Mav,

We have NO desire to limit freedom

Depends on your views on certain issues. Abortion, gay rights, mandatory school prayers being the "hot" topic, of course. But the conservatives propose a variety of regulations and laws that fall under the heading of "legislating morality". Liberals, of course, make similar attempts. Both philosophies seem to have bought into the idea that power flows down. Not up. A sort of social/political supply side theory.

Yeah, like labor lefties don't want more, that is a natural tendency.

Yes, it is. The degree is the issue. Do you want more as a pragmatic issue of living or more for the sake of more? Under the idea of the welfare state, the government controls the amount of "more" there is. How do you control the "more" in a quasi-capitalistic economy without a body with counterbalancing power.

You make distrust of the media sound like a bad thing.

How about uncritical trust of the media?

That's not true, we just want them to expect more of themselves than to be dependent on handouts.

First, define 'poor'. Are we talking about inadequate food (as in MDA) or not being able to afford imported caviar. Are we talking about inadequate housing or having to do a time share rather than buy a condo at the beach? I think your statement qualifies as sophistry (which is my job) tinged with classism. You assume they don't expect more of themselves. Some don't. A general rule? I'd like to see proof of that. There's also an implication that poor is a choice. Again, it may be. When the cost of living has risen 25% faster than wages, the argument is somewhat strained.

A society that does not put the welfare of its members (as in basic needs) ahead of institutional interests would seem to be morally deficient from a religious standpoint, ethically so from a philosophical one and engaging in inherently destabilizing behavior from a pragmatic stand-point. Well, that's in the Constitution. (About the love of the military)

Love of the military is in the Constitution? Missed that, somehow.

Never mind the goals, look at what they have become, mammoth tax consuming failures. I don't believe that those events would happen again nor if they were to, that government could do anything to stop it.

Is that a systemic or a programatic failure? Let's remember that a part of the administrative overhead is done to please various special interest groups. For example, if a program requires that funding not be used for pro-choice teaching programs, then the agency will have to prove such. (Trust is something Congress leaves to God and others). So you hire five people, create 50 forms and generate a report. The alternative is to be accused of violating the will of Congress. (An accusation that requires no proof at all). Do the programs fail because of inherent flaws (in that they are delivered by the government) or because we need to change how they are delivered. Under the faith based initiative, what will the requirements be? If, as proposed, a lot of the requirements and regulations are done away with, then how do I know my tax dollars are being used appropriately? A drug treatment program that relies on Scientology's auditing process is not something I want funded unless I have some assurance that it works. All of which means more bureaucracy, more paperwork and more reports.

You used the word "could". We don't know if we don't try. One thing the government DOES NOT HAVE and that is competition. Competition creates inovation and helps companies offer better product at a lower price.

The argument that competition creates innovation is specious. While it may create innovation, that seems a secondary goal, not a requirement. Let's remember that the purpose of business is to generate a profit. By whatever means generates the most profit. Microsoft has been accused of many things. Innovation isn't one of them. They succeeded through buying up ideas or copying other, truly innovative, products and doing a better job of marketing. Using techniques of sometimes questionable legality. In this, the did what a capitalism demands. Made a profit. Innovative was what PARC did. Or what any of thousands of government funded research projects have done over the years.

The assumption that business will do anything more than work to create a profit seems to be a fundamental stumbling block. It's a fairly self serving process. What is the countervailing force that says "look beyond profits to social, environmental or quality issues". It's all well and good to argue about people voting with their dollars. What about when they aren't given a choice? What about when the customers who do "vote with their dollars" live 3000 miles away from the factory that's polluting the river that run's in back of your house? How do you use your dollars to vote against that?

I don't think big entities of any kind are real desirable.

Nor do I. How do you limit the size of business without a strong government?

To be made part of the Constitution, it has to be ratified by the states......was it?

The "Borland Amendment" was a law passed in 1982, not an amendment to the Constitution. The whole Iran/Contra affair had all the morality (and legality even before Borland) of a three card monte scam. Even I expect better from the government.

When you said promote the general Welfare, the first and most important point here is PROMOTE means promote (advocate, talk up) not "PROVIDE"!

Promote also means to establish or organize. As in promote an event, enterprise or endeavor. The argument is on how far to go in the interpretation of the word "welfare". As Hamilton in Federalist 85, and Madison in Federalist 41 implies, the intent was to create a document that could adjust and change with the times.

The second word is "WELFARE", which means one's state of being or comfort both physical and mental. It never did mean a free income, that was referred to as welfare assistance, even currently.

Welfare: also means Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being - (from the American Heritage)

And "free income" is somewhat misleading. Certain social programs would seem to contribute to the general welfare. Being homeless and hungry would seem not too do too much for anyones state of well being.

Brett, you said I am eternally grateful and proud to be part of it but I believe we earn the rights which are granted to us

I agree (sort of) with Mav. The original argument is that all rights, all power, belongs to individuals. That they join (formally or informally) and agree to certain limitations on their rights for perceived mutual benefits. The Constitution being a good example of a formal agreement.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights was not to grant those rights enumerated but to make sure the government understood that it had no authority (or at least limited authority) to interfere with them. Capped by the 10th amendment which added that just because a right wasn't listed earlier, doesn't mean the federal government can control it.

No, blessings are from God in their own words.

Which words. In the Constitution? Besides, it's a Phrase "Blessings of Liberty", not generic "blessings". The "blessings of liberty" was what the Revolutionary war was (popularly) about.

They said what they meant and meant what they said. They were very literate men and had a much better command of the English language than our current populace does.

And understood that both words and times change. (As mentioned above) . The stated intent was to create a document that could reflect and change with the times.

No. It's a principle of the founders. (Unless they were Libertarians) The people were here without and before government and then they created it. (the chicken or the egg).

And before. They borrowed the idea of a "social contract" (among other ideas) from Rousseau and the fundamentals of balance of power from a Roman. (Sorry, Can't put my finger on the name).

Good. If you apply the few points I made, it will change the meaning of much of your perceived notions.

Well, provoke thought anyway.

Regards

John