look what Obama's done now....

[Biggin]

section 8, article 1
The roles of congress:


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

[plantsman]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Biggin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So its not the federal governments role to help out americans who have no hope otherwise?

the constitution didnt adress natural disasters, because, and im just guessing here, that it was understood that the government would help take care of them.


cmon, you can do better than that.

When innocent americans are being killed by a natural disaster, the government should be the first in line to help out in any way possible.

saving lives is more important than the constitution, the church, etc.... </div></div>

Agreed. But noone should ever look at the feds as one's first course of response. It's not constitutional, and we all know how slow the fed moves. My point is that folks should take responsibility for their own actions and decisions. And they shouldn't expect to be bailed out at my expense. I know that sounds kinda cruel, but everyone responsible citizen must take responsibilty for his/her actions. The Fed doesn't exist to bail out every poor decision.

[plantsman]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Biggin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">section 8, article 1
The roles of congress:


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; </div></div>

I must be missing something...

[Biggin]

you may intrepet that passage differently than i do



further proof that relying on the constitution is not accurate all the time

[plantsman]

Likely, based on personal views...

But the Constitution has to be the final authority or else we're caught up in hogwash and interpretation

[R13]

Strict interpretation of anything leads to excuses.

[Biggin]

but the constitution is a living document, always adhering to changes in the way the world works.

i agree that the constitution has to have the final word on some things, but to rely on it for some things is jus crazy, i.e. internet piracy or crystal meth making (which drugs are not mentioned anywhere in the constitution, so should they be legal?)

[plantsman]

So why did our forefathers go to such extreme, risking their lives, to create a constitution? And by the way, strict interpretation allows no room for excuses. That's why our founding fathers came up with the judicial branch of government.

[plantsman]

Interpretation must be strict. Else it allows for human interpretation.

[Biggin]

without human intrepretation, the document dies, seeing as how how much has changed in two hundred years