California embodies left-wing misery

[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.

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.

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.

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

Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.

What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.

Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.

Only the right wing never gets it. Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.

The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.

Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.

New cities in more optimum locations!

Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.

Actually the federal government has did indeed built several cities during WWII the construction of Hoover dam etc.

1. Wartime allows the government more leeway to do things.
2. The federal government has done many things it is not explicitly authorized to do. See Abraham Lincoln.

Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited as implied by the right wing.

Can you find evidence that the writers of the Constitution intended it to be unlimited? That's been your challenge this whole time, and thus far you have failed miserably to do so.

You are the only one claiming that. Our federal Government hath not the Power to promote or provide for the general badfare, nor the general malfare, nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

 

[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.

Well I exposed you, didn't I?

All you exposed was your ignorance of Constitutional law.

 

[danielpalos]

Why are you fellas wasting your time on this troll?

Projecting much, trolls? Only trolls have nothing but fallacy instead of Any valid arguments for rebuttal. Even ogres have better arguments than Trolls like y'all.

 

[P@triot]

It should be about the general Good not the general Bad.

Asking the federal government to act unconstitutionally is asking it to act "for the general bad".

 

[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.

It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.

It doesn't matter what they said it means then. Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.

It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.

Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.

We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.

It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.

Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.

My position is a self-evident truth based on modern times.

IOW you can't support your assertion that "general welfare" meant what you wish it did when it was written.

The terms used have not been re-defined by the passage of time.

The common defense was never intended to be a common offense or common warfare clause.

Then you should have no problem finding things written by the people who put the "general welfare" term into the Constitution that make it clear the federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants in the name of the "general welfare". Can you do that?

No one is claiming that. Promoting and providing for the general welfare means there is no provision for excuses. General solutions from the top down must be found.

Actually, that's exactly what you're claiming.

 

[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.

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.

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

Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.

What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.

Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.

Only the right wing never gets it. Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.

The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.

Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.

New cities in more optimum locations!

Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.

Actually the federal government has did indeed built several cities during WWII the construction of Hoover dam etc.

1. Wartime allows the government more leeway to do things.
2. The federal government has done many things it is not explicitly authorized to do. See Abraham Lincoln.

Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited as implied by the right wing.

Can you find evidence that the writers of the Constitution intended it to be unlimited? That's been your challenge this whole time, and thus far you have failed miserably to do so.

You are the only one claiming that. Our federal Government hath not the Power to promote or provide for the general badfare, nor the general malfare, nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

Yes, why do you make up words that don't exist?

 

[danielpalos]

It should be about the general Good not the general Bad.

Asking the federal government to act unconstitutionally is asking it to act "for the general bad".

Good thing we should be promoting and providing for the general welfare not the general warfare.

 

[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.

Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.

It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.

It doesn't matter what they said it means then. Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.

It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.

Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.

We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.

It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.

Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.

My position is a self-evident truth based on modern times.

IOW you can't support your assertion that "general welfare" meant what you wish it did when it was written.

The terms used have not been re-defined by the passage of time.

The common defense was never intended to be a common offense or common warfare clause.

Then you should have no problem finding things written by the people who put the "general welfare" term into the Constitution that make it clear the federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants in the name of the "general welfare". Can you do that?

No one is claiming that. Promoting and providing for the general welfare means there is no provision for excuses. General solutions from the top down must be found.

Actually, that's exactly what you're claiming.

Only if you appeal to ignorance instead of nuance.

 

[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.

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.

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.

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

Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.

What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.

Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.

Only the right wing never gets it. Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.

The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.

Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.

New cities in more optimum locations!

Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.

Actually the federal government has did indeed built several cities during WWII the construction of Hoover dam etc.

1. Wartime allows the government more leeway to do things.
2. The federal government has done many things it is not explicitly authorized to do. See Abraham Lincoln.

Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited as implied by the right wing.

