OohPooPahDoo
Gold Member
fishing and bait....
lesson 1
there will be a test in Wednesday
I think you should stop doing LSD.
No one should stop doing LSD. It's outta sight, man!!!!
I sure knew when I had had enough.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
fishing and bait....
lesson 1
there will be a test in Wednesday
I think you should stop doing LSD.
No one should stop doing LSD. It's outta sight, man!!!!
I think you should stop doing LSD.
No one should stop doing LSD. It's outta sight, man!!!!
I sure knew when I had had enough.
No one should stop doing LSD. It's outta sight, man!!!!
I sure knew when I had had enough.
You were doing it wrong. Here; let me help:
8 am ... wake up, take massive dose of LSD
Noon ... up the dose of LSD
5 pm ... realize we are all one in the universe connected by a single thread of thought energy, making us the organism we call god. Then take more LSD.
9 pm ... Sleep.
Repeat next day.
I sure knew when I had had enough.
You were doing it wrong. Here; let me help:
8 am ... wake up, take massive dose of LSD
Noon ... up the dose of LSD
5 pm ... realize we are all one in the universe connected by a single thread of thought energy, making us the organism we call god. Then take more LSD.
9 pm ... Sleep.
Repeat next day.
I was on more of a once Saturday and once Wednesday schedule.
You were doing it wrong. Here; let me help:
8 am ... wake up, take massive dose of LSD
Noon ... up the dose of LSD
5 pm ... realize we are all one in the universe connected by a single thread of thought energy, making us the organism we call god. Then take more LSD.
9 pm ... Sleep.
Repeat next day.
I was on more of a once Saturday and once Wednesday schedule.
Probably best. That leaves Sun - Tues open for Meth. Then Thursday - Friday are crack days.
All good.
But any power not enumerated in the Constitution belongs to the states.The "current intepretation" ?
LOL!
Are you telling me that at some point the clause did not mean literally what it says - that the Congress may raise taxes to provide for the general welfare? That is literally what it says - does it mean something other than that?
There are other schools of thought on the clause.
The Hamilton interpretation is the one we seem to be following.
Alexander Hamilton contended that Congresss taxing authority is plenary, and indefinite, and that the objects to which it may be appropriated [i.e., the general welfare] are no less comprehensive.
Madison and Jefferson shared a different opinion. It holds that the preambles General Welfare Clause, right before the Constitutions exacting enumeration of Congresss powers, merely makes clear that Congress has the authority to raise revenue and spend in furtherance of those specified powers.
Tell me which do you prefer: The blank check approach of Hamilton that got us where we are today or the restrictive approach favored by Jefferson and Madison that would not allow the government to spend money on anything but its enumerated powers?
Its not a blank check. It does not allow congress to regulate for the general welfare - nor does it allow them to tax and spend for any purpose they choose.. It only allows them to tax and spend and only for the general welfare and common defence. If you'd read Hamilton you'd know this.
EDIT: It is a very broad power, no doubt. But it is hardly infinite. It does not allow Congress to, for instance, require every American eat 3 servings of vegetables a day. That's isn't taxing and spending, that's regulating behavior - its not allowed by the GW clause. Nor does it allow Congress to spend money to supplement the diets of only the poor people in Vermont - the benefit must be general in scope.
But any power not enumerated in the Constitution belongs to the states.There are other schools of thought on the clause.
The Hamilton interpretation is the one we seem to be following.
Alexander Hamilton contended that Congress’s taxing authority is “plenary, and indefinite,” and that “the objects to which it may be appropriated [i.e., the general welfare] are no less comprehensive.”
Madison and Jefferson shared a different opinion. It holds that the preamble’s General Welfare Clause, right before the Constitution’s exacting enumeration of Congress’s powers, merely makes clear that Congress has the authority to raise revenue and spend in furtherance of those specified powers.
Tell me which do you prefer: The blank check approach of Hamilton that got us where we are today or the restrictive approach favored by Jefferson and Madison that would not allow the government to spend money on anything but its enumerated powers?
Its not a blank check. It does not allow congress to regulate for the general welfare - nor does it allow them to tax and spend for any purpose they choose.. It only allows them to tax and spend and only for the general welfare and common defence. If you'd read Hamilton you'd know this.
EDIT: It is a very broad power, no doubt. But it is hardly infinite. It does not allow Congress to, for instance, require every American eat 3 servings of vegetables a day. That's isn't taxing and spending, that's regulating behavior - its not allowed by the GW clause. Nor does it allow Congress to spend money to supplement the diets of only the poor people in Vermont - the benefit must be general in scope.
So quite frankly the federal government has no authority to fund welfare programs with our taxes.
The government can promote the general welfare only by staying in the bounds of its defined powers. Anything else is the responsibility of the individual states.
But any power not enumerated in the Constitution belongs to the states.Its not a blank check. It does not allow congress to regulate for the general welfare - nor does it allow them to tax and spend for any purpose they choose.. It only allows them to tax and spend and only for the general welfare and common defence. If you'd read Hamilton you'd know this.
EDIT: It is a very broad power, no doubt. But it is hardly infinite. It does not allow Congress to, for instance, require every American eat 3 servings of vegetables a day. That's isn't taxing and spending, that's regulating behavior - its not allowed by the GW clause. Nor does it allow Congress to spend money to supplement the diets of only the poor people in Vermont - the benefit must be general in scope.
Article I Section 8 Clause 1 of the Constitution is in the Constitution. I can't believe you are so fucking stupid that I have to point that out.
So quite frankly the federal government has no authority to fund welfare programs with our taxes.
Sure - if you completely ignore the part of the Constitution that says - literally - Congress may tax to provide for the general welfare - you're right.
The government can promote the general welfare only by staying in the bounds of its defined powers. Anything else is the responsibility of the individual states.
