BREAKING - U.S. Constitution a socialist document!!!

[arcadian]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.

[Subdivisions]

1. Teabagger toilet paper. n/t

[leftstreet]

2. OMG

[midnight]

3. The older I become the more I know why these words are more important than

every, and why the patriot act need to be ended and not extended.

[usregimechange]

4. Burn it now!

[StClone]

5. Socialist Countries kick ass at Winter Olympics

Norway had as many Gold Medals as the U.S. with only 4.9 million population vs. 309 Million in U.S. -- that's one Gold Medal for each 34 million U.S. citizens vs a Gold for 540 thousand. Canada, Germany and Austria with all that evil Socialist medicine and what not made us look like patsies when looked at on a per population/medal basis.

[patrice]

6. Socialist = the group has responsibilities to/for its individuals; it OWES them certain things.

It really is absurd, even in a capitalistic sense, to think otherwise. What good capitalist would invest him/herself in a group that returns NOTHING on that investment? It's crazy, even in capitalistic terms, to say that people cannot expect anything from a society to which they belong. It's simply insane.

[patrice]

7. P.S. and if the group doesn't OWE you something that YOU want, but instead only owes you what it

wants to give you, what is the point of belonging to the group??? If that is the case, if, as Publicans say, the group only owes us what it calls "national defense" and "law", and NONE of what the individual wants, then there is no group, only a collection of individuals kept together by force. If this is the case, there is no America.

[NoNothing]

15. Here is my problem with that formulation:

Groups are nothing more than an aggregate of individuals. Thus, to say a "group" has a responsibility to people is really to say that some "people" have a responsibility to other people. But when put this way, it inevitably leads to the much more difficult questions of who exactly owes what to whom.

[patrice]

18. Groups are a great deal more than aggregates. There are agreements and dynamics that make a group a

group. Thus groups are groups AND individuals and it is not possible, therefore, to say that individuals are ONLY individuals (unless, of course, s/he lives completely independently and separate from any other individual, which is not the case) so individuals are both individuals AND groups.

These relationships require definition in order to function and it is that relationship to which I was referring in my posts upthread.

[JHB]

30. Perhaps this is a better formulation: Groups are aggregates of individuals, but...

...a society is more than that.

[patrice]

36. Not just being argumentative here, but, imo, an aggregate is nothing more than an aggregate, like

some random collections, there is nothing about it that gives it a higher order of organization. It's simply an aggregate.

If a random aggregate evinces somekind of cohesion/organization, it becomes a group.

An essential characteristic of a group is cohesion, even if it is just two people who happen to be together by accident but who have even just an unstated agreement that they will not assault or rob one another, that understanding makes them a cohesive unit, albeit a loose one, but a unit nonetheless and that is not as much organization as a society, so we need a name for that construct, which, imo, is a "group".

[NoNothing]

8. "Welfare" had a different meaning back then

More like "well-being" than "entitlements."

[jwirr]

9. What about when entitlements contribute the the well being of the

people? I actually think that is how we use it to justify social programs.

[NoNothing]

11. The quoted text is from the preamble

Which has no real power and is not a legal basis for anything. Which is probably for the better, as it is so general as to justify almost anything.

Now, whether the Congress has the power to spend on entitlements, they clearly do. The Constitution, however, takes no position as to whether and to what extent it is a good idea.

[MrMonk]

19. Article I, section 8 - Powers of Congress

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" (and much more).

[NoNothing]

21. As I said, Congress clearly has the *power* to do it

That passage gives them the power, it doesn't say they must, or even should use it in any particular way. There are many good arguments for social spending, but the Constitution really isn't one of them.

[patrice]

10. See my posts above. I think we are Entitled. It's just that conventional "entitlements"

are NOT generally recognized as such and they are, thus, the product of a divided adversarial system that has mis-defined and mis-managed those basic goods and services that represent our obligations to ALL Americans. Without this functional agreement amongst ourselves, as you can well see, there is no such thing as America.

[NoNothing]

13. That's a fine opinion and I respect your point of view,

But the Constitution neither forbids nor endorses it, is my only point. The Constitution is a wonderful document but it is a grave mistake to read into it more than is there.

[patrice]

16. I agree with that. We do a great deal that is not delineated by The Constittion, including Commerce

and I was just trying to expand on the notion of providing for the common welfare and how that might be served by a different way of thinking about that.

[provis99]

22. read the Federalist Papers and the writings of Jefferson and Hamilton

they clearly understood that "general welfare" meant government actions (ie programs) to help the underclass.

[NoNothing]

35. Do you have any specific writings in mind?

I would be interested in any statements they may have made on the subject.

[The Doctor.]

17. Welfare isn't about entitlements.

Ultimately, it's about keeping people from becoming so desperate that they turn to predatory actions.

The extended argument is that we create dependency upon social support, and there's certainly some merit to that, but when contrasted against the only other remedy, it's the most realistic approach.

The other remedy?

Incarcerate the poor. Perhaps a marginally greater percent of those living below the poverty line will embrace suffering rather than resort to crime, but the vicious cycle could well create, umm... something similar to the for profit system we have now... but worse.

[patrice]

20. What about a more positive and constructivist perspective that sees Entitlements as Investments

in human potential that serves Everyone, i.e. the group, and that, thus, create something concrete and real called America, something concrete and real that is greater than the sum of its parts, greater than the capitalist alternative, and something that I personally do not think really exists without this agreement amongst ourselves as to what our basic concrete obligations are to ALL members of the group.

[The Doctor.]

23. That's perfectly reasonable.

In fact, it's the basis for my overriding philosophy.

I was dealing with specific delineation for the sake of the person I originally responded to.

Thanks for putting up though, it's much appreciated.

:fistbump:

[patrice]

24. Oh! I thought that sounded a little strange for you. Thanks for clearing that up.

:fistbump:

[Trillo]

12. Socialize the Risks and losses, Privatize the Profits

IS NOT General Welfare!

[Cleita]

14. So socialist you can't imagine it today.n/t

[grahamhgreen]

25. Note GENERAL welfare, not RICH INDIVIDUALS welfare.

[pnorman]

26. I have a paid version of the US Constitution in my cell-phone.

In the past few years, I've referred to it on a near daily basis. Free e-text versions are available, but this one is so much easier to navigate.

[upi402]

27. "establish Justice" LOL what punkass idiots

Yoo, BushCo, and 'Dick who sucks so much' are our leaders and we don't need no damn piece of paper confusing us!
:sarcasm:

[Kablooie]

28. We need a constitutional convention and eliminate that phrase!

[dbmk]

29. They only have to promote it

Which to republicans and right wingers in general means telling people:
"Its a bad idea to get sick".

[Cruzan]

31. Thanks for noticing.

It's been my sig for more than two years. :hi:

[Stuart G]

32. This promoting the "general welfare" has got to go...Commie Pinkos..nt

[Echo In Light]

33. kr

[heli]

34. "Blessings"? It's religious

It's Christian. In fact it's Southern Baptist.

[EFerrari]

37. Damn! Not again!

:rofl: