tkhayes 348 #1 April 15, 2009 I wonder why the full force of the US Navy, with great accolades from the US public, can be used to rescue a ship captain, who through no fault of his own, found his life in danger...... whereas if the Captain's life was in danger from some horrible disease (also through no fault of his own), he would be on his own, and have to either pay for the healthcare or perhaps die? Such a senseless 'socialist' action to be using government to help the individual...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #2 April 15, 2009 nonsense If a Somali pirate gave a ship captain a fatal and incurable disease, I'd like to think we'd use tax money to sniper the pirate in a most expeditious way ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #3 April 15, 2009 Well, at least the pirates were defeated by a private organization! They always do so much better than government-run organizations. Can you imagine where we'd be if a socialist, government funded and operated force tried to take those pirates down? Uh, wait . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #4 April 15, 2009 Quote I wonder why the full force of the US Navy, with great accolades from the US public, can be used to rescue a ship captain, who through no fault of his own, found his life in danger...... whereas if the Captain's life was in danger from some horrible disease (also through no fault of his own), he would be on his own, and have to either pay for the healthcare or perhaps die? Such a senseless 'socialist' action to be using government to help the individual...... Germs aren't going to be affraid of us and back off when the government intervenes like pirates might. We can make a better argument for protecting shipping being in our best interests than the pile of military bases and action in Iraq. Especially now that the global economic contraction with its reduction in cargo traffic means it's now more economical to sale around Africa through pirate infested waters than to pay the Suez Canal passage fees. It's also nice to see that we're getting a real return (albeit a small one) from over half the world's military spending. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #5 April 15, 2009 QuoteWell, at least the pirates were defeated by a private organization! They always do so much better than government-run organizations. Can you imagine where we'd be if a socialist, government funded and operated force tried to take those pirates down? Uh, wait . . . You're on a roll today!www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #6 April 15, 2009 Quote Such a senseless 'socialist' action to be using government to help the individual...... Indeed. Those ships were being operated by for profit companies in known dangerous waters. If they want protection they should hire it.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #7 April 15, 2009 The US Constitution in Article 1 Section 8 says that Congress has the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations. That would seem to cover the actions of the US Navy in the Gulf of Aden this past weekend. While reading the remained of the Constitution, I didn't come across any section that authorized Congress to provide health care for all. While it is the responsibility of Congress to "promote" the general welfare..it doesn't say it provides it."A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #8 April 15, 2009 Pirates get their health coverage through their union. End of story. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #9 April 15, 2009 >While it is the responsibility of Congress to "promote" the general welfare . . . Nope, that's in the preamble, and it lists what we as a country can do. "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 . . ." >it doesn't say it provides it. Article 1 section 8: "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 . . " That's PROVIDE, not promote. Today's lesson on the Constitution was brought to you by the letter P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #10 April 15, 2009 Quote Especially now that the global economic contraction with its reduction in cargo traffic means it's now more economical to sale around Africa through pirate infested waters than to pay the Suez Canal passage fees. You mean it is more economical to sail around the horn of Africa with security subsidized by the American taxpayer than it is to pay Suez fees. If these companies have to provide their own security the canal doesn't look quite so expensive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #11 April 15, 2009 QuoteI wonder why the full force of the US Navy Actually, it was a pretty small force. Quote with great accolades from the US public, Yes. Deserved, says I. Quotecan be used to rescue a ship captain, who through no fault of his own, found his life in danger Hmm. Rescuing citizens has been a pretty longstanding thing for the US - even before Medicare and AFDC we were doing it. Quotewhereas if the Captain's life was in danger from some horrible disease As most tars' lives are, through ports-o-call visits to local whore. Quote(also through no fault of his own), Oh! That's different. So, like when the Coast Guard rescues a fishing crew whose boat sank. I get it Quotehe would be on his own Yeah. I was watching Deadliest Catch last night. If Captain Phil was to enter into convulsions on the vessel, the Coast Guard would come rescue him and deliver him to a hospital. Then he would be left to die there. Or if some hijacker holds a person hostage in a vehicle, the police would chase the hijacker, but would just leave the victim to bleed in the event of injury. I see news videos all the time about that stuff. They never call for an ambulance. On the show, Captain Phill had an embolism. It was still with him. Quoteand have to either pay for the healthcare or perhaps die Well, yeah. I pay for my health care. It turns out, I pay for the healthcare of lots of people. It's curious that people who won't pay for their own healthcare think it would be a better system if they paid for theirs and everyone else's. "I'm not paying for my healthcare. But I will pay for everyone else's, as long as I get some." What the hell kinda thought process is that? QuoteSuch a senseless 'socialist' action to be using government to help the individual It makes some sense to me. True, I have some issues with it. Personally, I think these shipping companies should be hiring some security and wolf-packing. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #12 April 15, 2009 QuoteWhile it is the responsibility of Congress to "promote" the general welfare..it doesn't say it provides it. It certainly does say exactly that. From Article I, section 8: The Congress shall have Power … to … provide for the … general Welfare of the United States; edit: billvon beat me.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,326 #13 April 15, 2009 Quotegeneral Welfare of the United States As in National Welfare; not personal welfare...Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #14 April 15, 2009 >As in National Welfare; not personal welfare... Correct. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #15 April 15, 2009 Quote It makes some sense to me. True, I have some issues with it. Personally, I think these shipping companies should be hiring some security and wolf-packing. The economics of shipping mitigate away from wolf packing. However in today's economy the extremely tight timelines may not be quite as urgent as they often are (no contract on the other end to hurry to, customer willing to wait if you help the price). We may see escorted convoys become more prevalent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #16 April 15, 2009 QuoteQuotegeneral Welfare of the United States As in National Welfare; not personal welfare... How are healthy citizens not in the interest of the general welfare of the United States?