It says in Article I Section 8 Clause 1 it may PROVIDE for the general welfare. I feel like we've been here before. Do you have memory problems?
But any power not enumerated in the Constitution belongs to the states.There are other schools of thought on the clause.
The Hamilton interpretation is the one we seem to be following.
Alexander Hamilton contended that Congress’s taxing authority is “plenary, and indefinite,” and that “the objects to which it may be appropriated [i.e., the general welfare] are no less comprehensive.”
Madison and Jefferson shared a different opinion. It holds that the preamble’s General Welfare Clause, right before the Constitution’s exacting enumeration of Congress’s powers, merely makes clear that Congress has the authority to raise revenue and spend in furtherance of those specified powers.
Tell me which do you prefer: The blank check approach of Hamilton that got us where we are today or the restrictive approach favored by Jefferson and Madison that would not allow the government to spend money on anything but its enumerated powers?
Its not a blank check. It does not allow congress to regulate for the general welfare - nor does it allow them to tax and spend for any purpose they choose.. It only allows them to tax and spend and only for the general welfare and common defence. If you'd read Hamilton you'd know this.
EDIT: It is a very broad power, no doubt. But it is hardly infinite. It does not allow Congress to, for instance, require every American eat 3 servings of vegetables a day. That's isn't taxing and spending, that's regulating behavior - its not allowed by the GW clause. Nor does it allow Congress to spend money to supplement the diets of only the poor people in Vermont - the benefit must be general in scope.
So quite frankly the federal government has no authority to fund welfare programs with our taxes.
The government can promote the general welfare only by staying in the bounds of its defined powers. Anything else is the responsibility of the individual states.
Recapitulation
The Ninth Amendment explicitly bars denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution, but this amendment does not explicitly bar denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain powers in the Constitution.[16] It is to that enumeration of powers that the courts have pointed, in order to determine the extent of the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment.[16] Scholars are divided about whether to seek a different and more powerful role for this amendment.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Recapitulation
But any power not enumerated in the Constitution belongs to the states.There are other schools of thought on the clause.
The Hamilton interpretation is the one we seem to be following.
Alexander Hamilton contended that Congresss taxing authority is plenary, and indefinite, and that the objects to which it may be appropriated [i.e., the general welfare] are no less comprehensive.
Madison and Jefferson shared a different opinion. It holds that the preambles General Welfare Clause, right before the Constitutions exacting enumeration of Congresss powers, merely makes clear that Congress has the authority to raise revenue and spend in furtherance of those specified powers.
Tell me which do you prefer: The blank check approach of Hamilton that got us where we are today or the restrictive approach favored by Jefferson and Madison that would not allow the government to spend money on anything but its enumerated powers?
Its not a blank check. It does not allow congress to regulate for the general welfare - nor does it allow them to tax and spend for any purpose they choose.. It only allows them to tax and spend and only for the general welfare and common defence. If you'd read Hamilton you'd know this.
EDIT: It is a very broad power, no doubt. But it is hardly infinite. It does not allow Congress to, for instance, require every American eat 3 servings of vegetables a day. That's isn't taxing and spending, that's regulating behavior - its not allowed by the GW clause. Nor does it allow Congress to spend money to supplement the diets of only the poor people in Vermont - the benefit must be general in scope.
So quite frankly the federal government has no authority to fund welfare programs with our taxes.
The government can promote the general welfare only by staying in the bounds of its defined powers. Anything else is the responsibility of the individual states.
The Supreme Court has recognized that Congresss power to tax is extremely broad. In United States v. Doremus [1919], the Court stated that f the legislation enacted has some reasonable relation to the exercise of the taxing authority conferred by the Constitution, it cannot be invalidated because of the supposed motives which induced it.46
Recently, the Supreme Court, in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (NFIB),47 upheld a requirement in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act/ACA)48 beginning in 2014, that most individuals carry health insurance or pay a penalty for noncompliance as a valid exercise of Congress authority to levy taxes. Chief Justice Roberts, in his opinion, stated that the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress constitutional power to tax.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40846.pdf
Judicial recognition of welfare benefits as a right of all needy individuals also pervaded many statutory decisions challenging state practices under federal welfare laws. See Forbath, supra note 1, at 1859-62 (discussing King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1968), and lower court cases recognizing private rights of action against state welfare agencies, invalidating income attribution rules and restrictions on welfare eligibility, and making injunctive relief available for statutory violations).
http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/sites/default/files/articles/Liu.pdf
In Goldberg v.Kelly [1970], where the Court held that due process rights attach to welfare benefits, the Court stated,
From its founding the Nations basic commitment has been to foster the dignity and wellbeing of all persons within its borders.... Welfare, by meeting the basic demands of
subsistence, can help bring within the reach of the poor the same opportunities that are
available to others to participate meaningfully in the life of the community.... Public
assistance, then is not mere charity, but a means to promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40846.pdf
But any power not enumerated in the Constitution belongs to the states.Its not a blank check. It does not allow congress to regulate for the general welfare - nor does it allow them to tax and spend for any purpose they choose.. It only allows them to tax and spend and only for the general welfare and common defence. If you'd read Hamilton you'd know this.
EDIT: It is a very broad power, no doubt. But it is hardly infinite. It does not allow Congress to, for instance, require every American eat 3 servings of vegetables a day. That's isn't taxing and spending, that's regulating behavior - its not allowed by the GW clause. Nor does it allow Congress to spend money to supplement the diets of only the poor people in Vermont - the benefit must be general in scope.
So quite frankly the federal government has no authority to fund welfare programs with our taxes.
The government can promote the general welfare only by staying in the bounds of its defined powers. Anything else is the responsibility of the individual states.
the 9th: just because a right is not enumerated does not = it doesn't exist. more rights exist than are enumerated