← Back to context

Comment by dnautics

5 days ago

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.

    • > VOA was established by FDR?

      Are you serious? You mentioned FDR by name.

      > You could equally make the argument "it took three generations to unpick and fix the FDR bullshit".

      You made the comparison. I made my own comparison. Then you accused me of "whataboutism" for following your lead.

      I don't have the energy for this bullshit.

      3 replies →