Liberal war on the Constitution, again

[Sallow]

and it says specifically Congress shall have the power to Declare War. I notice how you didn't want to include THAT section of my response in your reply now did you? Why not? Afraid to be proven wrong? Was Normandy purely a defensive use of our military? Can you site how that invasion was not Constitutional? Let's start with that little "oops" in your discussion.

Yes. And there are 2..reasons to do so.

suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


You have trouble with English?

So you are telling me a Declaration of War is never to be seen as an offensive term. Yet you are unwilling to show under Section 8 dictating the role of Congress, how an offensive invasion of the Germans at Normandy is unConstitutional. Why is that?

We were attacked by the Axis. WWII was defensive.

Once attacked..you are obligated to defeat your enemy.

That's a pretty basic tenet.

 

[Sallow]

So you are telling me a Declaration of War is never to be seen as an offensive term. Yet you are unwilling to show under Section 8 dictating the role of Congress, how an offensive invasion of the Germans at Normandy is unConstitutional. Why is that?

Actually, what he's doing is playing with your head, 'cause he considers you to be an irrational, delusional wacko with whom one cannot have a serious, intelligent conversation.

You're welcome.

That..and I don't think he understands the Constitution..at all.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The preamble is the hope the Founders had for our country, I stated that the specifics on HOW that is to be achieved is through government's limited role, as written under the Articles.

Well, yeah, it's "limited" in the sense of not being "unlimited." Some of the powers granted are pretty durn broad, though. So it's not as limited as you would probably prefer.

For example - How is the government to promote the general welfare, in what ways are they meant to accomplish this. Somehow, over the years, politicians have exchanged promote to say . . . what the Founders REALLY meant was to "provide" all these services, thus changing the very fabric of the meaning of the Constitution

Nah. It's perfectly clear how the government is empowered to promote the general welfare. One way is to tax and spend in order to provide for the general welfare. Others are also spelled out in other parts of the same section.

As I said, the Preamble has no legal force. Therefore, nobody has argued that the government has the authority to, say, create an old-age pension program, by reference to the Preamble. Thus, your implication that people have erred by switching the wording in the Preamble is inaccurate. Instead, the argument is that the government is entitled to lay and collect taxes and spend tax revenues in order to provide for the general welfare, not in the Preamble but in Article I, Section 8, which, unlike the Preamble, DOES have legal force, and which, unlike the Preamble, actually spells out the powers of the federal government.

So if you think that's wrong, you need to address the part of the Constitution which is actually believed to empower the action, not the Preamble.

I think you need to address the issue on how promoting the general welfare is not the intent of our Founders. Why did they specifically use the word promote instead of provide, if they intended for the later to be true? It appears the greater burden of explaination is on you. Can you provide any quotes from the Founders specifically address the need for government to provide rather than promote the general welfare? You know the substantial difference in meaning between using the words promote vs provide, don't you? Why didn't the Founders simply have the wording of the preamble removed and never included, if that's not what they wanted to have interpreted, but as rather insignificant of a statement (as you so easily would like to brush off and claim)?

 

[Sallow]

The preamble is the hope the Founders had for our country, I stated that the specifics on HOW that is to be achieved is through government's limited role, as written under the Articles.

Well, yeah, it's "limited" in the sense of not being "unlimited." Some of the powers granted are pretty durn broad, though. So it's not as limited as you would probably prefer.

For example - How is the government to promote the general welfare, in what ways are they meant to accomplish this. Somehow, over the years, politicians have exchanged promote to say . . . what the Founders REALLY meant was to "provide" all these services, thus changing the very fabric of the meaning of the Constitution

Nah. It's perfectly clear how the government is empowered to promote the general welfare. One way is to tax and spend in order to provide for the general welfare. Others are also spelled out in other parts of the same section.

As I said, the Preamble has no legal force. Therefore, nobody has argued that the government has the authority to, say, create an old-age pension program, by reference to the Preamble. Thus, your implication that people have erred by switching the wording in the Preamble is inaccurate. Instead, the argument is that the government is entitled to lay and collect taxes and spend tax revenues in order to provide for the general welfare, not in the Preamble but in Article I, Section 8, which, unlike the Preamble, DOES have legal force, and which, unlike the Preamble, actually spells out the powers of the federal government.