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #17 April 15, 2009 and is healthcare considered "the general Welfare"? My dictionary defines welfare as "health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. Organized efforts by a community or an organization for the betterment of the poor. Public relief. I still don't see where the federal government is to provide healthcare for all. Promoting or providing the "general Welfare" would seem to be the creation of a general state where the individuals can achieve health, happiness, or prosperity" - ie "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness""A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,326 #18 April 15, 2009 You'll need to start with the interpretations of Madison, Hamilton, and Jefferson; then peruse thru several SCOTUS opinions on the matter.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #19 April 15, 2009 QuoteYou'll need to start with the interpretations of Madison, Hamilton, and Jefferson; then peruse thru several SCOTUS opinions on the matter. So, you've opted to avoid answering the question, I see.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,326 #20 April 15, 2009 QuoteIt makes some sense to me. True, I have some issues with it. Personally, I think these shipping companies should be hiring some security and wolf-packing. The Maersk was on a US Aid Relief mission.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,326 #21 April 15, 2009 QuoteSo, you've opted to avoid answering the question, I see. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. http://www.answers.com/topic/general-welfare http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/18-spending-for-general-welfare.html The battle over the General Welfare Clause was all but lost six decades ago in United States v. Butler (1936) and Helvering v. Davis (1937). In Butler, the Court struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which taxed processors in order to pay farmers to reduce production. Although invalidating the statute, the Court adopted the Hamiltonian view (almost in passing) that the General Welfare Clause is a separate grant of congressional authority, linked to and qualified by the spending power. Sorenson perceives correctly that virtually all governmental activity involves the expenditure of money; accordingly, there is little difference between Hamilton’s view and Crosskey’s position that the General Welfare Clause represents a plenary grant of power. Any doubt remaining after Butler as to the scope of the General Welfare Clause was dispelled a year later in Helvering. There the Court defended the constitutionality of the 1935 Social Security Act, requiring only that welfare spending be for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose. Justice Benjamin Cardozo summed up what has become controlling doctrine ever since: "Nor is the concept of the general welfare static.... What is critical or urgent changes with the times." Justice Harlan Stone struck the final blow in Flemming v. Nester in 1954, holding that questions concerning the propriety of conditions imposed on spending, and questions concerning the generality of the benefits, were for the Congress to resolve–-subject to judicial invalidation "only if the statute manifests a patently arbitrary classification, utterly lacking in rational justification." However disheartening such cases may be to advocates of a narrower and more constraining General Welfare Clause, they do reinforce the urgent need for quality research from competent scholars like Sorenson. The second hurdle for Sorenson is that his scholarship may be more widely referenced by historians than by jurists. Curiously, Sorenson chose as his principal theme the refutation of Crosskey. Writing long after the Supreme Court had done its damage, Crosskey’s influence has been marginal. He is cited but three times in Supreme Court majority opinions, and in only one instance has the cited material implicated (tangentially) the General Welfare Clause. To be fair, Crosskey indisputably provided intellectual ammunition for the bad guys and, in that sense, Sorenson’s effort to disarm him (and them) is an important part of the ongoing struggle to secure a more propitious climate of ideas. Third, the focus of that struggle for ideas may have shifted in light of the Supreme Court’s 1995 salvo in United States v. Lopez. The explosion of federal power under the expansive rubric of the Commerce Clause–-arguably more harmful than any aggrandizement traceable to the General Welfare Clause-–has at last been scrutinized by the Court. And if the Commerce Clause is ever restored to its rightful role–-that of ensuring the free flow of trade among the states-–the next campaign may indeed be waged against the Necessary and Proper Clause. Distended by the Court in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), that Clause now allows Congress to employ means in exercising its powers that are merely convenient--neither necessary nor proper. So, while welcoming Sorenson’s attack on the modernized General Welfare Clause, one should not be surprised if it is stalled by the allocation of scarce intellectual resources to more exigent projects. At a minimum, friends of liberty will surely find Sorenson's portrayal of Madison more congenial than Crosskey’s. Proponents of a government constrained to exercise only its enumerated powers should not be discouraged if progress is gradual and halting. Sometimes, in order to effectuate radical change without rending the social fabric, we may have to content ourselves with incremental challenges to long-established doctrines. Sorenson has undeniably supplied more than his fair increment. By tracing to Madison a view less conducive to swollen government than the view embraced by the New Deal Court and its successors, Sorenson enrolls on the side of limited government. He is part of the crusade to circumscribe the reach of the feds–-even if his vision of Madison would not bind Congress as tightly to the original enumeration as old-line anti-federalists might desire. Source: Robert A. Levy http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-11.html Now, go fish...Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #22 April 15, 2009 QuoteI wonder why the full force of the US Navy, with great accolades from the US public, can be used to rescue a ship captain, who through no fault of his own, found his life in danger...... whereas if the Captain's life was in danger from some horrible disease (also through no fault of his own), he would be on his own, and have to either pay for the healthcare or perhaps die? The US Navy rescued the head of a ship, as opposed to a replaceable individual who suddenly died of illness. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #23 April 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteSo, you've opted to avoid answering the question, I see. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. http://www.answers.com/topic/general-welfare http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/18-spending-for-general-welfare.html … Source: Robert A. Levy http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-11.html Now, go fish... That's a really long quote that doesn't support your assertion that public health is not a matter of the general welfare of the United States. If anything, it contradicts it.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,326 #24 April 15, 2009 Quoteyour assertion that public health is not a matter of the general welfare of the United States Try to keep up. I never asserted that - I strongly believe in public health: http://www.usphs.gov/ http://www.cdc.gov/ I do not believe in a US universal health care for all citizens.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #25 April 15, 2009 Have you read his book?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
