Actually, you hit upon the four-letter word that Trump most despises: TACT.
No. Defense is very specific. For example, military cannot be used against the civilian population (though an interpretation of it being a broad category could facilitate this).
The typical anti-original interpretation. The only way the general welfare clause is broad is that it applies only under the enumerated powers. It was never intended as an excuse for government to usurp power and infringe on rights. But again, a properly narrow and originalist view would stand in the way of progressive authoritarian designs.
Now that is true.
This is such a good post, I decided to quote it in my response.
Except that it isn’t because Trump is tactless (feel free to disagree), but that he knows tact is an empty futile gesture when dealing with political back-stabbing barbarians (or 'wee sweety wifies’) at the gate.
The Poland example is not an example of the resinding of Roe v . Wade.
The Constitution does not specifically empower the federal government to create an Air Force.
The idea that it does is anti-original.
But it appear that some anti-original interpretations are better received in some quarters than others.
I amy read the whole post. But since it went completely off-track in the first sentence, I only read that far.
That’s like saying they can only use muskets. It is not anti-original to know that, within the specific and limited power granted, different tools could be used for defense.
There is no limited or specific enumerated power for healthcare. None.
That’s like saying there cannot be Interstate highways. That’s like saying we can’t have national healthcare programs, …
I think GOLF is the top choice
Of course there can be interstate highways. The basis of federal spending is presented under defense. I think it questionable, but at least understandable.
The constitution makes no claim that healthcare is an enumerated power, one where my ninth amendment rights can be violated in favor of government power over my healthcare and the money I earned that I would spend on it.
Building highways is not enumerated.
Of course there can be healthcare. The basis is under general welfare. That is easily understandable.
Defense is. The rationale, suspect though it may be, was that that system of highways was necessary for national defense.
Healthcare is not general welfare. It is an individual welfare. And it is an individual right which places it outside government control.
Yes. And interstate highways are not.
It as much general welfare as interstate highways are defense.
Promotion of general welfare necessarey promotes the welfare of individuals.
Well, like I said, twice now, the reasoning is dubious. I frankly see no reason for the general government to be in charge of highways, except for the constitutional provision for post roads, again, under article 1section 8.
No, it isn’t. Healthcare is an individual need, not a general welfare.
Only under the enumerated powers, which does not include healthcare.
You may think so, but the US thinks otherwise.
And this is about as far as you can go on the matter of healthcare.
You’re right. Sadly, the progressives have spent 100 years undermining the constitution to expand government power at the expense of individual rights. But don’t claim it was the original intent of the framers. That’s patently untrue.
That would be the American century that you are talking about.
At the same time, it seems that those who oppose those trends have no solid foundation for favoring the expansions that they like over the ones that they don’t.
I don’t think I named an expansion of federal government power that I approve of.