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.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (387)	8/22/1998 12:21:00 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

For your enlightenment I have placed in bold the "business" that the Constitution of the United States authorizes. insure domestic Tranquility, Well Im not a constitutional scholar, but Im sure the term "domestic" here is referring to our nations boundaries, vs. our bedrooms' boundaries. A similar sentiment is echoed in the phrase "A mans home is his castle", referring to the personal freedoms that anyone should have within their own home - can't quite remember the origin, but I believe it was during the revolutionary timeframe. Michelle

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (387)	8/22/1998 1:26:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity>> Thank you for the history lesson, but this doesn't answer my question. The general welfare discussed in the Constitution refers to the safety of the U.S. as a whole, not any one person as an individual. The blessings of liberty refers to individual rights and property ownership rights. I agree with the common defence issue, as stated in my previous post. In order for you to more intelligently discuss the issue, I refer you to the Federalist Papers, which discuss not only the concepts, but what the words were meant to convey. Once again, where does the federal government get any right to be involved with individual happiness or health. I refer you to the 9th and 10th amendments, that explicitly restrict the powers of the federal government to those powers delineated in the Constitution, reserving all other powers to the individual and the states.