Re: DOES THE 9th AMENDMENT PROTECT RESPONSIBLE REC DRUG USE?

ulTRAX wrote:
> 

sorry to jump in, but you need to understand how weak the words "general
welfare" actually are in the constitution.
 
> I believe that's covered by "general welfare" clause the Preamble. ;-)

not according to madison.  the preamble is just an introduction providing the
answer to the question "why are we doing this?" -- it is not a definiton of
powers granted to the government.  further, in article i, section 8 where the
verbiage occurs again (and the actual powers of congress enumerated), madison
states in federalist 41 that the intent is to introduce a general principle
which is expounded upon by the specific enumeration of the powers granted in the
name of 'general welfare' and the other reasonings introduced in the preamble
and first part of section 8.

madison's words in federalist 41: 

<quote>

It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties,
imposts and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and
general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to
exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence
or general welfare.  No stronger proof could be given of the distress under
which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a
misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found
in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the
objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult
to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate
in all possible cases.  A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial
by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of
conveyances, must be vey singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for
the general welfare."

But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the objects
alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated
by a longer pause than a semicolon?  If the different parts of the same
instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will
bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share
in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in
their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any
signification whatsoever?  For what purpose could the enumeration of particular
powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the
preceding general power?  Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a
general phrase, and then to explain and quantify it by a recital of particulars.

</quote>

if the guy who wrote the constitution says that the phrase "provide for the
general welfare" is *NOT* a grant of unlimited power to the government, then we
would be wise to believe him.

b
-- 
citizen, patriot, stoner

Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.

visit truth: the Anti-drugwar at http://www.briancbennett.com 

Ask these former drug warriors why drugwar doesn't work: 
http://www.leap.cc