Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder in which the individual is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity.

If the shoe fits.

You're just lashing out for no reason. Keep going.

Abgemacht, that is one view of the document, that the Constitution gives Congress power to do anything. This was the argument that the opponents of the Constitution made during the ratifying conventions in 1788 & 1789. Yet there are clear limits on the power of Congress. Who interprets the Constituion, the Supreme Court. So the Surpeme Court has enormous power as well. The President can veto any act of Congress and totally controls foreign policy. So the executive has enormous power as well. Why does the document do this? If you read about America immediately after the Revolution ended in 1783 you understand why, but that is a whole different ball of wax. The first government we have didn't even include an executive or a supreme court. It was only a legislature that couldn't tax the states or control individual state currencies. It was 13 individual states going in 13 different directions and many American leaders thought the new nation would self-destruct. So they got together four years after the Revolution ended and came up with a new government that created a new United States govenment that added an executive and judicial branch and revamped the existing legislative branch. So American experimented with a much weaker central government before deciding to strengthen it.

The 6th social studies version of why the Constitution was ratified never ceases to be irritating.

Abgemacht, do you know anything about Shay's Rebellion that occurred in Massachusetts in 1786? It had an important influence on the final structure of the Constitution. In fact there was another rebellion a few years after the Constitution became our governing document in 1794 called the Whisky Rebellion. So Americans interpreting the Constitution and being dissatisfied with it isn't new. Americans were dissastisfied with Britain's monarchy and the Articles of Confederation government as well. Americans had a lot of problems with the nature of government from 1765-1795 and still do.

Abge, the Supreme Court has never found that the National Science Foundation violated the power given to the federal governemnt to promote the general welfare. The NSF is on established Constitutional ground as is the Air Force.

@Abge - of course we can have an air force because no one has challenged it. we already covered the SC's powers and charter. They can't go about declaring it illegal because no state has challenged it.

I vote we build an airforce, then.

So EMAC what are you arguing exactly? That congress doesn't have the right to use tax revenues to support social programs?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

But that doesn't always happen. Especially in California and Massachusetts.

re: 2nd amendment.

A lot of times people will say "okay but times have changed, in their day they didn't have assault rifles and rocket launchers but they wouldn't have let people have them." And this is probably true. But they left room for this and doubtless knew this problem would arise over time (i.e. the constitution becomes outdated) so they allowed for amendments.

This is why it is proper for us to apply an amendment that specifically allows the government to regulate the possession of weaponry, especially heavy weaponry. However we don't do as many amendments as we ought.

Gun ownership is a Tenth Amendment issue, not a Second Amendment issue.

how. it kind of says that its not supposed to be infringed, even by states.

OK, so....

abge is right that the spending clause is pretty broad. The federal government can spend money on just about anything it wants that doesn't violate some other explicit principle (it couldn't set up a church, for example).

Krellin is right that the powers are enumerated. One of the powers is spending lots of money on all kinds of things. But that doesn't mean the powers are unlimited. For a notable example, the federal government can't pass a law saying you can't have a gun within 1000 feet of a school. You'll notice that when it tried to do that (and it did), it wasn't spending anything. It was making an action illegal, which is completely different from spending, and which it can't do. It would probably also be disallowed from a general anti-murder statute, or many, many other things that government does that have nothing to do with spending.

There's a really fascinating discussion of this point in Joseph Story's commentaries, for anybody who cares to look it up.

Oh and also, the third day of recent health care arguments focused on a really interesting and very related point that received a lot less media attention than the mandate. The argument was that if the federal government gives lots of money to the states, with lots of very specific strings attached, then it's actually effectively usurping state autonomy, so even though what it's doing appears to be mere Constitutional spending, at some point it crosses over a line and becomes unconstitutional meddling. Interesting stuff. You should check it out.

Finally, to those who are whining about the Constitution being outdated -- there's an amendment procedure. If there's really a need to change something because of changing times, then the Constitution could be amended. Most often, people who say something about how the Constitution can't be treated literally because it's "outdated" and you can't run something like that from the 18th century actually want something that they would NOT have the votes to get through as an amendment. Ask yourself, if you believe in democracy or the rule of law, if that's not a little troubling. Is the text really "outdated"? Or is it just inconvenient to a particular political outlook that doesn't want to have to screw around with elections to get stuff done?

Abge, as to your air force example, it's going to be hard to get anybody to take it too seriously, legally. Even if you found such an uber-textualist that he wouldn't take the small leap of interpretation to say that it was implied by the text, it would still be true that if he did actually rule it unconstitutional, there would be an amendment TOMORROW making it Constitutional again -- how the process is actually supposed to work when an "update" is needed, by the way. In the event, I doubt it's ever actually been litigated (though I have not looked this up).

The 2nd amendment is a collective "right", not a personal one.

Somebody tell me how the phrase "promote the GENERAL welfare of the UNITED STATES" means:
Take money from one group and give it to another?

Definition of GENERAL
1: involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole
2: involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind, or group <the general equation of a straight line>
3: not confined by specialization or careful limitation

Applicable to the WHOLE of the class...defined as the UNITED STATES. Taking from one SUBSET of US citizens to give to ANOTHER subset of US citizens defies this definition of "GENERAL"

The military, on the other hand, protects ALL US citizens. Border patrol and treaties and securing vital interests/national resources are other things that benefit the "general" US citizen.

Taking from one group to give to another is not a GENERAL help. Taking from tax payers to give to specific causes, specific industries, etc, is particularly antithetical to the concept of GENERAL welfare.

