Moving toward a totalitarian government
A dangerous lack of oversight on the unchecked powers of the presidency is taking us very close to a totalitarian government. Please take your Constitutional protection responsibilities seriously and reverse any acts that allow unfettered violations of Americans constitutional rights. You can start by replacing Habeas Corpus in our society where it belongs. And please, please don’t permit “temporary” laws that plunder our rights to become permanent.
This letter has not been edited.
BBBbbut god appointed Bush
Posted by on September 26, 2007 02:17 PMTotalitarian? Just wait and see what HillaryCare looks like.
Posted by Hank on September 26, 2007 02:22 PMDaryl:
When I read your comment my first thoughts were that you were from Boulder.
Did you recently move from there? If not, they would welcome you.
I, like any law abiding citizen, have nothing to fear. If you are intent on being a terrorist you have much to fear, as you should.
Posted by Don Evans on September 26, 2007 02:27 PMWIthout checks on power, who knows who should be afraid. Don is way too trurting.
Posted by on September 26, 2007 02:46 PMTo arms! To arms! A dictatorship is nigh! Why, next the tyrants will be telling us that when you catch fire you should stop, drop, and roll! Oh, the humanity!
Oh we are so very close to a totalitarian dictatorship. That's why this kind of nonsense can be written in a full public dialoge without fear of retribution of any sort (other than being recognized as a moron). Some people can look at a garden and see nothing but snakes. If you want to see a real dictatorship, I suggest you look at Myanmar, Syria, Iran, etc.
Posted by Neal5x5 on September 26, 2007 02:56 PMDon Evans,
The civilians in 1930s Germany were also told that if they were "law abiding citizens" they would have nothing to worry about.
When I read your commentary my first thought was that you're probably from Colorado Springs - Did you recently move from there? If not, they would welcome you.
Posted by drew on September 26, 2007 03:13 PMThe letter writer is correct.
And after replacing Habeas Corpus (he's that disgruntled employee, right?) the second thing we should do is overturn all laws that restrict access to guns and interfere with me exercising my 2nd Amendment rights.
Enough is enough!
Posted by KW on September 26, 2007 04:03 PMUnile Hugo Chavez, Bush has not demanded he rule by decree, take over media,education and chasnged the clocks!
Posted by tj on September 26, 2007 04:04 PMNEW YORK -- A St. John's University student, and member of the SJU Democrat Club with a suspected history of mental problems, was arrested on the Queens campus with a rifle and a Halloween-style mask, possibly of President Bush, police said Wednesday.
A campus security officer, a student and a cadet taking courses at Queens’s campus tackled Hiraman. Police sources said Hiraman was wearing a black hooded sweatshirt, camouflage pants, a DNC sweatshirt and the cut mask.
----
The student tackler must have been a Republican who knew the the SJU campus was not a "NUT-FREE-ZONE."
I am so glad to hear liberals crying about our Constitution. The problem is that they are crying about the wrong things. Our Constitution allows for the suspension of Habeas Corpus during invasion or insurrection.
But, it does not allow for Social Security, extreme gun control, MediCare, MediCaid, the FDA, the Dept. of Education, universal health care, the Fairness Doctrine, public financing of presidential campaigns or the abolishment of the electoral college.
So, in the spirit of loyalty to our Constitution, how many liberals will back off the programs that I just listed?
Posted by John II on September 26, 2007 05:56 PMHank - Come on now! You can tell your story is bogus because schools are gun free zones.
No ones going to break the law and bring a gun on campus, thats what laws are for. You know, preventing crime.
Aren't they?
Posted by KW on September 26, 2007 05:57 PMAnd all along I've been told that fear only comes from the right side of the aisle.....
Now I don't know what to believe! LOL
Posted by RU Serious on September 26, 2007 06:01 PMjohnni 2 boy
"Social Security, extreme gun control, MediCare, MediCaid, the FDA, the Dept. of Education, universal health care, the Fairness Doctrine, public financing of presidential campaigns or the abolishment of the electoral college."
