 7. I respected it as a tool of death and didn't screw with it like it was a toy. Why? I knew better. I was brought up in a culture that respected guns and educated me about them. Locking something away and pretending they don't exist(security by obscurity) NEVER really works... education(open review) is the best answer.
Clinton's statement implies that she could be in favor of government intervention in the internet, so long as she thinks it is "justified."
I'm a NY resident and vehemently against Her Royal Highness for many reasons. I watched the debate this morning, though I admit I was half out of it due to being sick, and I remember her talking about the moritorium on internet taxation as part of her response to this question... To paraphrase, she said she wasn't in favor of taxation right now - she would like to continue the with moratorium so that access can be provided to as many people as possible and re-evaluate the situation later. Like I said, I'm admittedly biased against her, but to me, this smacks of "let it become really popular and then once most people depend on it, we can tax a broader base to generate money for new (bloated|wasteful) program X." It's not like the government doesn't already tax necessary utilities to generate revenue for certain programs.
Would I trust the dutch government (you guessed it, I'm dutch) to manage my signatures? Maybe, provided that they have some process in place that maintains a certain level of quality.
It's all a matter of trust. Trust no one is not an option and will hurt you economically if others do take the risk, nor is trust anyone. The truth is in the middle. I live in a country where I think I can trust the government to provide me this kind of services.
While you may trust a government agency to do the right thing, you must remember that it is made up of individual people... some of whom may be likely to tamper with or steal your signature, validation key, or whatever they end up storing for their own personal gain, revenge or other motives. I don't trust government agencies any more than I trust a corporation to maintain and secure my privacy. Echelon, Carnivore, states selling their databases to advertisers( drivers licenses, etc are public data and in some US states the databases are sold just like the list marketing assholes do ), etc should go to show what happens when an agency at large gets too big for it's britches/has too much power. Now, imagine each of those agencies with 1% of their employees being unscrupulous and the damage that those individuals could do to someone...
If a search engine offered me the opportunity to pick from results it returned and gradually refine the search to produce better results it would be addressing this situation. Some do with a "search again in this result set" or "more like this" type option on their results pages, but its still kinda mechanical, and not all that reliable.
Going back around 3 or 4 years, Altavista used to have a system to do just this( side note: I still have it bookmarked as www.altavista.digital.com though I rarely use it anymore... ). You could do your primary query and then it had a "refine" button if it returned more than some arbitrary number of results. When you hit the button, it would bring up a page which had related words on it and how many pages contained each word. You could selectively exclude or include certain words to refine your search. The functionality seemed to disappear when "portal" became a big buzzword but it was nice while it lasted.
Even if they don't it makes no sense to limit the speech of someone simply because they are working for a company.
I'm not saying limit someone's speech regarding the company they work for, rather that a person sending spam is acting as an agent on behalf of the company thus the spam is speech of the company rather than the person who sent it.
If you want freedom of speech online, and advertising is speech, then what the hell are you thinking? How can you think that Spammers should all be attacked, and made illegal, when you think that DeCSS should be free, because it is speech?
I'm no lawyer but the difference is that people(Americans anyway) have the right to free speech as protected by the First Amendment because it is vital part of individual freedom to allow them to speak their mind about any topic they wish. Businesses are a created entity allowed under law and have no inherent rights - only what the government grants them. The question is then, does government grant the same freedom of speech to businesses that it does to individuals and furthermore, why should/shouldn't it? Someone will probably argue that it is a person working for the business which is actually speaking BUT the key is they are speaking for the business, not for themself.
the point is the poor aren't as poor as you think they are. Further, they don't have a right to a share of anything - we're a constitutional republic, not a communistic wealth redistributor. You deserve only what you earn.
OK... I've heard this a few too many times now.about the "rich getting richer while the poor get poorer." The concept was originally started by liberals so they could
justify the socialistic programs they favor... Make all the "poor" people think the rich are getting richer while stepping all over their "right to happiness" so that they
can justify the raping of the income of the middle class and up.
Are the rich getting richer? You bet. Of course, what they don't say is the number of millionaires is now in the thousands when just 50 years ago, you could probably
count them on both hands. Are the poor getting poorer? Let's look at that:
In 1960, less than 50% of the population had a television. In 2000, 99% of all households have at least 1 COLOR television and 81% have 2..
