"We expect politicians to exaggerate, distort and mislead when they are campaigning.... But once they get in office, we should expect them to remember the difference between politicking and reality" - oh, really? who is "we", Nutting? I expect, and indeed DEMAND quite the opposite from politicians, what shit hole do you have your head stuck in? you sound like a typical, demoralized apologist for imperial status quo - it is good to know one's own constitution, and it is even better to understand it in comparative relation to other nations of the world
it is the whole nuomenal assumption that the real meaning or 'intent' of the constitution can only be rendered through a lens of expertise not present in the voters themselves, i.e. the words may be interpreted with both hermeneutic freedom and contemporary prejudices! the explicitly opposite view to the one held by Jefferson and Madison, who intended for the constitution to be the 'common sense' of the country, understood by all citizens, as also to restrain government from crossing the boundary described (by Jefferson) as "the consent of the governed" - one has to be incredibly obtuse or operating from undisclosed motives to deny the minarchic essence of the constitution, its' zealous protection of individual liberties, especially from state infringement, made explicit in reserving ALL powers to the people not expressly granted to government
the implication here is that the 'tea party' right wing (loosely libertarian, but certainly not "conservative" as Nutting assumes) is professing a phony ideology for the purpose of winning votes, and what they really 'mean' is at least deceitful, if not nefarious - so this editorializing effort is to defend the accumulation of statism under "provide for... the general welfare", and to deny the people the right to tell their government what THEY see in the constitution, to tell their government what THEY mean by "provide for... the general welfare", to decide what constitutes a "necessary" condition for legislation, and what makes it "proper" as relating to the constitutional whole
as a point of clarity, the preamble refers to "provide for common defense, and promote the general welfare", so the distinction between "provide" and "promote" may not be glossed, whereas in article 1.8 regarding the power to impose taxes, levies, excise, etc. the word "provide" is used for both "defense" and "welfare" (d-uh! obviously) - like I said, one has to stretch way out into bewildering realms of un-americanity to construe this constitution as the presumptive platform for a welfare-warfare imperial machine! it is a GROSS misunderstanding, and the American people are not having it any more, simple
NO one can make me believe that the impoverishment of black people from a rising 4% of GDP share to less than a falling 0.1% of GDP share is a case of "effectively promote the general welfare"! or, that it was "necessary", or that it was "proper" - people like Nutting have to realize that their beloved government programs like Medicaid and Social Security mean nothing to 21st century people, who want freedom, opportunity, wealth, growth, in short capitalism! they have seen through the "progressive" propaganda and now realize it is the same statist 'friends and family' plan as ever, great if you happen to be "in", and really sucky if you're out
what is "necessary" and what is "proper" are not abstracts to be painted like Picasso renders a blank canvas; they are contained within a conceptual framework that is not horizontally "broad" but rather vertically "deep", in divine humanism
ReplyDelete