Can you find evidence that the writers of the Constitution intended it to be unlimited? That's been your challenge this whole time, and thus far you have failed miserably to do so.

You are the only one claiming that. Our federal Government hath not the Power to promote or provide for the general badfare, nor the general malfare, nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

Yes, why do you make up words that don't exist?

It exists now. I just told you what it was.

 

[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.

It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.

It doesn't matter what they said it means then. Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.

It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.

Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.

We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.

It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.

Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.

My position is a self-evident truth based on modern times.

IOW you can't support your assertion that "general welfare" meant what you wish it did when it was written.

The terms used have not been re-defined by the passage of time.

The common defense was never intended to be a common offense or common warfare clause.

Then you should have no problem finding things written by the people who put the "general welfare" term into the Constitution that make it clear the federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants in the name of the "general welfare". Can you do that?

No one is claiming that. Promoting and providing for the general welfare means there is no provision for excuses. General solutions from the top down must be found.

Actually, that's exactly what you're claiming.

Only if you appeal to ignorance instead of nuance.

Ah, the old "nuance" argument. Why didn't you say that from the beginning instead of arguing on and on that the federal government could do anything it wanted to in the name of the "general welfare"? Because that's what you did and now you want to say you were being nuanced. Okay, what changed your mind?

 

[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.

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.

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

Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.

What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.

Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.

Only the right wing never gets it. Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.

The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.

Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.

New cities in more optimum locations!

Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.

Actually the federal government has did indeed built several cities during WWII the construction of Hoover dam etc.

1. Wartime allows the government more leeway to do things.
2. The federal government has done many things it is not explicitly authorized to do. See Abraham Lincoln.

Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited as implied by the right wing.

Can you find evidence that the writers of the Constitution intended it to be unlimited? That's been your challenge this whole time, and thus far you have failed miserably to do so.

You are the only one claiming that. Our federal Government hath not the Power to promote or provide for the general badfare, nor the general malfare, nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

Yes, why do you make up words that don't exist?

It exists now. I just told you what it was.

No, you just made them up and they don't mean anything to anyone but you.

 

[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.

Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.

It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.

It doesn't matter what they said it means then. Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.

It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.

Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.

We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.

It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.

Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.

My position is a self-evident truth based on modern times.

IOW you can't support your assertion that "general welfare" meant what you wish it did when it was written.

The terms used have not been re-defined by the passage of time.

The common defense was never intended to be a common offense or common warfare clause.

Then you should have no problem finding things written by the people who put the "general welfare" term into the Constitution that make it clear the federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants in the name of the "general welfare". Can you do that?

No one is claiming that. Promoting and providing for the general welfare means there is no provision for excuses. General solutions from the top down must be found.

Actually, that's exactly what you're claiming.

Only if you appeal to ignorance instead of nuance.

Ah, the old "nuance" argument. Why didn't you say that from the beginning instead of arguing on and on that the federal government could do anything it wanted to in the name of the "general welfare"? Because that's what you did and now you want to say you were being nuanced. Okay, what changed your mind?

Only you are begging that question. I already know that is not the case since there is no provision for the general badfare, nor the general malfare, nor even the general warfare. The general welfare is not any of those others, thus cannot do what right wingers love to plead, so specially.

 

[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.

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.

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.

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

Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.

What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.

Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.

Only the right wing never gets it. Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.

The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.

Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.

New cities in more optimum locations!

Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.

Actually the federal government has did indeed built several cities during WWII the construction of Hoover dam etc.

1. Wartime allows the government more leeway to do things.
2. The federal government has done many things it is not explicitly authorized to do. See Abraham Lincoln.

Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited as implied by the right wing.

Can you find evidence that the writers of the Constitution intended it to be unlimited? That's been your challenge this whole time, and thus far you have failed miserably to do so.

You are the only one claiming that. Our federal Government hath not the Power to promote or provide for the general badfare, nor the general malfare, nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

Yes, why do you make up words that don't exist?

