TexasCHLforum.com

"General welfare" means precisely what those in power think it means or want it to mean. Be they Conservative or Liberal, strict constructionists or flexible constructionists. Nothing more, and nothing less. On occasion it will mean what I would like it to mean; other days it will mean something quite different. It's meaning is momentary and elusive, as are so many things in our great Constitution, be that a weakness or a strength of that document. I am not so arrogant that I can say, with the assurance others seem to have, just what it means.

Jim

b322da wrote:"General welfare" means precisely what those in power think it means or want it to mean. Be they Conservative or Liberal, strict constructionists or flexible constructionists. Nothing more, and nothing less. On occasion it will mean what I would like it to mean; other days it will mean something quite different. It's meaning is momentary and elusive, as are so many things in our great Constitution, be that a weakness or a strength of that document. I am not so arrogant that I can say, with the assurance others seem to have, just what it means.

Jim

Do you apply the same reason and logic to the Second Amendment?

Dave2 wrote:TAM for president!

Thanks Dave, but you don't want me:

1. I don't want the job.
2. I used to smoke a lot of dope.
3. I inhaled every time I smoked it.
4. I'll tell everyone the truth as I see it - even when it hurts their feelings (I don't care if it hurts me).
5. I don't want the job.
6. Did I mention that I don't want the job?

Why do I not want the job? Because Americans are not ready for someone who doesn't care what anyone knows about his past, and who will tell them the unvarnished truth about themselves. Americans would much rather be lied to by Ken-Dolls, which is why they keep RE-electing lying Ken-Dolls.

The new Congressional majority is not starting off on the right foot with me and the continued bullying against the Tea Party just may do in the Republican party for me.

anygunanywhere wrote:

b322da wrote:"General welfare" means precisely what those in power think it means or want it to mean. Be they Conservative or Liberal, strict constructionists or flexible constructionists. Nothing more, and nothing less. On occasion it will mean what I would like it to mean; other days it will mean something quite different. It's meaning is momentary and elusive, as are so many things in our great Constitution, be that a weakness or a strength of that document. I am not so arrogant that I can say, with the assurance others seem to have, just what it means.

Jim

Do you apply the same reason and logic to the Second Amendment?

With the greatest of respect for those who disagree with me, of course I do, and legislative and judicial history prove my point absolutely. If one thinks the 2nd means more than the various legislatures and courts of the states and the national government say it means any particular day they are deluding themselves and others. My statement here is intended to be practical, not philosophical. OCT, for example, says, at least says, that the 2nd means more than it has been held to mean, thus far, and only thus far, by those in power. Ask him who openly carries a non-exempt unauthorized handgun in Texas what the amendment means to him today, in fact, as the jailhouse door slams shut.

When I am displeased with the law as laid down by legislatures and courts, particularly when I am of the firm opinion that that law is contrary to the Constitution, I try my best, in what I consider to be a reasonable and convincing manner, to see the law changed. I feel I would accomplish little by telling the powers that be "but this is Amurrica!" -- not a very convincing argument.

I am discussing not what is right and wrong; I am discussing power.

Jim

PS I edit this to add that I recognize the effectiveness, and correctness, at times, of nonviolent protest, even to the extent of violating a law believed to be unconstitutional, when the protester expects to be, and is prepared to be, arrested and imprisoned in order to test that law. But, as our mentor Chas. has recently said, "bad cases make bad law." It is equally true that "good cases make good law." So one must pick his case with care and put his money where his mouth is.

Doesn't matter if you study and work hard kids, the State has you covered so just sit back and relax. If this Program doesn't give you a sense of accomplishment and instill responsibility we will lower it further until everyone is "educated" and has a warm fuzzy feeling about themselves. It's Free. Life is good. Everybody wins.

b322da wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

b322da wrote:"General welfare" means precisely what those in power think it means or want it to mean. Be they Conservative or Liberal, strict constructionists or flexible constructionists. Nothing more, and nothing less. On occasion it will mean what I would like it to mean; other days it will mean something quite different. It's meaning is momentary and elusive, as are so many things in our great Constitution, be that a weakness or a strength of that document. I am not so arrogant that I can say, with the assurance others seem to have, just what it means.

Jim

Do you apply the same reason and logic to the Second Amendment?

With the greatest of respect for those who disagree with me, of course I do, and legislative and judicial history prove my point absolutely. If one thinks the 2nd means more than the various legislatures and courts of the states and the national government say it means any particular day they are deluding themselves and others. My statement here is intended to be practical, not philosophical. OCT, for example, says, at least says, that the 2nd means more than it has been held to mean, thus far, and only thus far, by those in power. Ask him who openly carries a non-exempt unauthorized handgun in Texas what the amendment means to him today, in fact, as the jailhouse door slams shut.

When I am displeased with the law as laid down by legislatures and courts, particularly when I am of the firm opinion that that law is contrary to the Constitution, I try my best, in what I consider to be a reasonable and convincing manner, to see the law changed. I feel I would accomplish little by telling the powers that be "but this is Amurrica!" -- not a very convincing argument.

I am discussing not what is right and wrong; I am discussing power.

Jim

PS I edit this to add that I recognize the effectiveness, and correctness, at times, of nonviolent protest, even to the extent of violating a law believed to be unconstitutional, when the protester expects to be, and is prepared to be, arrested and imprisoned in order to test that law. But, as our mentor Chas. has recently said, "bad cases make bad law." It is equally true that "good cases make good law." So one must pick his case with care and put his money where his mouth is.