Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nihil who wrote (100982)	3/17/2000 6:17:00 AM
From: Joseph S. Lione	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Nihil - "The words and phrases of the Constitution are marvelously elastic and all encompassing. "Provide for the general welfare" " Where in the Constitution does it say "provide for the general welfare?

To: nihil who wrote (100982)	3/17/2000 12:42:00 PM
From: Gerald Walls	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

<constitutional discussion> I'm glad that you disagree with me, since you're someone who has proclaimed that Enlightened Socialism is the wave of the future and is a Good Thing, not something to be fought. I subscribe to the limited government theory while you subscribe to a theory on the other end of the spectrum. The commerce clause was probably invoked as authorizing the Interstate road system. It's been invoked for everything else. The commerce clause was also invoked as authorizing congress to ban firearms within 1000 feet of schools, but this was struck down by a federal judge who ruled that there was no such thing as the "Interstate Commerce of Education". This clause is probably the most abused. The federal government stopped being strictly bound by the Constitution when FDR started the welfare state. He had such a problem getting his programs, now considered rights to the generations made dependent by them, past the Supreme Court of the time that he tried to get the Supreme Court expanded so he could pack it with his own hand-picked judges. The decisions of the Supreme Court swing back and forth based upon who has the majority. Decisions are often reviewed and reversed by later Supreme Courts and in retrospect some are just so outright wrong that it's amazing they were ever issued, unless you believe that the Dred Scott decision was just and correct. The regulation of political parties by the federal government started in the 1880's, I seem to recall. Before that anyone could form his own party and print his own ballots with his name on them. If you wanted to vote for the slate of candidates on one ballot you just dropped it in the box. If you wanted to vote for some from one party and some from another you "split the ticket" by cutting the ballots and gluing the sections listing the candidates you want back together. Before this time parties came and went with regularity, like the Whigs who disappeared over a period of about eight or ten years and the Republican who went from not existing to getting Lincoln elected President in a period of two election cycles. When the US went to the Australian Ballot system, where the government controls and prints the ballot and determines the criteria to be listed on it, the two parties who just happened to be in ascendency at the time, the Republicans and the Democrats, were locked into power.