Also...sometimes insured people die because they choose not to get the care they require, or they choose to not change their lifestyle/consumption habits, etc. They choose to spend money on unhealthy things instead of healthy things, and spend energy on unhealthy activities instead of healthy activities.

Just like a lot of less affluent people in this country make wrong choices and forgo opportunity. For example, the gang-bangers that choose to fail in school by skipping class, not doing homework, joining gangs....those that don't even *try*...but then demand government care? I have little sympathy for that choice.

@abge - I'm pretty sure Rep. Brown of GA )a duly elected representative and member of the House Science and Technology Committee called it into question back in 2010. Would not a member of the house of Representatives and member of the House's committee be someone who is, in effect, challenging it? Maybe not directly in front of the SC, but still a challenge from a duly elected member of Congress. :-)

Who'se not read up now?

@EMAC

Thank you for providing a quote (I believe you already did, but people like Krellin need to see things more than once to get the hang of it).

I agree that A1S8 allows for the USAF. However, could it not be interpreted to allow for the NSF? After all, how can the US oversee patents if there are no engineers and scientists who understand them?

@Emac - Not directly, but elected officials are questioning it and have questioned it in the past. With some of the recent questionable "oversite" it has provided, it is only a matter of time before something appears in the federal system.

Guys,

perhaps a discussion of U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) will help add some understanding to this debate. It illustrates where the US was, and where it remains today on this issue.

Prior to 1937, there was a debate as to whether or not Congress could spend for whatever purpose it wished (so long as the "general welfare" was being served), or whether Congress could only spend in order to carry out one of the other enumerated powers listed in Article I, Sec. 8.

In U.S. v. Butler, the Court held that no such limitation exists -- the spending (and taxing) powers are themselves enumerated powers, so Congress may spend (and tax) to achieve the general welfare, even though no other enumerated power is being furthered.

The Court first concluded that the power to "tax and spend for general welfare" existed as a power separate and distinct from the other powers enumerated in Article I, Sec. 8. Thus the taxing-and-spending power stood on equal footing with, say, the power to regulate interstate commerce.

But, the Court rejected the contention that Congress has an independent power to "provide for the general welfare" apart from the power to tax and spend. Thus Congress may not regulate in a particular area merely on the ground that it is thereby providing for the general welfare; it is only taxing and spending which may be done "for the general welfare." Otherwise, the Court noted, the federal government would be one of "general and unlimited powers," rather than enumerated and limited ones.

The most important principle for which U.S. v. Butler stands today is that Congress has NO POWER TO REGULATE for the purpose of providing for the "general welfare." Congress MAY spend for the general welfare, it MAY tax for the general welfare, but it MAY NOT regulate for the general welfare.

Does this help clear some issues up?

@Draug

And yet it's still here...

EMAC understood what I was asking for. All I wanted was a quote. People demand of liberals all the time to defend their programs via the constitution. It makes no sense I can't do the same for any program I chose, no matter how well founded. The point isn't to revoke the USAF, the point is an exercise in debate using real sources.

Yeah, your point of view is reasonable. But I for one think different, and in Europe we handle it different, successfully.

@abge - So, the joke of a patent office that gave some idiot a patent to "point and click" and already knows nothing about modern tech is being helped by the NSF? I don't believe the NSF has exactly lived up to that mandate if that is the case. Prior art cases aren't being researched properly because only the worst of the worst of the scientists go to work for the NSF. It is a bloated politcal organization with second rate "scientists" more worried about their pensions and political ladderr cloimbing in it's employ than real people concerned with the direction this country is taking. That is true of nearly every major "foundation" that is part of the US government.

I don't disagree with you abge. I think the NSF is covered under article 18 because it is necessary and proper to estalbish in order to take care of the general welfare. Opinions obviously differ.

Draugnar, I understand the slipper slope argument that the NSF allows for expansion into unconstitutional territory, but the Supreme Court is there to define limits if and when a formal lawsuit makes its way through the Federal courts.

Abge -- man up -- explain the conflict between delimited Federal power, the contruct of a constitution that is specifically intended to LIMIT Federal power, and your assertion that the Constitution, in contradiction to itself, intentionally provided unlimited power to the Feds.

As for Emacs quote....I don't know what that has to do with the issue I am addressing with you...which you are either intentionally ignoring over and over again, or simply can't comprehend...which is not *my* problem, but is your, since it is a very common argument. As for your Air Force argument...I have no part of it...so if you are referring to that, you are talkig to the wrong guy. Maybe if you read the thread, you would know I have not said a single thing pro or con about the air force. But...you know...asking the great and power Abge to read a thread before he attacks people would be silly...

@Draug

Do you have any actual experience with the NSF or are you just trash talking it because it's a government organization?