In 1970, less than 1% of the population had a VCR. In 2000, 92% of all households have a VCR.
In 1950, 61% of households had at least one car. In 2000, 79% of households have 2 cars and 92% have at least 1.
In 1950, 78% of households had a refridgerator. In 2000, 99% of households have a fridge.
In 1980, less than 1% of homes had a computer. In 2000, 77% of households have a computer
A poll done in 1999 showed that 89% of poor people ate a regular meal and that 73% of poor people had at least a weeks food in storage
Another poll showed that 43% of "poor" people had an air conditioner
So, the poor don't really seem to be getting poorer. They've had a HUGE improvement in quality of life... similarly, the rich get to play with all the new fancy toys (that
they pay out the ass for since they're new). The "class" that has seen the smallest improvement is the middle class who have the burden of supporting the "poor" people
without the benefits of having the money to waste - we're allowed enough to just get by. Take a look at third world countries for truly poor people.
Heed my warning... the increasing demands of the "poor" for government support is increasing the burden of the middle class. Eventually, we're going to get fed up with it.
It'll be one of the preciptating factors behind the second american civil war( expected before 2050, maybe 2030 ).
I think there is a clear mandate in the Constitution for the government to provide a specific set of services. I interpret "provide for the general welfare" as standardized education and some form of really basic universally accessible health care.
From the constitution:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
From Federalist #18:
The members retained the character of independent and sovereign states, and had equal votes in the federal council. This council
had a general authority to propose and resolve whatever it judged necessary for the common welfare of Greece; to declare and carry on
war; to decide, in the last resort, all controversies between the members; to fine the aggressing party; to employ the whole force
of the confederacy against the disobedient; to admit new members.
From Federalist #23:
Congress have an unlimited discretion to make requisitions of men and money; to govern the army and navy; to direct their operations. As their requisitions are made constitutionally binding upon the States, who are in fact under the most solemn obligations to furnish the supplies required of them, the intention evidently was that the United States should command whateverresources were by them judged requisite to the ``common
defense and general welfare.''
Federalist #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.
Federalist #33:
The Convention probably foresaw, what it has been a principal aim of these papers to inculcate, that the danger which most threatens our political welfare is that the State governments will finally sap the foundations of the Union; and might therefore think it necessary, in so cardinal a point, to leave nothing to
construction.
From Federalist #41:
It has been urged and echoed,
that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and
excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and
general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited
commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be
necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger
proof could be given of the distress under which these writers
labor for objections, than their stooping to such a
misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the
powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the
general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection
might have had some color for it; though it would have been
difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an
authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy
the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate
the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very
singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the
general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a
specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms
immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause
than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument
ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which
will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded
altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more
doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent,
and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification
whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular
powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be
included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural
nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to
explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea
of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor
qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to
confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced
to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection
or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty
of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection
here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language
used by the convention is a copy from the articles of
Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as
described in article third, are ``their common defense, security
of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms
of article eighth are still more identical: ``All charges of war
and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common
defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in
Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A
similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either
of these articles by the rules which would justify the
construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the
existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.
But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching
themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the
specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had
exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense
and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves,
whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning
in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the
convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own
condemnation!
From Federalist #45:
It is
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.
Federalist #63:
The
objects of government may be divided into two general classes: the
one depending on measures which have singly an immediate and
sensible operation; the other depending on a succession of
well-chosen and well-connected measures, which have a gradual and
perhaps unobserved operation. The importance of the latter
description to the collective and permanent welfare of every
country, needs no explanation. And yet it is evident that an
assembly elected for so short a term as to be unable to provide more
than one or two links in a chain of measures, on which the general
welfare may essentially depend, ought not to be answerable for the
final result, any more than a steward or tenant, engaged for one
year, could be justly made to answer for places or improvements
which could not be accomplished in less than half a dozen years.
When the Constitution says "promote the general welfare", it simply means to ensure that the government remains healthy for the benefit of all of it's citizens, not that government should provide education, healthcare, food, etc for it's citizens. Government best serves the general welfare by staying out of people's lives and only intervening to ensure that their basic rights - the rights to life, liberty and to persue happiness, as well as those enumerated in the Bill of Rights and other unlisted rights, are not encroached upon.