GENERAL WELFARE GENERAL WELFARE GENERAL WELFARE GENERAL WELFARE GENERAL WELFARE GENERAL WELFARE GENERAL WELFARE GENERAL WELFARE GENERAL WELFARE GENERAL WELFARE GENERAL WELFARE GENERAL WELFARE GENERAL WELFARE GENERAL WELFARE GENERAL WELFARE GENERAL WELFARE
Posted by on September 26, 2007 06:19 PMMorons,
The USA no longer is a democracy, we have no privacy, we have no protected rights, The people who rule get what they want not the majority, A USA democracy is a thing of the past as much as is the middle class. It took Bush only 6 years to destroy the US! Congrats on the quick work, daddy and big business are proud of you!!!
Posted by on September 26, 2007 06:22 PMcongress is the biggest threat to american freedoms, a president can only server 8 years, while members of congress serve forever, how long has that murderer from Mass. being in congress, or look at all the repubs who have been in for decades, who disrespect the desires of their constituients, and push ahead with their own totaltaian ideas, like taking away child raising from the parents and give it to the state...hmm sounds just like nazi germany in the 30s and 40s....and of course taking away gun ownership from the law-abidding so only the criminal will have them and then pampering the criminals in prison...free tv, free education, free meals, and they do not have to work to earn any of this because it is against their (the criminals) rights. It is time to outlaw the democratic and republican parties.
Posted by on September 26, 2007 06:30 PMPat Bowlen, a Canadian citizen received the biggest welfare payment in the history of Colorado.
He's always attending Republican political events, but he's Canadian!
Republicans are the biggest hippocrates on the planet.
Posted by rick on September 26, 2007 06:35 PMI prefer "American Taliban". Its too bad we don't have a state congressional rep with the requisite backbone, to throw-out Webb's illegal contract with foreign nationals (Mile High NAFTA Stadium). The US Congress and Oval Office are the sole authorities to execute foreign trade agreements. The "only" other American who can even lawfully consider this reckless mis-appropriation, is the person (secy.) holding the office of USDOL-Office of Federal Contracting Compliance Programs-OFCCP must approve all contracts (taxpayer funds) with foreign nationals.
Ritter and Skaggs, should both be introduced to CFR-29/41, FAR, and USDOL-OFCPP VETS-100 reports. Like Webb, this duo also violated state and federal appropriation laws (procurement, hiring, and contracting), regarding contracting with foreign nationals. It is scandolous CCD is contracting with Iranians (Persians) and Metro State College (MSC) with criminal illegal Hindu-Indians. These illegals are stealing jobs and contracts, and illegally displacing qualified American workers. Ritter and Skaggs are clearly BENEDICT ARNOLDS.
Posted by draftdodgingisntafamilyvalue on September 26, 2007 07:03 PMNot to worry, our Corporate leaders will provide for us, as soon as that pesky "Constitution" is finally dead and our government and corporations are bonded together and running things.
Oops, my bad.
That's fascism.
Posted by dmz on September 26, 2007 07:52 PMdmz; "...as soon as that pesky "Constitution" is finally dead and our government and corporations are bonded together and running things."
Isn't this the way things are now?
Posted by on September 26, 2007 07:56 PMWell, i see where Old Johnny (2) One Note is tooting the horn for the Chiseled in Stone Constitution and Fossilized State of the Union that is his sole and only contribution to any debate, discussion, or exposition of political thought or ideas.
Never mind reality. Never mind the inherent process of Amendment that has taken place a goodly number of times already, and - contrary to Johnny(2) One Note's presentation - could be used again to do away with the electoral college if enough States ratified such an Amendment - as it has already been used in formating all the things Johnny(2) One Note claims are not supposed to be in existence.
And, of course, never mind the fact that the Supreme Court is the 3rd part of the system of checks and balances contained in the Constitution - which together form our governmental function - empowered to rule on the Constitutionality of the Statutes which have established all the programs Johnny(2) One Note says are not allowed.
Never mind the waste of time, effort, and energy spent in demanding assent to the assertion that the clock stopped in the 18th Century; and all U.S. Government necessarily stopped there as well. Johnny (2) One Note says it - as he has been saying it, and keeps on saying it despite its foolishness, and useless waste of breath, for a long time now - and that's that! And, he can quote a whole bunch of 18th Century writers to "prove it", too.
Someone once said something to the effect that" "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." That of course, assumes at least something of a mind being there in the first place.
