The four-letter word Trump despises

[JonNC]

Defense, a broad category, is enumerated. Air Force, a specific element under the broad category is not.

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).

Other broad categories are interstate commerce, and general welfare.

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.

[JonNC]

Actually, you hit upon the four-letter word that Trump most despises: TACT.

Now that is true.

[JonNC]

So you would agree with rescinding Roe v Wade to reduce abortions?

Non sequitur.
I think that the manner and basis of any such “rescinding”, should conform with US lawful process.
Without details on the basis of this “rescinding”, it is not at all clear that it would reduce abortions.
I have elaborated on this point in other threads.

From the Poland example, it is quite clear that it would greatly reduce abortions. I don’t think that is debatable.

Much of the “US lawful process” that has occurred in the past decade or so has been the result of loading the various courts with ideologues pretending to conform to the “lawful process” while at the same time bending and rewriting it endlessly. Perhaps it is time for conservatives to take a less amenable view of that penchant to take extreme license with the Constitution, as in actual conformity with the “US lawful process,” rather than abusing it?

Individual human beings rely on the law to guide them morally, most will follow the law because they believe it is authoritative. It also gives many a ready excuse to abdicate from making their own moral determinations. It is the activists that control the narrative today, and those are relatively few in number.

The problem comes from decent people continually compromising with and giving into the demands of those pushing for abortion on demand as the “right” of a woman.

At some point the compromise has to give and you can bet the abortion on demand activists will not compromise, but will continually push for more. Population control via forced abortions is next on the agenda, under the guise that the State must forcibly control the population, ostensibly because minute increases of CO2 in the atmosphere will otherwise create a global catastrophe.

I am still not entirely clear whether some on CAF are in the activist camp feigning Catholicism in order to change it from within, or are sincere Catholics duped into the leftist progressive narrative. I tend to think most are the former, given their complete lack of any willingness to even entertain the orthodox viewpoint that has defined Catholicism for the past 2000 years.

Minds are made up not because of any awareness of Church teaching but from a complete capitulation to the current progressive ideology.

This is such a good post, I decided to quote it in my response.

[HarryStotle]

Actually, you hit upon the four-letter word that Trump most despises: TACT.

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.

[dvdjs]

From the Poland example, it is quite clear that it would greatly reduce abortions. I don’t think that is debatable.

The Poland example is not an example of the resinding of Roe v . Wade.

[dvdjs]

Defense is very specific.

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.

[dvdjs]

This is such a good post, I decided to quote it in my response.

I amy read the whole post. But since it went completely off-track in the first sentence, I only read that far.

[JonNC]

The Constitution does not specifically empower the federal government to create an Air Force.
The idea that it does is anti-original.

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.

[dvdjs]

That’s like saying they can only use muskets.

That’s like saying there cannot be Interstate highways. That’s like saying we can’t have national healthcare programs, …

[Maximus1]

I think GOLF is the top choice

[JonNC]

That’s like saying they can only use muskets.

That’s like saying there cannot be Interstate highways. That’s like saying we can’t have national healthcare programs, …

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.

[dvdjs]

Of course there can be interstate highways.

Building highways is not enumerated.

no claim that healthcare is an enumerated power,

Of course there can be healthcare. The basis is under general welfare. That is easily understandable.

[JonNC]

Building highways is nit enumerated.

Defense is. The rationale, suspect though it may be, was that that system of highways was necessary for national defense.

Of course there can be healthcare. The basis is under general welfare. That is easily understandable.

Healthcare is not general welfare. It is an individual welfare. And it is an individual right which places it outside government control.

[dvdjs]

Defense is.

Yes. And interstate highways are not.

Healthcare is not general welfare.

It as much general welfare as interstate highways are defense.
Promotion of general welfare necessarey promotes the welfare of individuals.

[JonNC]

Yes. And interstate highways are not.

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.

It as much general welfare as interstate highways are defense.

No, it isn’t. Healthcare is an individual need, not a general welfare.

Promotion of general welfare necessarey promotes the welfare of individuals.

Only under the enumerated powers, which does not include healthcare.

[dvdjs]

Well, like I said, twice now, the reasoning is dubious. I

You may think so, but the US thinks otherwise.
And this is about as far as you can go on the matter of healthcare.

[JonNC]

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.

[dvdjs]

You’re right. Sadly, the progressives have spent 100 years …

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.

[JonNC]

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.