> On 11/4/12 2:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <4u6dnaQhpaJsQQvNnZ2dnUVZ_radn...@mchsi.com>,
>>   trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:

>>> On 11/4/12 1:00 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <ksadnQQmnuOm8gvNnZ2dnUVZ_tqdn...@supernews.com>,
>>>>    cloud dreamer <reduce.re...@recycle.com> wrote:

>>>>> Wait a minute...if it isn't the government's job to care for hurricane
>>>>> victims, why are you paying taxes? I mean, if disaster relief isn't
>>>>> their job, then neither is paving roads, maintaining police,
>>>>> firefighters or the army.

>>>> The Constitution mandates the federal government maintain an army/navy.
>>>> It doesn't mandate the federal government to pave roads, maintain
>>>> police, or relieve disaster areas.

>>> Perhaps "promote general welfare" means something else, then?

>>>> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
>>>> Union,
>>>> establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
>>>> defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
>>>> Liberty
>>>> to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
>>>> Constitution
>>>> for the United States of America.

>> You didn't even quote the right General Welfare clause, you
>> Cheeto-stained ignoramus. That's the Preamble, which the Supreme Court
>> has held to merely be introductory language and has no legal weight or
>> effect. Go into court and cite the Preamble as the basis for your claim
>> and see how far that gets you.

> Again, "legal weight" is a straw man argument.