But, for those who have nothing better to do, playing 18th Century American is something to while away the long hours of the night, I guess. So, the rest of us can all leave this nonsense to the insomniacs. At least it keeps them out of the bars, and off the streets.
Don't expect to learn anything; or solve any real problems - especially not those of the current 21st Century. But then Johhy (2) One Note has never offered a solution to any real problem yet - at least as long as I've been reading him. Vetoing the forward movement of time has no provision for constructive thought anyway.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 26, 2007 08:09 PMOld Grouch,
You have, yet again, posted a long-winded post about me without offering any facts to back up your statements. If there is evidence in the Constitution for any of the programs and proposals I have mentioned, please cite it; otherwise, drink your glass of warm milk and go to bed.
Posted by John II on September 26, 2007 08:32 PMBe vigilant about your freedoms and vote Democratic. Because the only freedom that the G.O.P. cares about is the freedom to bear arms. Everything else is just a mere inconvenience in the sad and pathetic mind of the Republican voter.
Posted by Sean on September 26, 2007 09:03 PMWhat about the 10th Amendment, Sean? Will the Democrats protect that vital amendment?
Posted by John II on September 26, 2007 09:11 PMJohn2,
There isn't space enough here for the nearly 250+ years of Amendments, Case Law, and Decisions that make up the evidence and facts YOU so cavalierly dismess as not being existent. The only place that the facts do not exist is in your own imagination.
As I said, your game is one for insomniacs, with nothing better to do. And, at least it will keep you - and anyone playing it with you - out of the bars, and off the streets. So, one may concede that some good comes of it anyway.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 26, 2007 09:11 PMSo, again Old Grouch, you have failed to provide a single amendment, section, article or clause that backs up any of your opposition to any of my assertions.
Posted by John II on September 26, 2007 09:30 PMGun-free zones are another way of saying a Target-Rich Environment.
Posted by on September 26, 2007 10:10 PM6:19
The only GENERAL WELFARE allowed by the Constitution is contained in the Constitution itself.
Nowhere does it mention "Social Security, extreme gun control, MediCare, MediCaid, the FDA, the Dept. of Education, universal health care, the Fairness Doctrine, public financing of presidential campaigns or the abolishment of the electoral college."
Step by step, law by law, we slip into the morass of socialism. The coup de gras will be social health care. Government control of the length of our lives.
Then all these true believers in the purity of socialism can do what they want to do. Round up the religious and those who disagree. But some of you will join us in the gulag comrade, perhaps we could play some bridge if its allowed.
just imagine all the numbers of folks now on social security the government could just let die while standing in line for all that free socialized medicine. then at last social security will once again be solvent, that is unless congress uses it for something else, like maybe new condos for their whores.
Posted by on September 27, 2007 06:58 AMyou want to stop socail security? Fine, I'm 56 and have been paying into it for 40 years. Give me what i paid in and I'll be content to never receive a SS check. Or is bush just going the way opf all his corporate buddies and screwing the people who were told they had a retirement fund...but the CEO s decided to keep it for themselves.
Posted by Show me the Money on September 27, 2007 07:12 AMAn American, Keith and the rest of the rightwingers are always calling their opponents ‘america haters’, But what is it about America that the Republicans love because your rhetoric is always full of hatred. You accuse everyone with differing views than yours of ‘hating America’ Yet you are the ones who hate Democrats, you hate Liberals, you hate social programs, you hate helping the poor, you hate helping the sick, you hate helping the elderly, you hate children, you hate the Middle class, you hate the working class, you hate women in politics, you hate gays, you hate blacks, you hate Hispanics, you hate the idea of paying taxes except for your own agenda ( one could argue the war you support is a large scale social program…for Iraq). Is there anything you like about America except that it protects big business and guns? Is money and guns your sole reason for existence?
Posted by USA on September 27, 2007 07:21 AMHey Kids!
Tired of not fitting in? Do you sometimes get the cold shoulder from popular people?
Well, those days will be over when you get my book:
Cool Words that will impress your Posse!
You will learn really hip words that are so right now, it will make you the life of the party! Especially the Socialist party!
You will learn how to interject words like "fascist" or "nativist" into almost any conversation. Words like "racist" or "xenophobe" will be at your command to stop any argument, right now!
Now you can use phrases like "totalitarian government" on conservative old white dudes and watch 'em squirm! You will have the power of words at last!
