California embodies left-wing misery

[danielpalos]

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.

Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.

All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I am not the one resorting to the most fallacies. See I what I meant about this right wing modus operandi, earlier?

 

[P@triot]

Our First Amendment is First not Second. Any questions?

Bwahahaha! Now the Chinese troll wants to make the case that the Bill of Rights goes in order of "importance" and that the lower number trumps any number above it.

 

[P@triot]

I am not the one resorting to the most fallacies. See I what I meant about this right wing modus operandi, earlier?

But you are the one resorting to any fallacies. The rest of us have spoken 100% truth only.

 

[Nostra]

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?

So?

Do they have descending protections based on their number? Where is that "expressed" in the Constitution, Troll?

 

[danielpalos]

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!

That is not how it is expressed.

We have the general powers and a recital of particulars as examples and qualifications, not any form of exhaustive list. Our Founding Fathers were most Excellent, but they were not omniscient.

 

[P@triot]

Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.

So then I can legally and constitutionally execute anyone who embraces the left-wing ideology like Adolf Hitler did with Jews, right? Don't be a hypocrite now! Don't back out after you made that statement.

 

[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!

That is not how it is expressed.

That is exactly how it is "expressed". Just ask the 10th Amendment if you're not clear. If you're still confused, just ask Thomas Jefferson:

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated;” - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Albert Gallatin (1817)

Game over. You lose, Chinese troll.

 

[danielpalos]

Our First Amendment is First not Second. Any questions?

Bwahahaha! Now the Chinese troll wants to make the case that the Bill of Rights goes in order of "importance" and that the lower number trumps any number above it.

Yes, it was listed first, for a reason. Our Founding Fathers used Reason not bigotry.

 

[danielpalos]

So?

Do they have descending protections based on their number? Where is that "expressed" in the Constitution, Troll?

Our First Amendment is First not Second is the only so, I need.

 

[danielpalos]

Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.

So then I can legally and constitutionally execute anyone who embraces the left-wing ideology like Adolf Hitler did with Jews, right? Don't be a hypocrite now! Don't back out after you made that statement.

How does that promote and provide for the general welfare? Only the general badfare seems to be favored in your right wing fantasy.

 

[danielpalos]

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!

That is not how it is expressed.

That is exactly how it is "expressed". Just ask the 10th Amendment if you're not clear. If you're still confused, just ask Thomas Jefferson:

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated;” - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Albert Gallatin (1817)

Game over. You lose, Chinese troll.

The general warfare or general badfare are nowhere expressed at all.

 

[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?

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.

Incorrect. They are NOT examples, they are enumerated powers and the federal government is restricted to those powers. Everything else is reserved to the states and the people. Please quote the portion of the Constitution that specifies they are only examples.

 

[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.

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

How is that relevant? You do the same thing every time.

 

[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?

Our First Amendment is First not Second. Any questions?

Sure. How is that relevant at all? You seem to believe the entire Constitution is set up in service of a term found in the preamble, yet give no credence to the actual text of the actual Constitution. Don't you see how incredibly weak that is?

 

[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.

Incorrect. They are NOT examples, they are enumerated powers and the federal government is restricted to those powers. Everything else is reserved to the states and the people. Please quote the portion of the Constitution that specifies they are only examples.

It cannot be as you allege simply because there must be some duplication of effort on the part of separate and sovereign Governments. Here is one proof: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District

 

[hadit]

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.

Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.

All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.

You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.

 

[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?

Sure. How is that relevant at all? You seem to believe the entire Constitution is set up in service of a term found in the preamble, yet give no credence to the actual text of the actual Constitution. Don't you see how incredibly weak that is?

Simply Because our First Amendment is First not Second, for all time.

Only right wingers, make like confederates instead of loyal members of the Union.

 

[hadit]

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.

I am not the one resorting to the most fallacies. See I what I meant about this right wing modus operandi, earlier?

I do believe you are unintentionally echoing the black knight. Since you don't know who that is, look it up in relation to Monty Python.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.

All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.

You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.

You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.