J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
SNIP

Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is
necessarily
a
good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.
This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence
cannot
add to the GDP.
The effect is indirect.


But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".
Comes under "promote the general welfare".


That language comes from the preamble to the constitution,
which,
despite what some people including apparently you believe,
does
NOT
grant the federal government any power.
No, it gives them a duty. The power to perform that duty is
implied.
Are you saying that the Federal government is _forbidden_ to
enact
legislation that is beneficial to the economy?

Yes.
So you are saying then that any piece of legislation must be
carefully evaluated for its effect on the economy and any that is
found to be beneficial must not be enacted? Would that not mean
then that they would be obligated to err on the side of caution
and
only pass legislation that they were sure was _damaging_ to the
economy?

Or are you so naive as to believe that passing a budget for the
Federal government will have _no_ effect on the economy?
I am saying that it is illegal for the Federal government to act
without having *specific* permission to do so in the matter at
hand
in the Constitution. Examples of things where no such permission
is granted: Economic regulation, Education, Research, Healthcare,
Welfare, etc. Example of things specifically permitted: Defense
of the borders, running the courts, interstate commerce, running
the post office, etc.
And you of course have Supreme Court rulings to support this
argument. I didn't think so. Hint--the fact that you _think_
something is unlawful doesn't make it so.

SCOTUS is not the law of the land. The Constitution is. The fact
that activist judges (on both sides of the political divide) have
granted themselves power
to make law in their own image does not make it right.

So let's see, we've on the one hand got the opinions of a group of
experienced jurists, whose Constitutionally mandated job it is to
intrpret the Constitution and apply it as required to existing
statutes and case law, and on the other hand we've got the opinion of
some guy nobody ever heard of posting on USENET.

So who ya gonna believe?

Now you're talking "does not make it right". If you had taken that
tack you might have gotten more support, but you didn't, instead you
claimed "Illegal".


OK, you win.