It exists now. I just told you what it was.

No, you just made them up and they don't mean anything to anyone but you.

Every word was just made up at one time or another. The general badfare cannot be the same as the general welfare or general goodfare.

 

[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.

It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.

It doesn't matter what they said it means then. Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.

It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.

Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.

We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.

It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.

Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.

My position is a self-evident truth based on modern times.

IOW you can't support your assertion that "general welfare" meant what you wish it did when it was written.

The terms used have not been re-defined by the passage of time.

The common defense was never intended to be a common offense or common warfare clause.

Then you should have no problem finding things written by the people who put the "general welfare" term into the Constitution that make it clear the federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants in the name of the "general welfare". Can you do that?

No one is claiming that. Promoting and providing for the general welfare means there is no provision for excuses. General solutions from the top down must be found.

Actually, that's exactly what you're claiming.

Only if you appeal to ignorance instead of nuance.

Ah, the old "nuance" argument. Why didn't you say that from the beginning instead of arguing on and on that the federal government could do anything it wanted to in the name of the "general welfare"? Because that's what you did and now you want to say you were being nuanced. Okay, what changed your mind?

Only you are begging that question. I already know that is not the case since there is no provision for the general badfare, nor the general malfare, nor even the general warfare. The general welfare is not any of those others, thus cannot do what right wingers love to plead, so specially.

No, you have been arguing that the federal government is not limited in what it can do. Only now are you saying that it is. What changed your mind?

 

[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.

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.

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

Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.

What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.

Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.

Only the right wing never gets it. Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.

The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.

Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.

New cities in more optimum locations!

Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.

Actually the federal government has did indeed built several cities during WWII the construction of Hoover dam etc.

1. Wartime allows the government more leeway to do things.
2. The federal government has done many things it is not explicitly authorized to do. See Abraham Lincoln.

Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited as implied by the right wing.

Can you find evidence that the writers of the Constitution intended it to be unlimited? That's been your challenge this whole time, and thus far you have failed miserably to do so.

You are the only one claiming that. Our federal Government hath not the Power to promote or provide for the general badfare, nor the general malfare, nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

Yes, why do you make up words that don't exist?

It exists now. I just told you what it was.

No, you just made them up and they don't mean anything to anyone but you.

Every word was just made up at one time or another. The general badfare cannot be the same as the general welfare or general goodfare.

New words have to be agreed upon to have meaning. Yours are not agreed upon, thus have no meaning except to you.

 

[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.

Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.

It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.

It doesn't matter what they said it means then. Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.

It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.

Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.

We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.

It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.

Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.

My position is a self-evident truth based on modern times.

IOW you can't support your assertion that "general welfare" meant what you wish it did when it was written.

The terms used have not been re-defined by the passage of time.

The common defense was never intended to be a common offense or common warfare clause.

Then you should have no problem finding things written by the people who put the "general welfare" term into the Constitution that make it clear the federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants in the name of the "general welfare". Can you do that?

No one is claiming that. Promoting and providing for the general welfare means there is no provision for excuses. General solutions from the top down must be found.

Actually, that's exactly what you're claiming.

Only if you appeal to ignorance instead of nuance.

Ah, the old "nuance" argument. Why didn't you say that from the beginning instead of arguing on and on that the federal government could do anything it wanted to in the name of the "general welfare"? Because that's what you did and now you want to say you were being nuanced. Okay, what changed your mind?

Only you are begging that question. I already know that is not the case since there is no provision for the general badfare, nor the general malfare, nor even the general warfare. The general welfare is not any of those others, thus cannot do what right wingers love to plead, so specially.

No, you have been arguing that the federal government is not limited in what it can do. Only now are you saying that it is. What changed your mind?

lol. Only You have been claiming that. You are trying to allege that Congress cannot find solutions that provide for the general welfare for any given contingency that comes along.

 

[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.

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.

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.