Get my book today!
Bravo, truthy! My favorite is when a socialist calls someone a Nazi.
Posted by Tom on September 27, 2007 07:56 AM"you want to stop socail security? Fine, I'm 56 and have been paying into it for 40 years. Give me what i paid in and I'll be content to never receive a SS check."
What you paid in has already been dispersed to those who already retired. I'd love to get back what I paid in as well.
Under Mr. Bush's plan, you would have been able to keep your SS checks. I believe the cutoff date was 40 or 45. Under that age, your private account kicks in.
Posted by John II on September 27, 2007 08:14 AMTom,
right you are, reps have been slipping towards fascism for years.
The game continues, and only the players names change.
Will we never change? Or at least learn from others mistakes?
Posted by dmz on September 27, 2007 08:23 AMDaryl is another victim of liberal propanganda.
Posted by Keith on September 27, 2007 09:00 AMdmz,
Can you name three laws or proposals by Democrats that do not involve more government control, more regulation, and more acquisition of tax dollars? Can you name three laws or proposals by Democrats that gives tax money back to taxpayers instead of taking it from them?
Posted by John II on September 27, 2007 09:00 AMScrew the constitution. There is only ONE Amenment that matters, the 2nd Amendment. Give us our gund!
Posted by Keith on September 27, 2007 09:22 AM"Fascism" the principles of an Italian political organization headed by Mussolini...that advocated nationalism, a centralized dictatorial regime, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition...
People like to bandy words for visceral reaction with exclusion of their meaning. I gotta say, I am a nationalist. I am proud to be an American. But the rest of the definition of Fascism is an anathema to any freedom loving American as myself. "Congress shall pass no laws....." I wish that were true. Legalize freedom.
Hows that for the kettle calling the pot black.
More leftist exaggeratted propaganda.
Totalitarian Gverment is the liberals and Democrats goal. Their agendas resemble the Former Soviet Unions blueprint.
Look at Hillary's socialized heath care plan and their obsession with big govermert controlling every aspect of our lives. They claim to know what is best for us. Too bad these leftist elitists do not abide by the rules they mandate for the citizens.
Daryl Shute is your typical lets call them what we really are first and hopefully the "Masses will buy into it. The big lie theory at work
Everything the left has pushed in this country is lies built upon lies and classic Karl Marx
The funny thing is that this turn towards totalitarianism is mainly driven by women. Public schools are turning out more and more strong, socialist girls, while at the same time turning out more wimpy boys.
Look at this photo: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5708731,00.html
The boys are holding the banner while the girls take the leadership role. I'm sure many women applaud this type of pussification of American boys, but do we really want a nation of wimpy men?
Posted by John II on September 27, 2007 11:06 AMTruthy, that was a funny one for sure.
John II, those Boulder kids are definitely "Useful Idiots".
Did anyone see recently how Bush was briefing Hillary on the handling of the Iraq war, as if she has already been ordained the next president. Just goes to show, it doesn't matter if a Republican or Democrat is in the White House, they all have the same agenda: Global Corporatism, under the guise of 'free trade'. www.ronpaul2008.org
John II - You silly rabbit.
Don't you understand that everything about the male species is bad and wrong and must be changed.
God has made a dredful mistake in our creation.
We should be thankful women in this country have stepped up and showed us the error of our ways.
Soon, we can all just blend in with the ladies.
Posted by KW on September 27, 2007 11:26 AMKeith, I wish your mom was pro-choice and acted on it!
Posted by Terry on September 27, 2007 12:55 PMOld Grouch are you a Communist? Socialist?
What exactly are your political beliefs when it involves the good ole U.S. of A?
Knowing Old Grouch's posts I'd say he is probably someone who believes in our Constitution - remember that yellowing piece of paper that Bush wipes his ass on each day?
Posted by drew on September 27, 2007 02:25 PMdrew,
Can you name a single instance where Old Grouch cited a specific section of our Constitution? All he says is that it's a "living document". What does that mean?
Posted by John II on September 27, 2007 02:39 PMJust Wondering,
I have stated on several ocassions that I consider myself to be a Constitutional Conservative. I belong to the Democratic Party, and usually vote a fairly straight ticket.. And, while I have in the course of my 78+ years studied both Communism and Socialism, I do not hold to either of those philosophies, or political/social theories.
