California embodies left-wing misery

[P@triot]

You have no sense only fallacy or you would have asked questions for clarification.

We shouldn't have to ask for clarification. The onus is on you to use proper grammar and express your thoughts clearly and coherently.

Or, are you really that ignorant of the topic but want to be taken seriously simply Because you are on the Right Wing?

He's not the one being destroyed on this board by dozens of people. You are.

 

[hadit]

Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution. We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.

Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?

Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.

Is that what they meant when they wrote it?

Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.

this is what we are supposed to be doing:

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.

Yes, we absolutely need to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility. Now, how does that relate to the federal government being restricted to specific enumerated powers and not having a blank check to do whatever it wants to do?

 

[P@triot]

You have no sense and no point.

You hope I'll follow you down the rabbit hole on that one, but instead I'll point back to when you really started going off the rails. I've been asking you point blank for a while now to tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant by the term, "general welfare" and to back it up with quotes of what they wrote about it. You have totally failed to do any of that.

That's because he can't do that. The founders were abundantly clear: the "general welfare" clause applies within each of the 18 enumerated powers only. He knows it too (now that we've explained it to him). But that simple reality prevents the communism he desires, so he has to ignore it and deny it.

 

[danielpalos]

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District

Again...not even a complete or cohere sentence!

Psst...high school drop out....the "L" in "legislation" shouldn't be capitalized. It is neither a proper noun, nor starting a sentence. Likewise, the "C" in "cases" shouldn't be capitalized. It too is neither a proper noun, nor starting a sentence. Likewise, the "D" in "district" shouldn't be capitalized. It too is neither a proper noun, nor starting a sentence.

Come on man, this is basic fucking English. No wonder the US Constitution is too complex for you.

Additionally, who are you referring to in your nonsensical babble? Who is supposed to "exercise exclusive legislation in call cases"?

Your appeal to ignorance of our supreme law of the land is telling; it tells me you are Always Right, in right wing fantasy.

It is the social power delegated to Congress by the People.

 

[danielpalos]

Proof we should not take right wingers seriously about being legal to the express laws.

Being "legal" to convey thoughts or feelings about the law?

No wonder nobody takes you seriously about anything. You can't even construct basic sentences properly.

You have nothing but the fallacy of argument ad hominem. After thrice, it is just a vice.

 

[danielpalos]

this is what we are supposed to be doing:

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.

And how do we do that? By adhering to the US Constitution, which explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers, snowflake. What you just cited is called the "preamble". The preamble is not a power.

You need to learn English and grammar before you can learn the US Constitution. I'm sure there is a community college near you that can assist.

It is our mission statement for our form of Government not your implied right wing fantasy.

 

[hadit]

You have no sense and no point.

You hope I'll follow you down the rabbit hole on that one, but instead I'll point back to when you really started going off the rails. I've been asking you point blank for a while now to tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant by the term, "general welfare" and to back it up with quotes of what they wrote about it. You have totally failed to do any of that.

That's because he can't do that. The founders were abundantly clear: the "general welfare" clause applies within each of the 18 enumerated powers only. He knows it too (now that we've explained it to him). But that simple reality prevents the communism he desires, so he has to ignore it and deny it.

If the cycle holds true, and there's no reason to think it won't, he will shortly disappear for a while only to pop up again with the exact same arguments presented in exactly the same way. Seriously, a bot is more flexible.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Tenth Amendment is clear. The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.

The 10th Amendment is clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.

Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.

Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare" to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.

We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.

No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.

Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense. To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.

Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.

I am getting it from our Constitution, expressly.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

You confuse everything that may be done for general welfare with anything that could be done for the general badfare or the general warfare.

That's not what I asked. You continue doggedly to insist that term means something the people who wrote it didn't intend. Quote something from the people who wrote it that shows they wanted the federal government to have unlimited power to do what it wanted under the guise of "general welfare".

It is not unlimited but that our tax monies are only to be used for the general welfare and common defense, along with paying the debt.

And what did they mean by the term "general welfare". They wrote about it, they explained what they meant, so you tell us what THEY meant, NOT what you wish they meant.

Our Constitution is express not implied for the right wing. Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency from the top down. For comparison and contrast, there are no express terms in our federal Constitution regarding the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the general defense or common offense.

That made absolutely no sense and didn't relate to the question at all.

You have no sense only fallacy or you would have asked questions for clarification. Or, are you really that ignorant of the topic but want to be taken seriously simply Because you are on the Right Wing?

There is no question that can be asked about what you wrote, because it made no sense and didn't relate to the question.

You have no sense and no point.

You hope I'll follow you down the rabbit hole on that one, but instead I'll point back to when you really started going off the rails. I've been asking you point blank for a while now to tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant by the term, "general welfare" and to back it up with quotes of what they wrote about it. You have totally failed to do any of that.

So, to reiterate and expose further the absolute vacuity of your posts, what did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "general welfare"? State it concisely and back it up with quotes from their writings at the time.

It provides for a solution to any given contingency in a general top down manner, to provide for any promotion of welfare of the United States.

 

[hadit]

this is what we are supposed to be doing:

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.

And how do we do that? By adhering to the US Constitution, which explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers, snowflake. What you just cited is called the "preamble". The preamble is not a power.

You need to learn English and grammar before you can learn the US Constitution. I'm sure there is a community college near you that can assist.

It is our mission statement for our form of Government not your implied right wing fantasy.

The phrase on which you so desperately depend is found in the preamble to the Constitution. The right to bear arms is found in an amendment to that same Constitution, yet you insist on giving the "general welfare" statement more credence than the right to bear arms. Don't you see how incredibly weak that is?

 

[hadit]

Our Tenth Amendment is clear. The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.

The 10th Amendment is clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.

Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.

Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare" to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.

We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.

No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.

Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense. To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.

Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.

I am getting it from our Constitution, expressly.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

You confuse everything that may be done for general welfare with anything that could be done for the general badfare or the general warfare.

That's not what I asked. You continue doggedly to insist that term means something the people who wrote it didn't intend. Quote something from the people who wrote it that shows they wanted the federal government to have unlimited power to do what it wanted under the guise of "general welfare".

It is not unlimited but that our tax monies are only to be used for the general welfare and common defense, along with paying the debt.

And what did they mean by the term "general welfare". They wrote about it, they explained what they meant, so you tell us what THEY meant, NOT what you wish they meant.

Our Constitution is express not implied for the right wing. Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency from the top down. For comparison and contrast, there are no express terms in our federal Constitution regarding the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the general defense or common offense.

That made absolutely no sense and didn't relate to the question at all.

You have no sense only fallacy or you would have asked questions for clarification. Or, are you really that ignorant of the topic but want to be taken seriously simply Because you are on the Right Wing?

There is no question that can be asked about what you wrote, because it made no sense and didn't relate to the question.

You have no sense and no point.

You hope I'll follow you down the rabbit hole on that one, but instead I'll point back to when you really started going off the rails. I've been asking you point blank for a while now to tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant by the term, "general welfare" and to back it up with quotes of what they wrote about it. You have totally failed to do any of that.

So, to reiterate and expose further the absolute vacuity of your posts, what did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "general welfare"? State it concisely and back it up with quotes from their writings at the time.

It provides for a solution to any given contingency in a general top down manner, to provide for any promotion of welfare of the United States.

1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.

Seriously, you really need a new schtick.

 

[Nostra]

We need national policy to help recover the economy.

Getting rid of democrats would work.

Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.

Come get us shit stain.

Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.

Fake.

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

No Individual right there. Collective and plural terms are express not implied.

for comparison and contrast:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Do individuals have the right to peacefully assemble?

Sure, especially as persons of the People for redress of grievances purposes.

So when the Constitution says in the First Amendment "or the right of the PEOPLE to peaceably assemble" it is an individual right. But when the Constitution says "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" you claim it doesn't apply to individuals.

You sir, are a moronic troll of the highest order.

 

[DGS49]

The reference to the words, "general Welfare" when discussing the powers of Congress (often thought of as the powers of the Federal Government) has become a litmus test for Constitutional ignorance. If you even bring them up, you are an ignoramus.

The words "general Welfare" in the Preamble and in Article I, Section 8 are general descriptors which are superseded by the specifics of the "Powers" set forth in Section 8. This principle was established a couple hundred years ago and is no longer a matter of serious discussion.

As an example that MIGHT get through to those who are not knowledgeable Constitutional commentators, consider the recent history of the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The law was challenged over the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE - the requirement in the law that every person must buy health insurance, or be deemed a lawbreaker and subject to a financial fine/penalty.

Now, THINK ABOUT THIS: If the "general Welfare" wording in Article I gave Congress the power to legislate anything that it deemed to promote the general welfare of the country, then there would have been no problem with the individual mandate. It would have been a non-issue, because obviously, Congress deems the individual mandate to promote the general welfare.

