Comment by wat10000
5 days ago
Seems like this would fall under the General Welfare clause. Certainly a lot clearer than the idea that growing your own feed for your livestock means you don’t buy feed on the open market which affects prices which means your feed growing qualifies as interstate commerce despite never leaving your land and can therefore be regulated by the federal government.
whataboutism. Both of those are bad.
You’re the one who brought up FDR, my dude. It’s not whataboutism to address a topic explicitly mentioned by the other party.
I personally don’t see the case for saying the Constitution doesn’t authorize government funded media under the General Welfare clause. I can see where there might be room for disagreement, but that clause is pretty broad. Whereas interstate commerce is a lot clearer, and the reasoning in Wickard v. Filburn is pretty transparent bullshit made to reach a desired conclusion. In terms of Congress exceeding its enumerated powers, the latter is vastly worse.
> You’re the one who brought up FDR, my dude
VOA was established by FDR?
> the General Welfare clause.
the general welfare clause is pretty clearly in the header of article 1 section 8, with the specific enumerated welfare provisions following it.
anything outside of those provisions (e.g. making a non-apporpotioned income tax, making a law that makes alcohol illegal, why not just have those be authorized as "general welfare"?) needs a Constitutional amendment otherwise its just congress creating a power for itself out of whole cloth.
look at this point the government pretty clearly breaks every other part of the Constitution except for the pomp and circumstances around the oath of office, so we know where the real priorities lie.
4 replies →