And, neither does the Democratic party hold to them, in spite of the insulting aspersions of the spokes-persons for Republicanism/"conservatisim" so often thrown round on these postings.
What "political beliefs" do you imagine I have?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 27, 2007 03:47 PMJohn 2,
I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt, and observe that your attempts at humor are not all that successful.
On the other hand, your last posting is one that leaves me with little choice than to just dismiss you as arrogantly stupid.
I illustrated what I meant by "living document" above. Obviously you either did not bother to read it, or you lack the simple ability to comprehend what you read. However, in the interests of simply getting your nonsense out of the way, I'll repeat, as simply as possible.
The Constitution is a living document in that it contains its own inherent process of Amendment and change, a process which has been used some 35, or so, times in the past 200+ years, to keep the Constitution current with the changes in the whole of human affairs that have taken place in that time. For a specific example: The Senate of the United States was originally constituted of members appointed by the States. Presently, by Amendment, the Senators are elected by the citizens of the States, rather than holding office by appointment.
The Constitution is a living document in that it contains provision for 3 branches of Federal Government, each of which has place in a system of checks and balances that maintains the Union as a whole. Part of the function of the Supreme Court, is that of determining the Constitutionality of Statutes, both Federal and State, and whether or not such are enforcable through the Courts as Laws. These Supreme Court decisions have affirmed the inherent nature of the Constitution as the framework upon which the Union depends for Legislation, as well as having given position in, with, and under the Constitution to both Constitutional Amendments as such, and to those Statutes deriving from such Amendments as again maintain the Union as a whole.
In one you your specific statements, you indicated that it would be impossible - and/or "unconstitutional" - to do away with the electoral college. Such a statement is one of deliberate falsehood. Just as the Amendment made Senators elected rather than appointed members of Congress, so, too, an Amendment, when ratified by the States, can do away with the electoral college, and have the President and Vice President also directly elected by the people. That no such Amendment is presently in the offing, is no indication of any impossibility of its existence in the future.
You may disagree with the idea that the Constitution is a living document. You may - as you do - deny that such a statement is legitimate. And, your right to that opinion is, of course, not at issue. However, I think it is about time you stopped asserting that I have not given evidence of what I mean when I present the position, just because you are not able to understand simple English.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 27, 2007 04:24 PMOld Grouch,
Either you suffer from severe amnesia or you are a liar. You have maintained numerous times that the Constitution is a living document in the sense that it's words can be interpreted differently depending on the times.
Now, you are simply saying that it's a living document because we can add amendments to it. Give me a break.
Which amendment would you like to add to the Constitution? A universal health care amendment? A Social Security amendment? A medicare/medicaid amendment? No. You are perfectly content twisting the existing words of the Constitution to suit your socialistic ideology without worrying about the amendment part.
"You may disagree with the idea that the Constitution is a living document."
How could I possibly disagree now when you've conveniently redefined the term living document as a euphemism for the amendment process?
Old Grouch, are you being a potty-mouth? What was that big talk you posted in “Bill Clinton”;
“I see that you have chosen to join the claque surrounding "AnAmerican" and that ilk - those who use vitruperative insults, along with potty-mouth additions - as their only response to positions, ideas, and presentations other than their own ignorant and nasty minded rants and juvenile posturings.”
Now you talk like this;
“On the other hand, your last posting is one that leaves me with little choice than to just dismiss you as arrogantly stupid.” – and you’re the one questioning other’s credibility? May be you should look into the mirror more often before lecturing others about something you are just as guilty of.
Uno,
If you bother to read what is written, you will, perhaps, notice that the individual to whom the remark was made constantly insists that there has been no reply to his postings. He does this even when a clear and distinct reply is on the website, staring him in the face.
(And, he has been in the habit of this kind of response for as long as I've been coming to the site.)
As with a confrere of his, he has established an imaginary set of "definitions", to which every response must conform, regardless of whether or not the imaginary definition has any general use, or even resemblance to that which others find in the dictionary.
No matter what the response be, if it does not fit into the fantasy he himself insists is the sole and only way by which to deal with the Constitution, he keeps on demanding that the responding person agree with him, and respond only in his terms. Evidence of this can be found in the posting immediately preceding yours on the line.