So if you think that's wrong, you need to address the part of the Constitution which is actually believed to empower the action, not the Preamble.

I think you need to address the issue on how promoting the general welfare is not the intent of our Founders. Why did they specifically use the word promote instead of provide, if they intended for the later to be true? It appears the greater burden of explaination is on you. Can you provide any quotes from the Founders specifically address the need for government to provide rather than promote the general welfare? You know the substantial difference in meaning between using the words promote vs provide, don't you? Why didn't the Founders simply have the wording of the preamble removed and never included, if that's not what they wanted to have interpreted, but as rather insignificant of a statement (as you so easily would like to brush off and claim)?

It was a stylistic choice. In any case..they've been providing for the general welfare for quite some time. From having soldiers clear cut forests to set up towns to Social Security.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Preamble has no legal force. The phrase "provide for the general welfare" appears with legal force in Article I, Section 8, clause 1, as a modifier on the enumerated power to tax and spend.

That said, this is quite sufficient to authorize Social Security.

Correct, as established in Helvering v. Davis

The preamble is the hope the Founders had for our country, I stated that the specifics on HOW that is to be achieved is through government's limited role, as written under the Articles. For example - How is the government to promote the general welfare, in what ways are they meant to accomplish this. Somehow, over the years, politicians have exchanged promote to say . . . what the Founders REALLY meant was to "provide" all these services, thus changing the very fabric of the meaning of the Constitution to fit their own "power hungry political big government intrusion over it's own people" purpose (not to that role which government was initially intended to perform). Remember it's We the People that's meant to have control over the government, not the other way around.

Nonsense.

There is no case law which in any way supports such an interpretation. This is merely delusional libertarian paranoia.

 

[regent]

Promote-provide it all comes down which group, liberal or conservative controls the Court. As Justice Hughes said, the Constitution is what the Court say it is.

 

[Dragon]

I think you need to address the issue on how promoting the general welfare is not the intent of our Founders.

Since I never said that, why should I address it? As far as I'm concerned, it's not an issue.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So you are telling me a Declaration of War is never to be seen as an offensive term. Yet you are unwilling to show under Section 8 dictating the role of Congress, how an offensive invasion of the Germans at Normandy is unConstitutional. Why is that?

Actually, what he's doing is playing with your head, 'cause he considers you to be an irrational, delusional wacko with whom one cannot have a serious, intelligent conversation.

You're welcome.

That..and I don't think he understands the Constitution..at all.

"Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. ... Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them." --Benjamin Franklin

"I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am naturally very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country, and the least encroachment of those invaluable privileges is apt to make my blood boil."
― Benjamin Franklin

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
― Benjamin Franklin




"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them." ― Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148



"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." ― James Madison, Federalist No. 45

"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 of 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. ... 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." ― James Madison


There is nothing here to suggest an unlimited power given to the Federal Government, rather the Founders believed in (as the quotes above reveals) a very limited restrictve role for government.

 

[Dragon]

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare

[Emphasis mine.] I'm addressing this Madison quote because it's the only one you presented that's pertinent to the discussion.

The bolded words are the crux. Congress is not the sole and supreme judge of the general welfare. That's why we have a Supreme Court.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare

[Emphasis mine.] I'm addressing this Madison quote because it's the only one you presented that's pertinent to the discussion.

The bolded words are the crux. Congress is not the sole and supreme judge of the general welfare. That's why we have a Supreme Court.

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them." ― Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148


This is very pertinent to the discussion of taxes and providing for the general welfare for the purpose of the "good of the union". The Founders never intended for an unlimited role and power of the Federal Government with respect to providing for the "general welfare". Rather they supported a more limited role of government for this country, as the other quotes from my previous post also demonstrated. Show me quotes from our founders that says otherwise.

 

[Dragon]

No, the Jefferson quote isn't relevant. Jefferson is right that this language does not create a broad legislative power to promote the general welfare, AND NO ONE HAS EVER SAID OTHERWISE. It is a modifier of the power to tax, AND EVERYONE AGREES ABOUT THAT.

The only disagreement involves whether the power to tax implies a power to spend the moneys collected in taxes. Common sense says yes, especially since taxation, by itself, can do nothing to "pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." The money must be spent to accomplish this.

