I would argue that promoting the general welfare meant something very different than paying for everyone's health care. Continued recognition of new "rights" while relieving people of their own responsibilities makes children of us all, with government as the parent. People have the right to eat the bread earned by their own work, and the right to be left alone. The Constitution is actually an enumeration of "negative rights," proscribing what the Government can't do. The government can't tell me what to say. It can't tell me who to associate with, it can't keep me from owning the means of my own self-defense. Nowhere does the Constitution tell me what our society owes me, other than the common defense. The government (or the People) does not owe me a home, does not owe me sustenance, does not owe me happiness. What the government owes us all is a civil structure that allows us to take care of ourselves without having to worry about assault or oppression by others, including oppression by mob rule.
On Oct 27, 9:38 am, Brian S Paskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are many items that are not in the Constitution. However, the > preamble of the Constitution does say, > > "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, and secure the Blessings > of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish > this Constitution for the United States of America." > > I would argue that "promote the general Welfare" covers health care. > > -- > Regards / Saluti / mit Freundlichen Grüßen, > Brian > > #-------------------------------------------# > "La pittura è una poesia che si vede > e non si sente, e la poesia è una > pittura che si sente e non si vede." > > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]://www.paskino.com > #-------------------------------------------# > > On Oct 27, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Dan in Atlanta wrote: > > > > > That's the issue a lot of right wingers like to fall back on. > > > The "right" to health care is not officially in the Constitution, > > there fore it is not a right of Americans. But I say that it is, at > > the very least, a natural right; and if we need to formally put it in > > the Constitution to satisfy those people, then I say we do so. > > > On Oct 27, 10:07 am, "Brian S. Paskin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The Republicans, and some Democrats, do not know the difference > >> between Socialism and social programs. Even Alex says Europe has > >> Socialism. That is not exactly true. The States do not own any > >> industries, except maybe the Post, and now some banks after the > >> financial disaster of the last few months. What they do is tax > >> people's income at a higher rate to give people more social programs, > >> like health care, child care and education. The question is giving > >> someone health care and education a redistribution of wealth, a sign > >> of Socialism, or a right of the people. > > >> Regards, > >> Brian (Cambridge, MA) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AlexBennettProgram" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/alexbennettprogram?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
