General Welfare Clause

[Quantum Windbag]

Many libertarians of course wish to eliminate the Rule of Law so they can carry on their own desires of their dark little hearts.

Can you provide a list?

 

[Contumacious]

You can have your own private road, if you keep it up or not.

But if you are going to drive on the roads publicly, you are going to pay your fair share.

Of course, as a Libertarian I don't speak 'socialism" so I have no idea what you bastards mean by "a fair share".

I do not mind paying a set fee on toll roads, I just don't want to pay for yours.

I also don't want the bastards telling me that I don't have any expectation of privacy because I drive on "their " roads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Many libertarians of course wish to eliminate the Rule of Law so they can carry on their own desires of their dark little hearts.

Indeed.

Again, we see conservatives, libertarians, and others on the right engaging in the ‘Constitutional Reformation,’ where one man alone with his copy of the Constitution decides what the Founding Document means.

That might be fun at cocktail parties, at the water cooler, and on internet message boards – and everyone is certainly entitled to his own opinion – but that opinion has no basis in legal fact as to the meaning of the GWC, or any other aspect of the Constitution.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, a doctrine well-established in the Anglo-American judicial tradition, accepted and practiced during and before the Foundation Era.

It is no surprise that you agree with the board statist, you are even dumber than he is.

Strange to me that you did not object when one man alone decided that the Constitution meant that the government could tax us into buying insurance. Did you object to the single most blatant example of judicial activism in history? Have ye ever seen an opinion that lost 8-1 and still became the majority decision?

 

[LibertyLemming]

I can't wrap my mind on how most people are totally fine with the government taking their property by force but would scream for the police and justice if an individual did the same thing to them.


Edit: Quantum I dig your avataR

 

[Contumacious]

madison's words are not law... they have no force of law... .

Ms Jill, you are correct again.

The ONLY words that matter are those of Karl Marx and his progeny, ie, FDR and Obama.

As always Heil Hitler.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you drive on Our the Public's road, you will pay your fair share.

What you want the legislature of We the People telling you means nothing.

Don't speak of what you don't have the slightest idea, anymore than does bripat, of socialism and libertarianism and capitalism. You guys live in a loony world of loony definitions.

You can have your own private road, if you keep it up or not.

But if you are going to drive on the roads publicly, you are going to pay your fair share.

Of course, as a Libertarian I don't speak 'socialism" so I have no idea what you bastards mean by "a fair share".

I do not mind paying a set fee on toll roads, I just don't want to pay for yours.

I also don't want the bastards telling me that I don't have any expectation of privacy because I drive on "their " roads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What a moronic comment from Mr. Contumacious Mole, so near sighted.

madison's words are not law... they have no force of law... .

Ms Jill, you are correct again.

The ONLY words that matter are those of Karl Marx and his progeny, ie, FDR and Obama.

As always Heil Hitler.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What you call unjustifiable taxation the Founders would call the legitimate ends of government for We the People.

I can't wrap my mind on how most people are totally fine with the government taking their property by force but would scream for the police and justice if an individual did the same thing to them.


Edit: Quantum I dig your avataR

 

[Listening]

From my uderstanding, progressives, both Democrat and Republican alike, use the General Welfare Clause of the Contitution to give the nanny state legitimacy. They interpret it to say that Congress has the power to tend to the general welfare of the public at large, so any taxpayer money spent to that end is legitimate.

However, have they ever read the writings of the Father of the Constitution who is James Madison? He wrote about the General Welfare Clause because he wrote it himself, and this was what he said about it.

"If Congress can supply money indefinately to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the welfare, they may appoint teachers in every state, country, and parish and pay them out of their public treasury, they may take into their own hands the education of the children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union; they may assume the provision of the poor, they ma undertake the regulations of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything from the highest objects of state legislation down to the minute objects of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress......were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundation, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."

After reading what the author had to say about the General Welfare Clause, how can progressives falsely interpret it to defend the nanny state? I would have more respect for them had they just disagreed with the Constitution and tried to amed it.

Consider yourselves subverted and transmuted. The only hope I have is that since progressives have chosen to ignore the Constitution, they have provided a vehicle to perhaps challenge their legitimacy to power at some point. It may be a small window of hope, but it is better than nothing.

they didn't need to amend it.

madison's words are not law... they have no force of law... there were many competing views among others of the founding fathers. their competing visions are simply advisory and not binding on anyone.

the constitution is interpreted by the supreme court... and the supreme court has construed the general welfare clause fairly expansively, though not as expansively as the commerce clause.

the entire point is that it was intended for the government to do good for the populace. this idea that government wasn't to have any function beyond waging war isn't borne out by any reality.

Oh, the ignorance......

When Schillian says government she means federal government. She forgets (like the rest of the left) that there are four or five levels of government below the fed.....all of which have much broader scopes of activities (where do you think the roads and schools come from ?).

Said reality only became reality after FDR...the left likes to forget the reality of the first 150 years.

Our education system really does suck.

 

[Listening]

If you drive on Our the Public's road, you will pay your fair share.

What you want the legislature of We the People telling you means nothing.

Don't speak of what you don't have the slightest idea, anymore than does bripat, of socialism and libertarianism and capitalism. You guys live in a loony world of loony definitions.

You can have your own private road, if you keep it up or not.

But if you are going to drive on the roads publicly, you are going to pay your fair share.

Of course, as a Libertarian I don't speak 'socialism" so I have no idea what you bastards mean by "a fair share".

I do not mind paying a set fee on toll roads, I just don't want to pay for yours.

I also don't want the bastards telling me that I don't have any expectation of privacy because I drive on "their " roads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

Dumbass comment.....again.