It would help if people actually bothered to understand the definitions of the words they debate...as oppose to just slinging the political rhetoric or their given party.

Sorry for chipping in, I just read that randomly.
How do you define health care improvements? I never understood why americans are so strictly against public health care systems. If you give EVERY american the chance to stay healthy, isn´t that promoting the general welfare? At least this system works in many other countries.

@stranger - The way Obamacare is inplemnted isn't a public healhtcare system. It is still a for profit system with a government mandate that we buy a product from a for profit provider in case we need the services of another for profit provider. Do you want *your* government telling you that you *must* buy something or they will penalize you and fine you for it? Didn't think so.

As far as it working in other countries... Let's look at some of those other countries and their incredible wait lists and budgetary constraints that prevent people from getting proper wellness care because they don't want to wait in lengthy lines and told to come back in a month after their as yet unknown cancer has gone from stage 1 to stage 2...

Mafialligator,taxing to pay for social programs wasn't the subject of any of my posts.

@Stranger -- a true Darwinist might say survival of the fittest is key, and that keeping people healthy through extraordinary social means (that would otherwise not be healthy) actually detracts from the overall American stock...You make an argument for public health care for all, I can construct an argument that it degenerates society as a whole. (I am *NOT* saying I believe this...I'm saying the argument can be made...)

''Somebody tell me how the phrase "promote the GENERAL welfare of the UNITED STATES" means:
Take money from one group and give it to another?'

Wow krellin, does this really need to be spelt out for you?

Medicare has passed Constitutional review as a medical program administered by the taxing authority of the United States government. The principle of single-payer health care is well established over the last five decades. So Americans obviously don't have a problem with the principle of a single-payer plans constitutionally. The Affordable Care Act isn't a single-payer plan where everyone pays one tax to the federal government who then administers the plans benefits for everyone, like Medicare. The ACA pass by a slim 7-8 vote margin in the House and probably would not have passed as a single-payer plan at all if I remember the polls. It seems that the current electorate wants to retain their employee based health care and leave a percentage of the population that doesn't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid without health care instead of going to a single-payer plan that would cover everyone with a standard cookie cutter type of coverage. Disclaimer-this post is simply a viewpoint on healthcare in the United States and isn't meant to argue, disparage, or condemn anyone else's post.

I live in Austria, and I have to say that this is rather cruel. I am pretty sure you refer to the health care in Canada, and maybe you are right about the wait lists there. But I consider it horrible, that in the USA there are no waiting lists just because the poor population can´t afford proper doctors.
My father is a conservative, and to his mind, the bible supports equal treatment of poor and rich. He is totally against socialism and communism, but in his opinion everyone should have the ressources to stay healthy. I for one don´t believe in the bible, but I respect people doing so because it has some very good Ideas.

And in Austria, the public healthcare works very good, just as in scandinavia, Germany, and many other european countries. :)

Other problem with Obamacare -- if the Feds have the power to regulate commerce, that is NOT what this is. Obamacare mandate is a coercion, a forcing of someone to participate in commerce.

If I do not WANT to buy health care because I don't want to for whatever reason (I'm a billionaire, for example....or I have a religious objection) then I am being forced in to commerce. If they can force you in to commerce, force you to buy health care, then what is next?

I can argue the case with statistics that *legal* gun ownership in large quantities in a community can reduce crime, reduce violence, reduce injuries...so, should we mandate gun ownership as well?

'Taking from one group to give to another is not a GENERAL help. Taking from tax payers to give to specific causes, specific industries, etc, is particularly antithetical to the concept of GENERAL welfare.'

Funding a specific defence contractor could, for example, promote the general defence by allowing it produce weapons which will be used for that defence.

Funding everyone who claims to be a defence contractor, on the other hand, wouldn't produce the same net effect.

Providing specific funds for a group of people who can't afford to send their kids to school - that is a specific class of people, as defined by their income - would help educate and create an informed population which is not divided by lack of opportunity.

If that is not a) the point of public education and b) in the general welfare, then i don't know what is.

@Stranger -- living in Austria, you apparently have no idea how health care work in the US. You walk in to an emergency room with no money and no insurance, you will be cared for...period.

And before you start on "well, poor people can't afford well-care checkups, blah blah blah"....well, they also can't afford the best food (for good health) or the best automobiles (for safe driving) or safe desk jobs, as opposed to dangerous factory work, either. So, if the standard is "best of..." for health care, then why should not EVERY aspect of society be leveled so that EVERYONE gets "best of..."?

Oh...that's right....because then everyone gets dumbed down to "worst available..."

Promote the general welfare has a consitutional history of being the basis to establish the CDC, the NSF, the NEA. It seems to be one of the constintutional justifications for single-payer health plans like Medicare and Medicaid. It seems to be the basis of help to categories of individuals like AFDC, Food Stamps, etc. Does it allow the establishment of something like a national minimum income that would literally allow tax money to redistribute wealth? I think it does, and it has been proposed. Would it get the necessary votes in Congress? Would the Congress that passed such a program get reelected? Would the creation of such a program become a campaign issue that got member elected who promised to repeal it? Those are interesting questions. Disclaimer-this post is simply a viewpoint on the phrase "promote the General Welfare in the Consitution" that is not meant to argue, disparage, or condemn anyone else's viewpoint.

It is not about "best of".

Yes you are right, I am probably not as informed about your country as you are, but I am just saying, in most parts of Europe our system works. Anyways, I will never get politics in the USA, since there is no party at all, representing the poor ones.