Scott Brown Wins the People's Seat!!

Nope. I am willing to bet it falls under the promotion of the general welfare.

 

I hate to say it, but I agree with MP on this one. Though MP is bringing it up for the wrong reasons.

Why are we celebrating the election of a pro-abortion candidate? Personally, the issue of abortion trumps all other issues. I'd rather live in a country with socialized medicine and have abortion illegal. I rather pay higher taxes and make it illegal to kill innocent children. I'd give up every penny I make in order to stop abortion in this country.

 

And you would be wrong. General welfare has nothing to do with giving individuals healthcare or any other entitlement program.

Two important issues come into play here: The first is the common definition of both general and welfare.

The second is to which body or entity this clause applies.

Let's look at the first, shall we?

General: “involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole”

Welfare: “the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity.”

Source: (http://www.merriam-webster.com)

, the Constitution states that the US government will promote the state of well being, happiness and prosperity for the whole. Those in defense of the expansion of Federal power (and what are now defined as Federal “welfare” programs and entitlement programs) stop there and are satisfied with this generic application of such a definition. However, in order to completely understand the meaning and intended purpose of this clause, you must define who or what makes up the “whole”. In other words, to whom does the General Welfare clause apply?

Article 1, Section 8:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

This section specifically defines to which body or entity the general welfare clause is to apply. Since the United States is specifically made up of the States themselves, this clause applies to the States as a whole and not the People. The Constitution addresses specific entities throughout the document. The People as an entity are only addressed twice in the main body of the US Constitution and in no case does the General Welfare clause apply to the People specifically. However, the Constitution does specifically define the rights which are to be retained by the People, as you can see in the following constitutional amendments. Notice the 10th Amendment.

Amendment I
“…or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”

Amendment II
“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Amendment IV
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,…”

Amendment IX
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Amendment X
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Amendment XVII
“…elected by the people thereof…”

“…That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election…”

The General Welfare clause applies to the States of the Union, not to the People. However, it is certainly in the best interest of the People if the General Welfare of the states is promoted. Further, even if this clause was determined that it did apply to the people specifically, it is clear that any benefit or enhanced well being should be general or applied to the whole and not a select few.

 

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” - James Madison

 

"General welfare" also then means the "right" to a car, cell phone, microwave oven, and pretty much everything else deemed "necessities"--all at the expense of folks that are responsible enough to provide for their own.

Oh, and on a shift in subject...check out Obama's comments on the election:

SOURCE

Only a freedom-despising socialist would be "frustrated" and "not pleased" when the people have spoken. Is there any doubt whatsoever that he is much more concerned about his agenda than what the American people want? I guess Obama would rather be pleased...and have the people ignored. What an arrogant buffoon.

 

So let me get this straight. The American Religious Right now thinks it is good when a pro-abortion, pro-gay civil union former nude model is elected to the Senate?

 

If that is what you are getting out of this then your agenda is clear. However, the nude thing was an act in college. So since you bring it up where does he stand currently on that?

 

Was Coakley any less pro-abortion?

 

It's not that I'm enthusiastic about Brown, as much as I'm more pleased that the healthcare takeover (among possibly other socialistic endeavors) are derailed through Brown's election.

Frankly, that will probably mean less abortions, since we're not setting up a system to provide them for people.

 

Well, at least you know he supports the right to bare arms.

 

It could be worse - he might support the Right to Arm Bears

 

In the photo he bared a lot more than his arms

 

Not the point in my mind - the point is the sheer joy the Religious Right exhibited on hearing the news of this baby killer being elected to office.

Hallelujah (not here, elsewhere) hardly seems an appropriate response.

If this were a Democrat woman who had posed nude for Pl@yboy in the 80'e does anyone really think the Religious Right would ignore it?

 

The problem is that you expect consistency! :tongue3:

But it is a sad turn of events that we are now joyful that a man of his "convictions" won.

I am glad he won simply because I think it will slow down some of the more radical parts of the President's agenda.

 

As much as I disagree with abortion and homosexuality, I'd rather have a pro-abortion, pro-gay civil union former model (he wasn't nude, by the way) who says he favors limited government and who will (presumably) vote against this health insurance monstrousity than a pro-abortion, pro-gay senator who will do whatever Oba-Mao and the Obamunists in the Senate tell her to do.

A small victory is better than a huge defeat.

 

I sure wouldn't want to be judged on things I did thirty years ago.

 

I hate the choices we often have - in this case those that Mass. had - but, like you, I'm glad and thankful it's likely to put an end to the pending health care legislation.

I long for the day when we have candidates who are for limited government and are Godly men solidly against abortion, homosexuality, and all other evils of our society. It is, of course, very troubling that Brown is a supporter of abortion and homosexuality and that will give support to those issues in the Senate.

Never the less, I praise God for all the victories - even the small ones - he gives us and for the trails and tribulations he permits us at well because they remind that we are fallen, need His grace, and yet blessed beyond merit in so many ways.

 

Oh really? The pics are already back everywhere.

Be that as it may, and I somewhat agree on the time frame, but if this were a Democrat woman who had posed for Pl@yboy we would not see this kind of forgiving spirit.

So it is okay to support a limited government baby killer now?

 

That is the point here Tom, what bothers me is not his victory, but that fact that so many Christians are literally rejoicing in this as a wonderful thing.

How can it be wonderful that yet another baby killer is elected?

 

I don't know that he's actually killed any babies, but abortion is not the only issue for me so, yes, I'm OK with electing someone who's pro-abortion in some cases.