Slashdot Mirror
And this is justice for the voters how?
Given the margin of difference and the likely claims of fraud possible from BOTH sides, it's probable for it to take months or years to figure out what happened in this vote and then there's no way to know for sure( 3000 votes for Buchannan may have been 3000 votes for Buchannan and there's no way to tell because we have a secret ballot ). The loser is either going to have to accept Florida's recount as it is, not challenging it in court, or else Florida's electoral votes must be thrown out to prevent a Constitutional crisis. If they're thrown out, that means that it becomes a matter of nobody garnering at least half of the electoral votes and thus is up to the House. If it doesn't get thrown out, Bush wins(as it appears he will (up by 920 as of right now)) and goes to court for a lengthy period of time, Clinton and Gore get kicked out of office on schedule and due to lack of a President, the Speaker of the House, likely Denny Hastert again, will become president until the courts finish. In effect, denying Bush his rightful win and shortening his deserved term.
In this case, Voter News Service's EXIT POLLS showed Gore leading substantially. The news channel decision desks then decided to announce Gore was winning about 15 minutes before the polls closed in the eastern time zone part of florida and 75 minutes before the polls closed in the western timezone. No actual numbers were released but the news channels seem to do a pretty good job of making it seem like their numbers are the actual numbers.
As to challenges to the ballot needing to be made before the election, if true, this will indeed be the most powerful republican argument.
All of the parties had to approve the ballot before the election and the supervisor of elections in Dade county, the person who made them -- with the intent of helping seniors by using larger fonts, is a democrat. ANYONE could have contested the ballot to get it changed before the elections if they thought it wouldn't be clear.
The problem being Florida was called while the polls in florida were still opened. That definitely is a problem.
That may ensure that the LETTER of the law is respected, but it also prescribes who the new president will be. If the stories of confusing ballots, people not being able to get new ballots after realising they were confused, ballots going missing, etc., are even partly true then having the republicans vote in their man clearly flies in the face of the "will" of the public.
First of all, I'm not sure which way the House would go since the Constitution proscribes that each state get one vote -- even Texas would go to Gore since 18 of the 30 districts are democrats. If people don't understand their ballot, they need to ask for help. If people are refused a ballot, they need to call in a sheriff to settle the matter( at worst they'll end up with an absentee ballot which can be counted later after their status is verified ). Finally, is is better to have judges rewrite an election by modifying it's votes or would it be better to go by the method proscribed in our founding document? On one had, you end up with a judge legislating( flying in the face of the Constitution ) and on the other you have the rule of law, something TOTALLY indesputable, standing.
I'm sure that it depressed republican turnout out west, which would have affected the popular figures but probably not the electoral figures. However, what I was referring to by west, admittedly it was vague, was western florida which is a republican stronghold. When it was announced that FL, MI and PA all went to Gore, there were reports of republicans simply leaving polls figuring that the election was over. That would have had a HUGE impact in florida if it's the case. The question is why weren't Ohio and other Bush leaning large states called as early as florida? Is it possible that VNS could have had biased exit polling and that discouraged republicans from voting? You've gotta admit it's pretty irresponsible at best. Part of being a journalist is responsibility and if that means having to wait another hour or two to get your facts right on a story,that's what you need to do. Being first means nothing if it's wrong.
The method by which the House would select the president is that each state would get a vote, not each representative. Take for example Texas... although heavily republican, 18 of the 30 districts in Texas elected a democrat -- meaning Texas would actually vote for Gore in the House. I don't have time to break down every state but I think it'd be a pretty close margin and not necessarily in favor of Bush.
but when you figure Gore has the majority vote and Bush has the electoral you have to wonder what this country is going
Actually, a large reason for the existance of the electoral college is to give smaller states a louder voice. The ~300,000 votes in North Dakota pale in comparison to the 6 million we're arguing about in Florida. If we go purely popular vote, the urban areas then dictate what happens to the rest of the country( we actually have this same problem here in NY with NYC dominating the entire rest of the state in state elections ).
Finally I think the press rigged this for the ratings.
We definitely agree there. The media stands to gain a lot of money in advertising revenue by making the election draw out as long as possible. The whole purpose of the Voters News Service, which is made up of the major news networks, is to help them "guide" their coverage. I don't see why we can't just wait 12 hours and wake up to see who won the election (of course, that means less ratings and thus less money for the tv news companies) rather than calling states before their polls close or influence the western states by calling the major eastern states early.
