We need a new constitution. Wealth concentration must be addressed.

[MoshMasterD]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1301203

Nothing wrong with the Constitution we have now, the problem lies with the segment of the population that thinks they are owed something just because their mothers decided not to abort them.

Sure let's have the govt decide just how much one person can have. 

I think I speak for all of us that this ain't the first time they called for this.

[GOBUCKS]

Sure let's have the govt decide just how much one person can have.

That is the foundation upon which the democrat party was built.

[dandi]

RadiationTherapy Donating Member (1000+ posts)     Wed Jun-15-11 01:46 PM
Original message
We need a new constitution. Wealth concentration must be addressed.

I agree, DUmbass, we do. 

We need a Constitution that states, in no uncertain terms, that "general welfare" does not mean what you leeches think it means and we need address how you're trying to "concentrate" my wealth into your worthless hands.

[BlueStateSaint]

I agree, DUmbass, we do. 

We need a Constitution that states, in no uncertain terms, that "general welfare" does not mean what you leeches think it means and we need address how you're trying to "concentrate" my wealth into your worthless hands.

I'd like to add that this new constitution needs to unequivocably state that self-defense with a firearm is a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, both against individuals and the government.  If one can vote, one can open or concealed carry.

[franksolich]

I agree, DUmbass, we do.  

We need a Constitution that states, in no uncertain terms, that "general welfare" does not mean what you leeches think it means and we need address how you're trying to "concentrate" my wealth into your worthless hands.

Uh huh.

The primitives think that "general welfare" meant the same thing in 1787, that the term means today.

If that'd been the case, primitives would've been riding the gravy train since, oh, 1807 or something.

[thundley4]

\

Uh huh.

The primitives think that "general welfare" meant the same thing in 1787, that the term means today.

If that'd been the case, primitives would've been riding the gravy train since, oh, 1807 or something.

It does only say "to promote the general welfare", but it says to provide for the common defense.   By that, I always assumed it meant that the government was to stay out of the way of people pursuing their own happiness.

[franksolich]

It does only say "to promote the general welfare", but it says to provide for the common defense.   By that, I always assumed it meant that the government was to stay out of the way of people pursuing their own happiness.

I'm no constitutional scholar, but I'm interpreting the term "general welfare" to mean something like giving the people the fullest freedom possible to attain both personal and collective fulfillment.  On their own.