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

Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.

What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.

Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.

Only the right wing never gets it. Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.

The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.

Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.

New cities in more optimum locations!

Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.

Actually the federal government has did indeed built several cities during WWII the construction of Hoover dam etc.

1. Wartime allows the government more leeway to do things.
2. The federal government has done many things it is not explicitly authorized to do. See Abraham Lincoln.

Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited as implied by the right wing.

Can you find evidence that the writers of the Constitution intended it to be unlimited? That's been your challenge this whole time, and thus far you have failed miserably to do so.

You are the only one claiming that. Our federal Government hath not the Power to promote or provide for the general badfare, nor the general malfare, nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

Yes, why do you make up words that don't exist?

It exists now. I just told you what it was.

No, you just made them up and they don't mean anything to anyone but you.

Every word was just made up at one time or another. The general badfare cannot be the same as the general welfare or general goodfare.

New words have to be agreed upon to have meaning. Yours are not agreed upon, thus have no meaning except to you.

Do you agree that the general badfare is not the same as the general goodfare or the general welfare?

 

[Nostra]

The guys who wrote the Constitution say lil Danny is a nutbag.



From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.

According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.

Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45

In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:

“I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”

Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:

“But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. I contend that no such power is given.” [emphasis mine]

As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.

This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:

“With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators.”[emphasis mine]

Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:

“provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, you know, was the federal doctrine…that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.” [emphasis mine]

The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:

“…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792

It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.

So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an absurdly out of control federal government.

As Madison himself said,

“I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”

Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.

The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”

 

[danielpalos]

The guys who wrote the Constitution say lil Danny is a nutbag.



From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.

According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.

Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45

In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill. Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:

“I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”

Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:

“But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. I contend that no such power is given.” [emphasis mine]

As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution. Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.

This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:

“With respect to the words "General welfare" I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators.”[emphasis mine]

Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:

“provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, you know, was the federal doctrine…that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.” [emphasis mine]

The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design. In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:

“…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792

It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.

So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an absurdly out of control federal government.

As Madison himself said,

“I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”

Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute” into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.

The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”

Not every Thing qualifies as the general welfare.

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.--The Federalist Number Forty-One

 

[Nostra]

I will take these guys over a braindead, Libtard innerweb hack any day...................


The Founders and the “general welfare”
The Constitution limits the powers of the Federal government. However, even a perfect document cannot stand up to philosophical evasion and corruption. Without the proper moral base, the principles of the Constitution could not be defended, much less kept alive.
To illustrate this, let us consider a few words in the preamble of the Constitution—what is commonly called the general welfare clause. This clause states that one of the reasons for the Constitution is to “promote the general welfare”.
As they are commonly used, terms such as “general welfare”, or “common good,” or “public interest” are undefinable. As these terms are generally used, they mean that society is to be considered apart from the individuals comprising it. The good of society supersedes the good of any individual.
There is no such entity as “the public”, there are only individuals. These terms actually mean that some individuals take precedence over other individuals, that some may impose their values on others.
The Founders, particularly Madison, understood that the general welfare clause could be abused. In the debate over the Cod Fishery Bill in 1792, Madison stated:

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion in to their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county, and parish and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.

Thomas Jefferson called the phrase “a mere ‘grammatical quibble’ that has countenanced the general government in a claim of universal power”. He mistakenly believed that the Founder’s had clarified their intentions and meaning, and debate over the meaning of the phrase would cease.
The Founders clearly understood the “general welfare” to mean the good of all citizens, not an open-ended mandate for Congress. The only good that applies to all citizens is freedom, and government’s proper role is the protection of that freedom. That was the meaning intended by the Founders.
Those who sought to expand government’s powers chose to ignore the explanations offered by the Founders. Corrupted by bad philosophy, they rejected the principles of the Founders and of the Constitution.

The Founders and the “general welfare”

individualrightsgovernmentwrongs.com