Anyways... The ballots in Miami-Dade county should stand by law because all challenges to the ballot format must be made before the first vote is cast and ALL voters and campaigns in that county received an instructional copy of the ballot weeks before the election. That leaves outright fraud( forged absentee ballots, dead people voting, etc ) and the suppression of republican voters in the west(due to the early miscall of Florida going to Gore) as the most likely challenges.
I think a court ABSOLUTELY must not allow a revote. It would be unfair for one county or one state to have the power to elect the president knowing the status of the rest of the vote before walking into the booth. It also wouldn't be fair for a court to statistically modify the vote of Miami-Dade county based on demographic or other information as the votes were cast and if people were truly unsure of their vote, they could have asked for help from the officials at the polling center.
If there isn't a decisive winner, I think the ONLY fair thing to do, and this may rise to the level of a decision by the Supreme Court, would be to throw out the ENTIRE 25 electoral votes in Florida as if they had gone to a different candidate. Because neither man received a majority of the electoral votes(270), the Constitution says it is up to the newly elected House of Representatives to select the President. It seems the only way to ensure the rule of law is obeyed.
General government, enforcement and administration: $36 billion
Social Security, Medicare, and other retirement: $650 billion
Net interest: $243 billion
Physical, human and community development: $144 billion
Social programs: $303 billion
Total spending: $1,683 billion
Percentage spent on administration: 2.14%
Miltary: 16.7%
Interest on debt: 14.4%
Stuff the federal government has no Constitutionally permitted business in + pork projects: 65.2%
you have spent how many trillion building nuclear weapons you know you won't use?
The whole reason why they'll never be used is because they're there. Nobody would dare attack us because they would see a massive amount of retaliation from us. You wouldn't go to a gun show to mug someone, would you?
Let us raise taxes so we can pay people to play with legos instead of letting you finance a home or send your kids to college with your money.
but to claim up to X, it has to be possible to achieve X. I never expected to get 10Mbs transfer rates - I understand network congestion and cable's shared bandwidth system. However, before the cap, it was possible to achieve 10Mbs under perfect, though unlikely, conditions. I signed onto up to 10Mbs not up to 2Mbs.
As for Port 25 blocks... 95% of those who want to host an SMTP server are doing it for relays or their own spamming enterprises. The other 5% are doing it as a part of their technical consulting
The military budget was $280 billion for 2000 and $300 billion for 2001.
I picked up RR as soon as it became available in my area. I listened to all the ads selling "up to 100x the speed of a modem" and the fliers offering "up to 10Mbs down." Within a week of my getting service, RR instituted a cap of 2Mbs down (384kbs up) without notifying the users. In fact, it took something like 18 days for the general manager to even admit that a cap had been put in place and it was only announced in one local newsgroup - nothing sent in the bill to notify users. They've conveniently changed their advertising to now say "up to 50x modem speeds." and they're talking about setting up a multi-tiered system where "power" users can buy back the bandwidth capabilities we were originally promised... for a higher fee. But they make it look like something special because they "may" lift the incoming port 25 port block(No! you can't run your own mail server even though ours is overloaded and constantly crashing so we can't guarantee reliable delivery). OTOH, they haven't bitched about my box running servers. Unfortunately, I live in the middle of rural western NY and don't have any other broadband option available right now. Some of the local RR users have been writing the NYS Attorney General's office and the Public Service Commission... one has also started a site to help broadband users who are getting the shaft at http://www.broadbandwatch.org
Look at some of Algore's tax cuts a little closer. Take his version of eliminating the marriage penalty. You don't get a tax cut if you itemize your 1040. IOW, if you have a mortgage, like a HUGE number of married couples do( and you don't even need to be mindlessly rich to mortgage a home in most of the country ), you don't get a tax break. His tax cuts amount to government dictating exactly how you should live your life if you want to be blessed with a tax cut.
it's reckless to spend over the estimated-surplus, which nobody knows whether it'll actually be there, for a large tax-break, expanded military, etc.
