Let us start 2011 off with a doozie.
This whole piece could use a top to bottom Fisking, but I simply don’t have the time or the will to eat the entire bottle of aspirin that it would take to do so.
See how many things you can find wrong in just these two paragraphs
The Founders did not write the Constitution to make solving the nation’s problems impossible. They designed a framework in which problems like providing humane, universal care and a host of other national issues can be solved. How do we provide work at decent wages for everyone who needs/wants a job? How do we use fiscal/monetary policies to encourage growth and allocate wealth fairly? How do we provide a financial system that doesn’t loot the country? How do we provide sustainable commerce, industry and livelihoods that don’t destroy our own planet? So, far, not a single representative of the Tea/Republican Party has said an intelligent word on any these topics. They don’t know what their job is.
The notion of having a capable national government committed to “provide for the general welfare†is not an alien doctrine; it’s the purpose of the Constitution, the one that made America “exceptional†at the time. That’s why this foundational principle is in the Preamble. Yet this core principle somehow escapes those calling themselves the “defenders of the Constitution.â€
Scarecrow
Those are two of the closing paragraphs from a piece by one of the supposed heavy hitters at the hyper-leftist FireDogLake blog. The post is on how the new Tea Party influenced members of Congress don’t know how to read the Constitution, and therefore, don’t know what it “really” says.
The link to the Preamble is in the post, and I left it there for you to fact-check/grammar Mr./Mrs. Scarecrow. He/She also includes the Preable in her post just below these paragraphs, and not too surprisingly, not a single commenter corrects the error in the post.
Now, who exactly doesn’t know how to read again?
Hmmmmmm. “Provide” for the General Welfare? Whoever wrote this obviously mixes up General Welfare and Common Defense.
Promoting != Providing…
This wing-nut gets it wrong from the first sentence. The Founders never considered the Federal government a vehicle to “solve the nation’s problems.” They trusted that to the States and the People. The built a framework that would manage national affairs while not meddling in our personal affairs.
Universal care? Allocate wealth fairly? Mind your own business Commie.
The comments there are truly disheartening, especially the strawmen they build to justify their hate for conservatives. I can only hope that the sane and rational outnumber such wackos.
Words mean things, and “promote” can be read two different ways. “Promote” can mean both “to advocate for” or “raise up”. We here seem to advocate the former meaning, they want to raise up the latter meaning in the word’s improtance. So we’re back to square one as to “how do we promote the general welfare?” Yes, FDL is a bunch of fucking dumb loonies and they quoted the wrong word, but this solves nothing.
However you’re missing the bigger picture of how they missed the point of history. The Founders didn’t give a rat’s butt about humane universal care or decent wages; if they did, they would’ve outlawed slavery. And actually, yes, they created a form of government in which change was hard to make if the voting citizenry did its duty, kept up with the issues of the day and interacted with their government reps. It’s the whole “checks and balances” bit, and not “make sure the goverment check is recorded in your bank balance”.
We’re doomed because not enough people have learned from history. Or maybe they studied socialism more than America.
The FedGov is tasked to provide for the common defense of the states, and promote the GENERAL WELFARE OF THE STATES.
If an individual state wants a healthcare mandate like Massachusetts, there is no Constitutional problem. But when someone wants a Federal healthcare program, that is a problem, because the Constitutionality of forcing one party to buy a commercial product (instead of a tax) is not a power given to Congress.