Those who argue for a more restricted power say that the first clause grants a power to tax only, and that the money can only be spent in furtherance of the other enumerated powers. Without going into the arguments on either side of this question, Jefferson does not here address it. As such, he is addressing only a non-issue, although it may not have been a non-issue when he wrote those words.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is nothing here to suggest an unlimited power given to the Federal Government, rather the Founders believed in (as the quotes above reveals) a very limited restrictve role for government.

And there is also nothing to suggest that any acts of Congress in the last 200 years in any way conflict with that ‘limited’ role. Indeed, Since McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), it has been settled law that that Congress possesses un-enumerated powers not explicitly stated in the Constitution.

Congress is not the sole and supreme judge of the general welfare. That's why we have a Supreme Court.

Correct. Nor are primary documents from the Foundation Era the sole and supreme judge of the ‘General Welfare,’ or any other Constitutional issue, for that matter - they are taken into consideration with regard to the Court’s review of a given act of Congress, along with other relevant evidence, documents, and sources.

 

[Two Thumbs]

You and I disagree on the Second Amendment.

In any case..nothing in the Constitution provides any guidance in regards to hunting. Which, would put that power to the states...

AAnnndd liberals hate states rights.

except to further their attack on the Constitution.

ex; arms laws, ammo laws, gun laws.
hate speech is free speech, but not now, thanks to liberals.

Those are some wild logical leaps..man.

Late night?

uhm, no.

Jillian has stated clearly that she does not support states rights, along with a few other of your breathern on the left.

and everything I listed is true, no leaps needed.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Is lead the only material that bullets can be made from?

No.

any metal can be used.

However for quality of impact and cost, it's the best metal.

outlawed: teflon
style thats outlawed; warhawk. it was special made from steel, I think, but b/c it made a nasty wound the right to buy them was outlawed.

 

[Two Thumbs]

it's not the right to bear arms except.

Actually, according to D.C. v. Heller, it is the right to bear arms except.

You might want to read that.

It seems clear to me that freedom won out and government tyranny was checked.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Barnes Bullets, which manufactures copper bullets because, the company says, they perform better than lead, is seeing increased interest in its non-lead products, said Jessica Brooks, the Utah company's spokeswoman.

Loughlin, of Union City, California, has noticed new manufacturers jumping into the green bullet game.

"They're definitely coming out. Winchester and Remington, all the big-name ammo makers are loading green ammunition now," he said.

Some firing ranges are banning lead for safety reasons. Lead bullets contaminate military training grounds across the country and are the subjects of many environmental cleanups.

California and other state governments have taken up lead bullets as a matter of policy. They worry that lead from the bullets contaminates ecosystems and could affect people.

Last year, California banned lead bullets in the chunk of the state that makes up the endangered California condor's habitat. The large birds are known to feed on scraps of meat left behind by hunters. Those scraps sometimes contain pieces of lead bullets, and lead poisoning is thought to be a contributor to condor deaths.

Arizona, another condor state, gives out coupons so hunters can buy green ammunition. Utah may soon follow suit.

Should hunters switch to 'green' bullets?

Freedom prevails.

does this excuse forcing people to comply?

 

[Two Thumbs]

besides, we both know that liberals wouldn't stop at banning them for hunting. They would move into the other uses for lead bullets.

Nonsense.

‘Liberals’ have no intent on banning any type of gun; they’ve accepted Heller/McDonald as settled law, and have moved on. It’s only the nitwit right that refuses to do so in an attempt to keep a non-issue alive.

Liar.

How many times have we heard limited ammo clips?

Liberals will never fucking ever stop. The Constitution didn't slow them, so why would a law give them pause?

 

[rdean]

Republicans have proposed 42 amendments since Obama became president. Wow, they sure do want to change what they claim they follow.

How do they explain this apparent conundrum?

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Constitution says a right to bear arms.......it says nothing about bullets

Bullets are arms, except to liberals who think arms are only pistols and rifles.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Republicans have proposed 42 amendments since Obama became president. Wow, they sure do want to change what they claim they follow.

How do they explain this apparent conundrum?

Reps are old dems.

they do what you used to do; slowly move twards government tyranny.

but since the dems have been over run with progs, dems no longer feel any need to go slowly.


and here's some knowledge for you; Reps are moderates. The only "conservatives" are the religious right.