Russian bombers come near Alaska


It’s not about benevolence. Like the founding father said, if men were angels we wouldn’t need a constitution. It’s very preamble enjoins the government to provide for the general welfare. We wouldn’t need city and county police forces if men were angels. I’m sure you heard about the recent privacy breach from the credit score company that handles the same information as banks do but without the same restrictions/regulations. Legislators are now working on new regulations for these types of companies, DJT and his opposition to regulations not withstanding. At any rate, things aren’t going to go the way that you wish for them to. In fact, there’s been 6 GOP seats that have flipped to the democrats in special elections since DJT was inaugurated, three of them in districts he handsomely carried in the 2016 election, such is the buyers remorse. Well, just look at his dismal approval rating.


Now here is where we can get to the point where the rubber meets the road. The founding documents in fact mention the ‘general welfare’ twice once in the preamble of the constitution and once in what is called the welfare clause. No one who understands the English language either then or now would give the words ‘Provide’ and ‘Promote’ the same definition. The preamble explicitly lays at the feet of the new federal government defense.(Provide for the common defense) This of course is the reason and purpose for Hamilton’s ‘strong government’ insistence (Note I did not say expansive or bit government)… the ability to extract from the states the revenue necessary to pay for defense.

The second part of that statement in the preamble is to ‘Promote’ the general welfare. Promote is not a substitute for ‘Provide’. The federal government did no real promotion of the general welfare, based on the why you are trying to use it today until the early 1900’s. Of course the excuse for the ‘reorientation’ is that the country had by that time moved to the city and the old definition did not apply anymore… (I.E. the concept of the living constitution was born).

Even within the general text the ‘general welfare’ clause was an adjunct to the taxing clause… and taxing up until the creativity of FDR remained very much in the realm of the ‘enumerated powers clause’… later vastly expanded to the ‘anything goes clause’.

Of course the progressive movement could not muster the support required to amend the constitution as called for in Article V so it just found creative ways legislatively and with the help of ‘creative judiciary’ to circumvent the constitutions actual wording. And we do know that they circumvented the black letter instruction of the constitution, otherwise Plessy v Ferguson would have never found its way into US Federal law…

This of course is where we have come to this great political divide… One group reads the Constitution (not to say that some in the republican side don’t try to bastardize it… but most of that nonsense was fixed in the 50’s and 60’s … and then their is the other group who make a living finding ways to circumvent the words and intent because they just can’t find the support in the country to change the document in the way it clearly defines…

Those GOP seats… I would hardly call them massive gains… they are all in state legislators that don’t really look in much jeopardy… Who know what will happen but you just cling to those ‘non partisan’ victories…:rofl:


A modern nation state is not going to remain in a colonial state of mind. Our constitution has been amended multiple times. As Sanders pointed out in his roll out ‘Medicare for all’ bill yesterday, we remain the only first world nation not to ensure that all its citizens have access to healthcare. Not sure how we got so far off the Russian bombers meme here.


I would respond that China’s stated horror at a “unipolar world” is totally self-serving.

If the lone remaining “superpower” were an aggressive, authoritarian state (as, for instance, with Hitler’s Germany), that would undoubtedly be true.

But if that lone superpower happens to be a benign spreader of democracy, well then, it is an entirely different matter…


Well, while I would certainly agree with you that the nature of the US isn’t anything like that of Hitler… I hesitate to use the word ‘benign’ when talking about pushing our version of democracy and its values down the throats of otherwise helpless or susceptible countries. We can certainly see where ‘nation building’ has gotten us in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nation building and taking the Monroe doctrine has always been a unifying dream of the left and with their friendly neocons on the right in support, we continue to push our nosed far to deep into the affairs of other countries in the name of ‘National Security Interests’. Nor would I see ‘spreading of democracy’ as the point issue… We have turned our heads to far to many little genocides to clam a truly altruistic motive.


Yes indeed IF!!!