MichiganMan, thank you. I was completely ignorant of that case and the line of reasoning. Thanks.

Also...I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how "GENERAL welfare of the UNITED STATES" --- and I defined GENERAL earlier...

Somehow equates to "take from subset <a> of defined group <US> and give to subset <b> of defined group <US> to the exclusion of subset <C>" where subset <A>, <B> and <C> are mutually exclusive...and yet this is how GENERAL WELFARE is enacted in such programs as the NSF...

@Krellin

The 10th Amendment is unclear. What exactly does it mean by power granted to congress? It says right in there that congress may promote general welfare. Is that not a power granted? If so, why not? The founding fathers did a shit-show of a job with the 10th Amendment. It clears nothing up and provides nothing but arguments.

If I provide for the GENERAL WELFARE of my family with, for example, a dinner, I feed ALL of my family. I do not take the food from Daughter A and give to Daughter B...

But this is the liberal interpretation of General Welfare. It defies logic.

Ahhhhh...the 10th Amendment is a hazy mystery.....but "GENERAL WELFARE" is clear as crystal, right? Please....give me a break.

Abge....as I did EARLIER IN THIS THREAD....I explained to you examples of GENERAL WELFARE. Yo obviously ignored this. You are wasting my time.

Emac, you're welcome. I encourage those participating in this discussion to look to the cases as in them you will find the rationale of the Court and the issues that brought forth their holding(s). These discussions, although interesting, are somewhat limited without the cases that are actually MAKING LAW.

I have also demonstrated, using definitions, and even a little mathmateical example, that your give-away programs are not "general welfare"....but you don't want to address these specific examples and explain how my definitions are wrong.

You are wasting my time.

krellin, abgemacht, et. al., read what I posted re: U.S. v. Butler...it explains a great deal and will help give you a real understanding of the law, not an arm-chair understanding.

@MichiganMan -- I appreciate the case law. Honestly, I am addressing the philosophical argument that some of the case law is incorrect, as we know through history that the Supremes can change law, even law that was "decided"...and therefore I disagree with the fairly recent historical "finding" of all sort of new Federal power (i.e. last 50-75 years.)

@krellin, I understand and relish philosophical arguments. Maybe its that law school has changed the way that I debate, but to properly debate a legal issue one MUST reference the cases (or at least the holdings) to speak accurately. I agree 100% that there is an unsettling and ominous trend of ever increasing federal power.

Personally, I am convinced that the "government" as we understand it is NOT the government of the history book, of the Constitution. This "government" is a bastardized, usurper whose most accurate moniker would FASCIST. It is my firm belief that we're living in a Twilight Zone world in which EVERYTHING is commerce, and this explains why EVERYTHING is being regulated and controlled by the federal government -- which, as I said, is NOT The Republic, it is a corporation and ALL our interactions with it have a contractual basis.

The problem is that we don't know that we're under contract. Basically, we've been drawn into a system of Roman Civil Law with all its adhesion/hidden contracts.

@MichiganMan -- "I am convinced that the "government" as we understand it is NOT the government of the history book, of the Constitution. This "government" is a bastardized, usurper whose most accurate moniker would FASCIST."

Coudn't agree more. That's my point.

@MichiganMan -- the other problems is that people wants to argue "feelings" instead of arguing "terminology"...."General Welfare of the United States" for example is a phrase with an adjective <general> applied to an action <welfare> applied to a defined group <All the citizens>. But you'll note that this discussion point is consistently ignored...That's a major part of the problem, and is fairly typical in this sort of discussion.

Instead it's all about "Well that wouldn't be fair..." which should really be interpreted as "well that's not an equal outcome"....which is ironic, because there are never equal outcomes, especially in the program (i.e. taxation and welfare in their current constructs) that are *designed* to create more-or-less equivalent outcomes.

Conservative don't want equivalent outcomes (i.e.Utopian impossibility)...but instead strive for equality of opportunity (i.e. you are all allowed to go to school, all allowed to start a business, get a job, etc....now GO FIGHT FOR IT...)

Really, provide a single example of conservatives fighting for 'equal opportunity'.

What is a conservative Putin?

"Personally, I am convinced that the "government" as we understand it is NOT the government of the history book, of the Constitution."

Because the government that supported slavery and the slave trade, didn't allow anybody but white males any rights, was something to marvel at, right?

It's amazing how the people who shout "fascism" from the rooftops about any government action whatsoever are content to admire the US government of 1789 and its peculiar institutions.

Conservatism doesn't exist anymore, but the modern variant is a hybrid of economic liberalism & support for the preservation of cultural & national traditions.

Traditional conservatives were the party of landowning elites, aristocrats loyal to the Crown & the Church.