California embodies left-wing misery

[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?

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.

The actual text of the Constitution outweighs the description of WHY the Constitution was created, found in the preamble. Thus, you are subverting the Constitution itself to serve one reason given for its existence. IOW, the personal right to bear arms, using your standard, serves the "general welfare". Did you ever consider that?

 

[hadit]

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.

What do you make of the tenth amendment, specifically the text, " 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". Apparently, in your world it doesn't exist.

 

[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.

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

No, the text is clear. The federal government is restricted to certain powers. All others are reserved to the states and the people.

 

[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?

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.

Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?

 

[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.

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

Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.

 

[danielpalos]

The actual text of the Constitution outweighs the description of WHY the Constitution was created, found in the preamble.

However did you reach your conclusion? The preamble is our "mission statement" for our form of Government. Any ambiguities should be resolved pursuant to it. We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.

 

[danielpalos]

What do you make of the tenth amendment, specifically the text, " 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". Apparently, in your world it doesn't exist.

Providing for the general welfare is an express power delegated to the general Government.

 

[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

No, the text is clear. The federal government is restricted to certain powers. All others are reserved to the states and the people.

Providing for the welfare General of our Republic is one of those restrictions on the use of social power.

 

[Ben Thomson]

California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?

Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California

And prior to the COVID crisis it was also the fifth largest economy in the world...interesting.

 

[danielpalos]

Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?

That is your misconception. I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.

 

[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.

Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.

They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.

 

[P@triot]

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

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

Well he is a Chinese disinformation troll. They are paid by the post and are referred to as the 50 Cent Army (due to what they are paid per post). He's not interested in facts. He's interested in posting as much propaganda as possible.

 

[P@triot]

They did not mean the general badfare...

That's because it's not possible to mean a word that doesn't exist, Chinese disinformation troll!

 

[hadit]

The actual text of the Constitution outweighs the description of WHY the Constitution was created, found in the preamble.

However did you reach your conclusion? The preamble is our "mission statement" for our form of Government. Any ambiguities should be resolved pursuant to it. We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.

And we're back to the question you are studiously trying to ignore. What did the writers of the Constitution mean by "general welfare"? Answer that and support your answer. We're not moving on until you do.

 

[hadit]

What do you make of the tenth amendment, specifically the text, " 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". Apparently, in your world it doesn't exist.

Providing for the general welfare is an express power delegated to the general Government.

And what did they mean by the term, "general welfare"?

 

[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.

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

No, the text is clear. The federal government is restricted to certain powers. All others are reserved to the states and the people.

Providing for the welfare General of our Republic is one of those restrictions on the use of social power.

And what did they mean by the term, "general welfare"?

 

[hadit]

Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?

That is your misconception. I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.

The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.

Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.

 

[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.

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

Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.

They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.

Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

Well he is a Chinese disinformation troll. They are paid by the post and are referred to as the 50 Cent Army (due to what they are paid per post). He's not interested in facts. He's interested in posting as much propaganda as possible.

Y'all have nothing but fallacy, trolls masquerading as hypocrites.

 

[danielpalos]

They did not mean the general badfare...

That's because it's not possible to mean a word that doesn't exist, Chinese disinformation troll!

Yes, it is. It is simple and compares and contrasts with what was used in our federal Constitution.

We could simplify it for the right wing. It should be about the general Good not the general Bad.