Typical Liberal thinking. If a lie is told often enough, and loudly enough, it becomes truth in the eyes of the public. Wasn't that one of Hitler's favorite propoganda tactics? (ooh, that oughta set someone off)

It is becoming more and more apparent that the neocommies understanding of the US Constitution is whatever they make up on the fly at that moment in time.

The marble-faced exhibits are textbook examples of "Animal Farm" and "1984" in action, right before our very eyes. Do these degenerate aristocratic liberals trying to rewrite history really think we're that stupid? They do it at their own peril...

At LAST! Honesty is back in government. This atrocity simply documents what the communists have been doing. If the public doesn't understand this and rise up to tear down the walls which these usurping traitors have erected and behind which they hide, then we'll deserve what we get. As for the rest of us, Jefferson summed up our final right: "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Bernoulli said it best. It's time to send as many of the incumbents packing as is possible. This is where we start to re-construct the government. There are way too many elected officials that think they are above us "common" people. They need to be reminded that they work for us, at our pleasure. Hopefully, this year will be the beginning of a government like the founders envisioned. People serve a few years and then return to private life. They should not be elected for "life" as too many of them seem to be. Especially the ones that bring loads of pork home, a-la Robert Byrd. The high salaries and "retirement" after one term need to be stopped. Public service is not supposed to be a road to riches. If they want wealth, get out in the real world and work for it. Being on disability, my pay is frozen for the next 3 years. How many members of congress are going with out some kind of raise?

Sully: Yes, they really do think we're that stupid, and we keep proving them correct by re-electing them. I need only mention Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, John Kerry, et al, and of course, the ultimate proof: Obozo himself.

four legs good, two legs bad.

four legs good, two legs better

(Animal Farm)

My question is this: "Why weren't these references to the Constitution noticed BEFORE they were carved into marble? Were the constitutional scholars all sleeping at the switch?

Wow, you must be really pizzed that W. allowed this to happen when it opened in 2008, many months before Obama became the Pres. Guess one of you stepped out of lockstep with this blunder, and it sounds like george W is a commie.

Hey Jo, If you've ever dealt with government timelines then you would realize this was probably started by Clinton, or even Bush 41. Both Bush's did some stuff that made my blood boil in over reaching the government grasp. I was on the phone often to my Congressmen. That doesn't excuse the current President from his mistakes either.

It is amazing that the first clause of Art 1. Sec. 8 continues to be misconstrued like such. Madison addressed this misconstruction when it was being used to destroy support for the new Constitution. In Federalist Paper 41 Madison denounced such misconstruction as follows (sorry for the length!):

"Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. 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 defense 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 defense 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 very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the 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 qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!"

Simplified:

Reading the clause it says that Congress has power to tax in order

"... to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."

Obviously the words in this taxation clause imply that the Congress has power to promote the general welfare. But this is only speaking in general. The specific powers given to Congress for the purpose of promoting general welfare are enumerated in the proceeding Sec. 8 clauses.