There is no such thing as spending for a tax break. The government doesn't own the money, it belongs to the people whom paid it. Which is riskier when it comes to spending against an unknown surplus, a tax cut now which could be raised back to current levels if need be or creating $2-4.6 trillion( depending on who's study of Algore's economic plan you believe ) in new, permanent spending because once an entitlement goes into place, it's nearly impossible to get rid of it? If the economy slows and we don't get the surplus, we're either stuck with raising taxes back to where they are now OR raising taxes higher than what they are now to provide for the newly created entitlements. Which is the real risky scheme?
To the moderators: -1 Comment against Algore, -1 Truth about taxes and spending, -1 Flamebait against big government, -1 Didn't promote Nader, -1 Didn't promote class warfare. Maybe CT should suspend moderating on the politics articles comments since moderators like to mod posts down for not simply agreeing with them.
The genie is already out of the bottle... there is no way you're going to eliminate guns from the hands of criminals in the US so the best thing to do is to have an educated and armed populace to defend themselves. If a criminal thinks he may die in the commission of his crime, chances are he'll think twice about doing it.
What lots of people don't realize is that jail doesn't rehabilitate anyone.
Jail isn't about rehabilitation. It's about paying back society for your crime. The root of the word "penitentiary" is penance... which is defined as punishment to show repent for wrongdoing. We're too easy on criminals today... instead of making them pay for committing a crime, we treat them like they're the victim. They aren't. The chose to commit an act against society and deserve to pay the price for that willful violation of the law.
If you want to fight do something about society, take care that there is no reason to commit a crime.
You're living in some socialist utopian fallacy if you think this is even possible. Humans have shown time and time again the willingness to commit a crime even if there is no reason to commit one. Nobody's desires are the same as everyone else's... Some people are simply wired wrong... even rich people commit heinous crimes despite the fact they have everything they could ever need. Make someone think twice about having to do hard time for committing a crime and keep the prisoners locked up for the full term of their sentence and suddenly the desire to commit crime will plummet.
let alone child to be concidering killing someone let alone sitting with a loaded gun waiting to do so.
I wasn't "considering killing someone", I was prepared to defend my right to life when the police refused to protect it. There is a HUGE difference between setting out to take someone's life and taking the life of an attacker in defense of your own.
What happenes when you get mad at someone, say your wife cheats on you with him.
I blow it off... I'm an atheist but I have morality. It's not right for me to kill someone unless it is in defense of my person( or my family ). Going on the offense with a gun would never enter into my mind because I was taught to respect the life of others. You'd better believe I'd be pissed... but rather than being foolish, I'd settle it in a civil manner. Now, if someone were to attack/rape my (future as I'm not married) wife , they'd better be ready to die for their crime if I catch them. It's all a matter of how you use a tool - a matter of offense or defense.
In your mind using a gun is a legitimate way of solving a problem, and its not.
In my mind, a gun is a legitimate way of defending myself and my family from harm( I also hunt deer for food which is yet another legitimate use ). It would be no different than picking up a knife, baseball bat or golf club or any other nearby pseudo-weapon when you're threatened. For some reason, you've bought into the propaganda that guns do nothing but harm people offensively... in fact, they're one of the greatest deterrents of bodily harm when used in defense. Making it illegal to own guns means only the criminals will have them... which means your best defense has become a criminal's best offense.
Take a look at states with concealed carry laws. Violent crime has gone down even further in those states precesely because a criminal doesn't know if his next victim may kill him. Where do we see some of the most violent crimes today? Airports... because the criminals know that their victims are unarmed. How often do you hear stories out of major tourism places like Florida regarding foreigners being targetted? Criminals have to think twice before they go after someone who's armed
Where shall this end? Is some property really more worth than a life?
When criminals realize they will either spend the rest of their life in prison doing hard time or be killed by attacking an armed victim. Crime persists today because the penalties for committing them are too light. If a criminal is forced into hard labor in a system that supports PENANCE, he'll think twice before committing some crime against another human or society at large. If they think they're going to get their wrists slapped or suffer a mild punishment of 3 meals a day, cable tv, free college education, free weight room, etc, what provides the impetus for them to act in a legal manner? It sounds nice to think we can rehabilitate people but something like 75% of all parolees violate their parole and go back to prison... we need to tell them "If you commit a crime, you will be punished for it... and you can't blame society or your parents. You're not a victim... you committed a crime of your own will." Is property worth more than life? Certainly not... but only some violent crimes are caused by desire of property - many are the result of a desire to hurt another human (see rape, serial killing, bombings, etc). Would you want your mother to be able to have some amount of self protection from a rapist or would you rather her tell the attacker "but you're only supposed to want my property"?
