On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:10:27 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:17:56 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:05:52 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:55:03 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:39:16 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:30:16 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:42:55 -0700, Rich Grise
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:28:39 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

Some control is reasonable.

Once again, who decides what level of control? Who decides whom and what
should be "controlled"? And maybe most importantly, who should do the
controlling?

Barack Obama? Rush Limbaugh? Al Gore?

You?

I'm allocated one vote, just as you are.

Ah. The Mobocracy. "Let's vote on what everybody's favorite color is!"

The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with intent to protect us
from this form of tyranny as well.


How is preventing people from harming other people tyranny? That's
been a prime function of government since there has been government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_...Welfare_Clause

I don't know what you think a discussion on taxation has to do with
your proposed and 'wished for' solution to make gambling illegal.

The issue is whether the federal government can "provide for the
general welfare", which the referenced clause relates to. Gambling
certainly contributes to government revenues, but I don't thing it
improves the general welfare.

That's not what 'general welfare' means. It's a limitation on the
Federal government and derives from, as well as being an example of,
why we don't have a (pure) 'democracy'.

Imagine if a sufficient number of States to control Congress (I.E. a
'democratic majority') banded together and then passed laws making
'the other States' pay all the taxes while the conspirators funneled
all the money to the conspiring States.

The Constitution address that concept directly. Read it.



Not exactly 'fair', wouldn't you agree?

The "General Welfare" means laws (and taxes) cannot be, to use modern
parlance, 'discriminatory'. They must be for the 'general welfare'
(meaning 'everyone in general') as opposed to a select group,
'majority' or not.

The interstate highway system is an example. All States and the people
benefit from the improved transportation system. It is good for the
"general welfare."

The notion of "stealing from the rich to give to the poor" and "we'll
make you do the right thing for your own good" as 'welfare' is a
progressive left word game perversion of the meaning and there was no
such thing as a 'welfare state' in 1792.

Congress has the constitutional power to tax and spend.

And while we're on word games, the 'rich' that Robin of Loxley and his
merry men stole from were the King's nobels and tax collectors. I.E.
the *government* that imposed unfair taxes on the people for their own
purpose and not the 'general welfare'.

You will always be closer to the original intent if you keep in mind
Jefferson's words "the government that governs least governs best"
when 'interpreting' the Constitution.

It used to be illegal in most states.

States have powers the Federal government does not.

But Federal powers always prevail. And the Commerce Clause packs a lot
of power.


John