178769

神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006

Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.politics.libertarian:6603 talk.politics.misc:178769 alt.politics.usa.misc:2833
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!rochester!udel!bogus.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!transfer.stratus.com!sw.stratus.com!cdt
From: [e-mail] (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: Re: We're from the government and we're here to help you
Date: 21 Apr 1993 00:14:42 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 57
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1r23li$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Hendricks) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Albea) writes:

> >|> Gee, Jim, if you'll check the Constitution you'll find "in order to...
> >|> promote the general welfare...do ordain and establish this Constitution..."
> >|> I'm surprised you missed it.  It's right there in the first paragraph.  I
> >|> would have thought you would have made it at least through the preamble.

> >You almost got it right, and it was a good try, but you should follow your
> >own advice.  The PREAMBLE to the CONSTITUTION does read as you have quoted
> >but let us not forget that after all it is only the preamble.  It is not
> >a binding part of the Constitution and carries no weight in the law.  That 
> >poor tortured paragraph has got to be one of the most unfortunate passages 
> >in the English language - witness the legions of blowhards like yourself who
> >think those vague flowery phrases are part of the law of the land.  Do you
> >really believe that a politician only has to give lip service to "promoting
> >the general welfare" to be within the limits of the constitution?

> Sorry, buddy, but some other "blowhards" managed to include the "general
> welfare" in another portion of the constitution.

> Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect
> taxes...to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and GENERAL
> WELFARE of the United States..."

> I guess they wanted to make sure everyone understood they meant what they
> said in the preamble.

> ...But since it explicitly includes both the general welfare and defense
> in Article I, Section 8, I guess you'll grant that botha are constitutional
> functions.  Right?

    James Madison, Federalist Paper 41:

    "It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and
     collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts,
     and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the
     United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise
     every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common
     defense or general welfare...

    "No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which
     these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a
     misconstruction.  Had no other enumeration or definition of the
     powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the
     general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection
     might have had some color for it; ...  But what color can the
     objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by
     these general terms immediately follows, and is not even
     separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?  ...  Nothing is
     more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and
     then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.
-- 

[e-mail]   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR [e-mail]        write today for my special Investors' Packet...