But every knowledgeable person knew that the mandate was UNCONSTITUTIONAL as a legal requirement passed by Congress. None of the enumerated powers in Section 8 contemplates Congress being able to demand that everyone buy health insurance.

Chief Justice Roberts, in his defense of the law (trying to defer to Congress, as he always does), said that the fine/penalty associated with the individual mandate was really a tax(!) - not a legal requirement that you buy insurance. And obviously, Roberts pointed out, Congress has the power to tax under Article I, and that was the basis on which Obamacare was approved by the Supreme Court.

So in summary, Congress does NOT have the power to legislate anything that it deems to promote the "general Welfare"; its powers are limited to those that can be derived from the 18 enumerated powers.

OBVIOUSLY, Congress and the Supreme Court have expanded the power to "...regulate commerce...among the several states..." beyond all rational bounds, and that is how they get away with a national minimum wage law and a thousand other unconstitutional power grabs, but according to the U.S. Constitution, Congress' powers are limited to those 18 enumerated powers and anything that can logically be derived from them.

 

[danielpalos]

You have no sense only fallacy or you would have asked questions for clarification.

We shouldn't have to ask for clarification. The onus is on you to use proper grammar and express your thoughts clearly and coherently.

Or, are you really that ignorant of the topic but want to be taken seriously simply Because you are on the Right Wing?

He's not the one being destroyed on this board by dozens of people. You are.

Your problem is, that fallacies proceed being a hypocritical lying false witness bearer. I try to resort to the fewest on general principle.

 

[danielpalos]

Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution. We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.

Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?

Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.

Is that what they meant when they wrote it?

Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.

this is what we are supposed to be doing:

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.

Yes, we absolutely need to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility. Now, how does that relate to the federal government being restricted to specific enumerated powers and not having a blank check to do whatever it wants to do?

Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States. It really is that simple.

 

[danielpalos]

You have no sense and no point.

You hope I'll follow you down the rabbit hole on that one, but instead I'll point back to when you really started going off the rails. I've been asking you point blank for a while now to tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant by the term, "general welfare" and to back it up with quotes of what they wrote about it. You have totally failed to do any of that.

That's because he can't do that. The founders were abundantly clear: the "general welfare" clause applies within each of the 18 enumerated powers only. He knows it too (now that we've explained it to him). But that simple reality prevents the communism he desires, so he has to ignore it and deny it.

Nobody believes that, not even the right wing.

 

[danielpalos]

You have no sense and no point.

You hope I'll follow you down the rabbit hole on that one, but instead I'll point back to when you really started going off the rails. I've been asking you point blank for a while now to tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant by the term, "general welfare" and to back it up with quotes of what they wrote about it. You have totally failed to do any of that.

That's because he can't do that. The founders were abundantly clear: the "general welfare" clause applies within each of the 18 enumerated powers only. He knows it too (now that we've explained it to him). But that simple reality prevents the communism he desires, so he has to ignore it and deny it.

If the cycle holds true, and there's no reason to think it won't, he will shortly disappear for a while only to pop up again with the exact same arguments presented in exactly the same way. Seriously, a bot is more flexible.

gossip, hearsay, and soothsay is all you have not any valid (legal) arguments.

 

[P@triot]

Your problem is, that fallacies proceed being a hypocritical lying false witness bearer.

Wait, a "lying false witness bearer". Um, a "false witness bearer" is a "liar", you redundant dill-hole. Learn the English language already, Chinese troll.

 

[danielpalos]

this is what we are supposed to be doing:

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.

And how do we do that? By adhering to the US Constitution, which explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers, snowflake. What you just cited is called the "preamble". The preamble is not a power.

You need to learn English and grammar before you can learn the US Constitution. I'm sure there is a community college near you that can assist.

It is our mission statement for our form of Government not your implied right wing fantasy.

The phrase on which you so desperately depend is found in the preamble to the Constitution. The right to bear arms is found in an amendment to that same Constitution, yet you insist on giving the "general welfare" statement more credence than the right to bear arms. Don't you see how incredibly weak that is?

Our First Amendment is First not Second. Any questions?

 

[P@triot]

Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States. It really is that simple.

Yep, and the "general welfare" clause applies only within the enumerated powers. The clause is not a power itself. Thank you again, for playing, Chinese troll!

 

[Nostra]

Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution. We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.

Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?

Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.

Is that what they meant when they wrote it?

Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.

this is what we are supposed to be doing:

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.

"promote the general Welfare",Not "PROVIDE".

You lose again.