very scared and very reactive. Its kind of sad really.

I don't know who the person is that wrote this vicious screed, but if he were ever to show up on here, I would hope that whoever runs this board would shut him down from the very first f-bomb. If there's one thing I have no patience for, it's fools.

Precisely what "case" are you referring to?

The Constitution is a document written on paper. Paper does not breathe and under our current definitions of life, is not living. It is one thing to speak metaphorically, it is another, and entirely absurd to entrench oneself in the insistence that paper and ink lives and breathes.

Sounds like author of this artcle is scared.

This claim is factually incorrect.

Citation please.

You may be giving undue credit. I hope he is only mistaken, but the way the article seems to unfold, sounds like he wants what he says to be true.

Leave it to the word mincers to resort to crass language like that. I'm set in my ways having gotten past that kind of crude language. I hope, for the sake of the one who wrote this article, that he/she has room for a great deal of improvement.

So tells us, which society has survived? Let's see Egypt, nope Romans did them in, Romans, nope Visigoths and others got them, Holy Roman Empire.... nope dey gone. Ok Byzantium, successors to Romans and they are gone....the Xai, Shang, Zhou, Qin, Han, gone, Jin, Sui, Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming, Qing, and the republic gone. Who's left? What society survived intact? Answer is none. What did they have in common? Slavery or the subservience of one man to another. So who determines the "common good"? The new emperor? The new dictator? You maybe?

I agree that I liked the other characters better. Francisco is my favorite because he has the most appealing personality to me. Galt, on the other hand, lacks personality.

"Necessary and proper are two very precise words."

They depend upon the premises and context a person is operating on and within.

It's either a very young company and won't be exist much longer with poor management like this, or it doesn't exist.

Re: JML's reply

"Basically when you combine the three you can argue that the Constitution states that any law the United States government makes that is "necessary ..."

This is all I could get from your post since, but from this I can respond to the gist of your argument. You can take anything from the Constitution and make any argument you want, the burden of proof still lies with the one asserting the argument. The problem does not lie in the language of these clauses. The problem lies with we the people and our failure to effectively challenge bogus arguments. Throughout this nations history there have been several suspicious challenges to federal legislation. Most recently the challenges against the Affordable Health Care Act were highly suspicious. This should have been blatantly obvious to any person of average intelligence and any person of average intelligence has the obligation to know the fundamental difference between an ex-ante argument and a ex-post argument.

Necessary and proper are two very precise words and when the federal government is able to let bogus legislation stand that is not necessary nor proper after it has been challenged in the courts, it is wise to look at who did the challenging and the arguments they made. There are no magic words that will prevent ambitious politicians from searching for loopholes and ways around Constitutional restraints. Constant vigilance by those who hold the inherent political power is necessary at all times, and it is proper.

Basically when you combine the three you can argue that the Constitution states that any law the United States government makes that is "necessary and proper" to promote the "general welfare" is justified and infallible.

Why?

The term "general welfare" should have never been written into the Constitution, as well as the necessary and proper clause and Article 6.2

where did i mention self-serving for greed? i gave several examples, it was how being taxed is self serving to maintain such things like a government or state parks.. can i not take you seriously? wait dont answer that, trolls will be trolls.

I'm not clear on what your point is with that. My statement still stands. The Preamble is fine and there is nothing wrong with how it was written. Misinterpretation is not the fault of those who drafted the Constitution.

The Constitution is not a perfect document.

There is no contradiction with the "general welfare" clause, only flawed premises in what it means. The so called "social welfare" programs today do not provide for the general welfare of the nation and have only undermined that general welfare.

The "general welfare" clauses are two mentions of a minor undefined term that contradict the rest of the document that people with an agenda attempt to use to argue their way into relevance.

As a point of law and as a matter of fact each generation is not free to decide what they consider the term "general welfare" to mean. Since the Constitution itself declines to offer up any legal definition of the term then we are obligated to look to what the term meant at the time it was written. This legal principle has long been a part of American jurisprudence, most notably in Eisner v. Macomber.

Law is not some willy nilly whatever the majority makes of it proposition and ignorantia juris non excusat!