Said roads are not paid for by the fed...for the most part and the general welfare clause only applies to the federal government.

What is lost here is that people like you can't seem to multi-task or work in layers.

 

[LibertyLemming]

What you call unjustifiable taxation the Founders would call the legitimate ends of government for We the People.

I can't wrap my mind on how most people are totally fine with the government taking their property by force but would scream for the police and justice if an individual did the same thing to them.


Edit: Quantum I dig your avataR

Even if that were true what is your point? The Constitution is infallible?

 

[JakeStarkey]

My point is the Rule of Law by We the People in our legislatures assembled under Constitutional law protects from the Rule of Men unfettered by constitutional law.

What you call unjustifiable taxation the Founders would call the legitimate ends of government for We the People.

I can't wrap my mind on how most people are totally fine with the government taking their property by force but would scream for the police and justice if an individual did the same thing to them.


Edit: Quantum I dig your avataR

Even if that were true what is your point? The Constitution is infallible?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You clearly know nothing about the financing of the interstate highway system or how our public state and country road networks are financed and maintained.

I am tired of listening to these uneducated far right extremists and their equally uneducated cousins the libertarians.

If you drive on Our the Public's road, you will pay your fair share.

What you want the legislature of We the People telling you means nothing.

Don't speak of what you don't have the slightest idea, anymore than does bripat, of socialism and libertarianism and capitalism. You guys live in a loony world of loony definitions.

Of course, as a Libertarian I don't speak 'socialism" so I have no idea what you bastards mean by "a fair share".

I do not mind paying a set fee on toll roads, I just don't want to pay for yours.

I also don't want the bastards telling me that I don't have any expectation of privacy because I drive on "their " roads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

Dumbass comment.....again.

Said roads are not paid for by the fed...for the most part and the general welfare clause only applies to the federal government.

What is lost here is that people like you can't seem to multi-task or work in layers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you drive on Our the Public's road, you will pay your fair share.

What you want the legislature of We the People telling you means nothing.

Don't speak of what you don't have the slightest idea, anymore than does bripat, of socialism and libertarianism and capitalism. You guys live in a loony world of loony definitions.

You can have your own private road, if you keep it up or not.

But if you are going to drive on the roads publicly, you are going to pay your fair share.

Of course, as a Libertarian I don't speak 'socialism" so I have no idea what you bastards mean by "a fair share".

I do not mind paying a set fee on toll roads, I just don't want to pay for yours.

I also don't want the bastards telling me that I don't have any expectation of privacy because I drive on "their " roads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

It turns out that people who drive electric cars, who happen to be mostly rich white folk that think rich people pay more in taxes, don't pay their fair share for those roads, which is why states are debating tracking how many miles you drive.

States explore new ways to tax motorists for road repair

That, of course, will disproportionately affect low income people, which you hate.

 

[Qantrill]

From my uderstanding, progressives, both Democrat and Republican alike, use the General Welfare Clause of the Contitution to give the nanny state legitimacy. They interpret it to say that Congress has the power to tend to the general welfare of the public at large, so any taxpayer money spent to that end is legitimate.

However, have they ever read the writings of the Father of the Constitution who is James Madison? He wrote about the General Welfare Clause because he wrote it himself, and this was what he said about it.

"If Congress can supply money indefinately to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the welfare, they may appoint teachers in every state, country, and parish and pay them out of their public treasury, they may take into their own hands the education of the children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union; they may assume the provision of the poor, they ma undertake the regulations of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything from the highest objects of state legislation down to the minute objects of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress......were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundation, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."

After reading what the author had to say about the General Welfare Clause, how can progressives falsely interpret it to defend the nanny state? I would have more respect for them had they just disagreed with the Constitution and tried to amed it.

Consider yourselves subverted and transmuted. The only hope I have is that since progressives have chosen to ignore the Constitution, they have provided a vehicle to perhaps challenge their legitimacy to power at some point. It may be a small window of hope, but it is better than nothing.

After reading this forum, and having 89 posts to your own credit, how can you, in good conscious refer to these libtards as progressives?

 

[JakeStarkey]

How can you suggest that you are responsible with such language. Are you a crazy extremist to the far right or a libertarian? That can be the only way to disregard the good GOP and Dems that are doing their best to put this country back together again after the lefties and the Tea Party pissed on everything the last two years.

[After reading this forum, and having 89 posts to your own credit, how can you, in good conscious refer to these libtards as progressives?

 

[Qantrill]

How can you suggest that you are responsible with such language. Are you a crazy extremist to the far right or a libertarian? That can be the only way to disregard the good GOP and Dems that are doing their best to put this country back together again after the lefties and the Tea Party pissed on everything the last two years.

It's easy. I look at Obama's body of work (non-existant) and then you libtards so vacantly supporting that empty suit and shit just comes to me. Then I pass the shit along to zombies such as yourself.

 

[OKTexas]

When you boil it down, the only fact is Article 1, Section 8 is a single sentence. You have to read it in its entirety to get its true meaning. When you think you see implied powers there in contained, see the 10th Amendment. It plainly states that there are no implied powers contained in the Constitution, only those specifically enumerated are vaild. No man or group of men can change that fact.

And don't tell me that the supremes have ruled otherwise and that's the way it is, I won't satisified unitl you can tell me that is the way it was intended to be.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When you come to it, the far lefties and the TeaPs and the libertarians are psycho-babbling are coming to an end on Tuesday in terms of any influence in the future. The center right/left right are going to come together, or this country is going to be even worse than it is now because of their screw ups.

 

[LibertyLemming]

I find myself wanting to post this yet again