He begins with the false asertion that I have said something I have not said. I have always maintained the position that the Constitution is a "living document" because it contains its own inherent processes for change. And, I have alway indicated that these processes are exactly what they are, Amendment and action by the Supreme Court.
He then goes on to set up a whole series of straw-men. These have nothing at all to do with the matter of whether or not the Constitution is a "living document" as such; simply because any one, or all, could be enacted by way of the process. Whether or not I, personally, support any one of them is totally irrelevant.
I gave an example of the change by Amendment, that of Senatorial election, rather than appointment. He had asked for "evidence", as well as indicating that the electoral college could not be abolished. It is a matter of simple truth that the one - Senatorial election - is there; just as it is a matter of simple truth that by that same inherent process - Amendment - the electoral college can be done away with.
His response is to go off on a rant about what he calls my "socialist ideology", and my "twisting words". In so doing, he completely ignores the factual evidence concerning the matter of the Supreme Court, and its part in the whole matter of Law. - something he always seems to refuse to admit in his own imaginary set of "definitions" concerning the Constitution.
I happen to live in the real world, that of the 21st Century, today. There, the imagination and fantasy that forms the fundamental structure of his little "game" are just that, imagination and fantasy. And, I long ago tired of that "game", as it is both useless and pointless, as well as a waste of time, energy, and effort.
Finally, he simply reduces everything I have said to what he calls a "euphemism". Which, in his fantasy and imagination, it must be, since it does not conform to his "definitions" of what "ought to be", to play his game, according to his rules.
Well and good. My opinion of that is that it is altogether arrogant stupidity. And that being said, you may react as you please.
There is a difference between the word, "stupid", and a series of symbols intended to convey words that other lines, or websites, censor as profane. The use of those is commonly called "potty-mouth". I don't think you will find me generally using that form of presentation. But, of course, as with the individual you are so vigorously defending, you may, of course, have your own definition. That's your problem.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 28, 2007 10:37 AMOld Grouch,
If your new definition of "living document" is simply a reference to the amendment process (which, by the way, didn't need a new euphemism), can you please describe how the concept of a living document justifies a federal program such as Social Security? Which amendment authorizes such a program?
By the way, Old "Dodger" Grouch, here's Wikipedia's definition of a "living Constitution":
"In United States legal discourse, the Living Constitution is a theory of constitutional interpretation which premises that the Constitution is, to some degree, dynamic. As the direct counter to originalism, which centers on meaning at the time of ratification, the theory of a "living" Constitution suggests a founding document that remains interdependent with an evolving society. Its proponents thus argue that societal progress must be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases."
That is very similar to a previous definition you gave a couple of months ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution
Posted by John II on September 28, 2007 11:25 AMJohn 2,
I don't happen to take my thinking from Tinky- Winkypedia. I took my Constitutional Law classes from a Professor who had been a clerk for Mr. Justice Hugo Black, long before the "do-it-yourself-encyclopedia" was even imagined.
Besides which, acting by way of the inherent processes - to amend, and to have the Supreme Court establish the enforcement of Amendments and Statutes - is, simply, one way of "taking into account societeal progress", as well as affirming that the document "remains interdependent with an evolving society".
So, you cannot recognize synonymous thinking and presentation; and/or undersand, much less assimilate, the use of metaphor, or simile, when you encounter it. You object to the phrase, or description, simply because it IS the REAL WORLD'S 21st Century way of both action and description; rather than that of your own fantasy and imagination of how things "ought to be". That's not my problem; and is not worth wasting my time on.
Your opinion is noted.
Now go play your imaginary game of "The Constitution As It Ought To Be, According to John 2", with someone who wants to waste the time, effort, and energy on you.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 28, 2007 12:05 PMAnonymous 10;43 PM
"The only GENERAL WELFARE allowed by the Constitution is contained in the Constitution itself. Nowhere does it mention "Social Security, extreme gun control, MediCare, MediCaid, the FDA, the Dept. of Education, universal health care, the Fairness Doctrine, public financing of presidential campaigns or the abolishment of the electoral college."
Most of the topics covered in the second paragraph above have been successfully defended before the US Supreme Court as falling within the encompassing term, "General Welfare."
Posted by darfor on September 29, 2007 08:00 AM