5 ms·

If that was taken as valid justification for government intervention, why not just elect a king that promises to be do "good" things?

by chermi 9d ago

tempaccountabcd 9d ago
[dead]
cocacola1 9d ago
Can’t say that I follow. What does a king have to do with forming a more perfect Union, establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity?
- chermi 9d ago
  If you allow justifying government power according to some ambiguous notion of general welfare, then all you need to say is that something promotes general welfare. There is more to the structure of the US system than the preamble to the constitution.
  - cocacola1 9d ago
    You're conflating purpose with power. "Promote the general Welfare" doesn't create unlimited power. The power comes from the Constitution. The point is that once you are interpreting those powers, the Constitution's stated purposes are relevant to what they mean and how broadly they should be understood. Nor was "general Welfare" some contentless phrase at the Founding. Protection, safety, prosperity, happiness, and the well being of the political community were all part of the contemporary vocabulary surrounding the public good. As Madison wrote in Federalist 45, “the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people is the supreme object to be pursued”. All government powers carry some risk of abuse. But, as Joseph Story put it, “Neither rulers, nor any other functionaries, much less any private persons, have a right to cripple it, because it is according to their own views inconvenient, or dangerous, unwise or impolitic, of narrow limits, or of wide influence.”
    - chermi 9d ago
      Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you meant in your original comment? "This seems to fall under the whole “promote the general welfare” part of the Preamble of the Constitution, though perhaps the court is unaware of it." The OP is about a federal ruling saying clean water is not a constitutional right, no? And if you're disagreeing you're saying it should be a positive federal right in interpretation if not declaration, implying power of enforcement.

If that was taken as valid justification for government intervention, why not just elect a king that promises to be do "good" things?

by chermi 9d ago

If that was taken as valid justification for government intervention, why not just elect a king that promises to be do "good" things?

tempaccountabcd 9d ago

[dead]

cocacola1 9d ago

Can’t say that I follow. What does a king have to do with forming a more perfect Union, establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity?

chermi 9d ago
If you allow justifying government power according to some ambiguous notion of general welfare, then all you need to say is that something promotes general welfare. There is more to the structure of the US system than the preamble to the constitution.
- cocacola1 9d ago
  You're conflating purpose with power. "Promote the general Welfare" doesn't create unlimited power. The power comes from the Constitution. The point is that once you are interpreting those powers, the Constitution's stated purposes are relevant to what they mean and how broadly they should be understood. Nor was "general Welfare" some contentless phrase at the Founding. Protection, safety, prosperity, happiness, and the well being of the political community were all part of the contemporary vocabulary surrounding the public good. As Madison wrote in Federalist 45, “the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people is the supreme object to be pursued”. All government powers carry some risk of abuse. But, as Joseph Story put it, “Neither rulers, nor any other functionaries, much less any private persons, have a right to cripple it, because it is according to their own views inconvenient, or dangerous, unwise or impolitic, of narrow limits, or of wide influence.”
  - chermi 9d ago
    Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you meant in your original comment? "This seems to fall under the whole “promote the general welfare” part of the Preamble of the Constitution, though perhaps the court is unaware of it." The OP is about a federal ruling saying clean water is not a constitutional right, no? And if you're disagreeing you're saying it should be a positive federal right in interpretation if not declaration, implying power of enforcement.