FWIW, he kept them unloaded in a gun rack (which did have a lock but he usually didn't bother). It was his choice to do so just like it was your dad's choice to keep his (presumably loaded) locked in a drawer. The problem with a lot of these gun mandates are they're exactly that - mandates. You have to keep a gun lock on when you're not using it. You have to keep it locked in a gun safe when you're not using it. There are situations where that may not be good for someone, especially if they feel threatened or don't have kids running around. I don't think the government should have the ability to determine what steps you have to take to protect yourself because they vary too greatly between individuals. I certainly don't know what's best for my neighbor so how could the some bureaucrat in DC know what's good for him?
But kids, especially little ones, don't always listen, no matter how much you tell them. I think your dad took a pretty big risk that you would listen, even with the education he gave you.
Again, this is something best left up for a parent to decide rather than a government. I was mature enough at 7 to have my own gun. Little Joey may be mature enough to watch a scary movie at 10. Franky may not be trustworthy enough to play down at the playground without supervision at 12. Suzy may not be stable enough to use a knife at age 15. I don't think the government can effectively determine what's best for everyone because everyone is GREATLY different. The best we can hope to do is give parents the education they need to help make decisions for their children. I don't have a problem with the movie rating system being used as a rough guideline to let parents know the severity of the flick. I don't have a problem with a violence rating on games. I don't have a problem with minors not being able to buy their own firearms. I do have a problem with a government that would say "Children are not allowed to see x until age y else their parents will be prosecuted and face z years in prison" or "Parents who give their children (some type of) access to guns are psychopaths who need to be locked up to protect their children from their harmful influences." I believe individuals are the ones who can best determine their own needs and that government is too broad and distant to effectively mandate those needs.
Back in 1991 (I was the ripe old age of 14), my mom's new husband raped her, grabbed a gun and told her he was coming to kill my dad, sister and me. Upon notifying he cops of his threat, they said they couldn't do anything until he actually came after us. My Dad and I loaded our shotguns, turned off the lights and waited for him to show up (which he never did since my mom filed charges and he was picked up on the rape count on the way here). Sure, we ended up not needing the gun in this case when our lives were threatened but what about people who've received anonymous death threats and the police refuse to help? Should they be forced to keep their gun locked away where they can't get to it? What happens when a (illegally obtained) gun-wielding thug breaks into your house at night to rob you? "hold on Mr. Robber, let me take my gunlock off before you shoot me." Even if the crook didn't have a gun, he could just as likely have a knife, baseball bat, pipe, whatever. Millions of crimes are PREVENTED each year because of the threat of a gun wielding defender.
I'm all for the 2nd amendment, and i think by law all head of households should be required to take a gun saftey course, and own a gun w/ammo.
Take this a step further. Teach kids in schools what guns actually do. We have fire prevention week in most schools and one day the fire department will come in and explain fire escape techniques. Why can't we have an officer come in and talk about gun safety one day a year? He doesn't need to teach kids how to clean a gun, aim effectively, etc... just teach them that guns kill and when you kill someone, they don't come back - EVER. One of the most effective things you can do is set a watermelon out in a field and shoot it to show what happens when a bullet hits someone's head.
But requiring that they be locked in a closet? That would only seem to be the common sense thing to do if you have guns and kids....my dad did it so i wouldn't play with something i didn't understand.
I grew up with guns in the house. My earliest memories of them were my dad telling me to NEVER touch them unless he was around and gave me permission. I was taught exactly what they did and how they worked. I learned to respect the awesome amount of damage they can do. I saw first-hand what a 12 gauge slug can do to a living body (deer). He gave me my first gun( a 22 rifle ) at age 7. I respected it as a tool of death and didn't screw with it like it was a toy. Why? I knew better. I was brought up in a culture that respected guns and educated me about them. Locking something away and pretending they don't exist(security by obscurity) NEVER really works... education(open review) is the best answer.
