In article <1993Apr8.200326.27560@infonode.ingr.com> albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com (Jim Albea) writes: > > >In article <1993Mar24.235606.15959@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes: > >Ouch, now that really hurts.  I'm being accused of no breadth nor depth >to my historical knowledge because I'm unwilling to agree that economic >inequality leads to poverty and from there to "social and political >instability".  You go read your history again.  POVERTY is the main >engine of social instability (in this context, we'll put aside religious >turmoil, mass migrations, etc.).    Well, the fact of the matter is that poverty is imperfectly related to  social and political instability, while economic inequality is much more strongly related.  In virtually all major revolutions including England (the Puritan revolution), France, Russia and China, the  revolutions occurred as economies were undergoing substantial long term  growth and poverty was declining.  What sets off revolutions is massive inequality coupled with a perception on the part of those at the bottom that social change is possible.  If "poverty (were) the main engine of social instability," this typical historical pattern would not hold.  In fact, revolutions would have been far more typical before the nineteenth century than since that time.  [Much deleted...]  >|> Gee, Jim, if you'll check the Constitution you'll find "in order to... >|> promote the general welfare...do ordain and establish this Constitution..." >|> I'm surprised you missed it.  It's right there in the first paragraph.  I >|> would have thought you would have made it at least through the preamble. > >You almost got it right, and it was a good try, but you should follow your >own advice.  The PREAMBLE to the CONSTITUTION does read as you have quoted >but let us not forget that after all it is only the preamble.  It is not >a binding part of the Constitution and carries no weight in the law.  That  >poor tortured paragraph has got to be one of the most unfortunate passages  >in the English language - witness the legions of blowhards like yourself who >think those vague flowery phrases are part of the law of the land.  Do you >really believe that a politician only has to give lip service to "promoting >the general welfare" to be within the limits of the constitution?  Sorry, buddy, but some other "blowhards" managed to include the "general welfare" in another portion of the constitution.  Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States..."  I guess they wanted to make sure everyone understood they meant what they said in the preamble.  >Just to make sure you've got the point, let's do a little experiment.  What >if the constitution read as follows? > >Preamble: We the people, to promote the general Welfare, do ordain >          and establish this Constitution for the United States of >          America. > >Constitution:  The Federal Government shall have one function and one >               function only - to provide for the defense of the nation. >  But as noted above, the constitution doesn't say that, does it?  >The government would not then have two functions: defense and Welfare.    But since it explicitly includes both the general welfare and defense in Article I, Section 8, I guess you'll grant that botha are constitutional functions.  Right?  jsh