I'm a NY resident and vehemently against Her Royal Highness for many reasons. I watched the debate this morning, though I admit I was half out of it due to being sick, and I remember her talking about the moritorium on internet taxation as part of her response to this question... To paraphrase, she said she wasn't in favor of taxation right now - she would like to continue the with moratorium so that access can be provided to as many people as possible and re-evaluate the situation later. Like I said, I'm admittedly biased against her, but to me, this smacks of "let it become really popular and then once most people depend on it, we can tax a broader base to generate money for new (bloated|wasteful) program X." It's not like the government doesn't already tax necessary utilities to generate revenue for certain programs.
It's all a matter of trust. Trust no one is not an option and will hurt you economically if others do take the risk, nor is trust anyone. The truth is in the middle. I live in a country where I think I can trust the government to provide me this kind of services.
While you may trust a government agency to do the right thing, you must remember that it is made up of individual people... some of whom may be likely to tamper with or steal your signature, validation key, or whatever they end up storing for their own personal gain, revenge or other motives. I don't trust government agencies any more than I trust a corporation to maintain and secure my privacy. Echelon, Carnivore, states selling their databases to advertisers( drivers licenses, etc are public data and in some US states the databases are sold just like the list marketing assholes do ), etc should go to show what happens when an agency at large gets too big for it's britches/has too much power. Now, imagine each of those agencies with 1% of their employees being unscrupulous and the damage that those individuals could do to someone...
Going back around 3 or 4 years, Altavista used to have a system to do just this( side note: I still have it bookmarked as www.altavista.digital.com though I rarely use it anymore... ). You could do your primary query and then it had a "refine" button if it returned more than some arbitrary number of results. When you hit the button, it would bring up a page which had related words on it and how many pages contained each word. You could selectively exclude or include certain words to refine your search. The functionality seemed to disappear when "portal" became a big buzzword but it was nice while it lasted.
I'm not saying limit someone's speech regarding the company they work for, rather that a person sending spam is acting as an agent on behalf of the company thus the spam is speech of the company rather than the person who sent it.
I'm no lawyer but the difference is that people(Americans anyway) have the right to free speech as protected by the First Amendment because it is vital part of individual freedom to allow them to speak their mind about any topic they wish. Businesses are a created entity allowed under law and have no inherent rights - only what the government grants them. The question is then, does government grant the same freedom of speech to businesses that it does to individuals and furthermore, why should/shouldn't it? Someone will probably argue that it is a person working for the business which is actually speaking BUT the key is they are speaking for the business, not for themself.
the point is the poor aren't as poor as you think they are. Further, they don't have a right to a share of anything - we're a constitutional republic, not a communistic wealth redistributor. You deserve only what you earn.
OK... I've heard this a few too many times now.about the "rich getting richer while the poor get poorer." The concept was originally started by liberals so they could justify the socialistic programs they favor... Make all the "poor" people think the rich are getting richer while stepping all over their "right to happiness" so that they can justify the raping of the income of the middle class and up.
Are the rich getting richer? You bet. Of course, what they don't say is the number of millionaires is now in the thousands when just 50 years ago, you could probably count them on both hands. Are the poor getting poorer? Let's look at that:
So, the poor don't really seem to be getting poorer. They've had a HUGE improvement in quality of life... similarly, the rich get to play with all the new fancy toys (that they pay out the ass for since they're new). The "class" that has seen the smallest improvement is the middle class who have the burden of supporting the "poor" people without the benefits of having the money to waste - we're allowed enough to just get by. Take a look at third world countries for truly poor people.
Heed my warning... the increasing demands of the "poor" for government support is increasing the burden of the middle class. Eventually, we're going to get fed up with it. It'll be one of the preciptating factors behind the second american civil war( expected before 2050, maybe 2030 ).
If anyone is interested in more of my rantings, see http://krw.penguinpowered.com/~ ken/rants/rants.html
From the constitution:
From Federalist #18:
From Federalist #23:
Federalist #26:
Federalist #33:
From Federalist #41:
From Federalist #45:
Federalist #63:
When the Constitution says "promote the general welfare", it simply means to ensure that the government remains healthy for the benefit of all of it's citizens, not that government should provide education, healthcare, food, etc for it's citizens. Government best serves the general welfare by staying out of people's lives and only intervening to ensure that their basic rights - the rights to life, liberty and to persue happiness, as well as those enumerated in the Bill of Rights and other unlisted rights, are not encroached upon.