Obama Admits it: Conservatism Works

[DiamondDave]

The writers knew how to use the word people or persons.... and they specifically did not...

right. 'We the People.....'

In order to form a more perfect union... and so on

The union of states that gives the federal government it's power...

It would have been very easy to state that the government is to provide for the general welfare of every citizen of the united states.. or every person within the united states... but they did not.. .because they were very specific in the powers that the federal government was supposed to have... leaving all other powers to the discretion of the state through their own legal means...

The federal government does not exist to ensure that your nose gets wiped or that you have cereal to eat or to ensure you get your VD shot

 

[antagon]

There's not a single state that would have ratified the Constitution if they thought that's what they were singing on to. Not one!

post-colonial delegates wrote it in the first place, crusader. steel's post is a very real statement of the constitutional role of the fed. govt, that it is a cooperative effort of the states. all thirteen. middleschool history, buddy.

 

[DiamondDave]

Wrong again

Try and look at the enumerated powers.. the general welfare clause was never intended as some catch all to give the government authority to do anything it wants

Article 1, Section 8 states:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Where leftists and entitlement junkies go wrong is in thinking that the general welfare of the states individually and as a collective whole(you know.. the entities that created the federal government and allow the federal government to have power) is the same thing as the welfare of individuals... it is MUCH different than the welfare of individuals and the use of entitlements to individual citizens within the country...

but nice try.. even though activist entitlement junkies and power junkies in the government have abused this in exactly the way you want it to be, the wording is quite clear as is the context of the statement

Nonsense.

First, the states did not create the federal government. The document we call the US Constitution, technically, is a compact. That is, it is solemn agreement among individuals to create a community. The Preamble says "we the People...." not "we the states..." "do ordain and establish..." That's what makes it a compact. Everything after the Preamble is a consititution, i.e. a text constituting or creating a government.

Secondly, the general welfare clause, in fact, is a declaration of unlimited power for Congress. The Founders deliberately chose a vague and indefinite phrase,"provide for the general welfare," to ensure the federal government would be empowered to act in any way necessary to serve the People. This created a problem, though. Reasonable persons could have good faith disagreements about the nature of the general welfare and what policies would serve it. To avoid this problem in certain areas, the Founders defined a number of powers as necessary to provide for the general welfare. These are the so-called enumerated powers. Congress must do these things and may do anyting else it wishes.

Finally, the general welfare can be served by virtually any act of Congress as long the membership agrees. It need not be limited only the welfare of the states and exclude the welfare of individuals. If, for instance, Congress decides a half-pint of milk provided to every school child through the age of 10 years every morning would serve the general welfare, they can do it.

Absolutely WRONG....

1) The states ratified and created the federal government.. the citizenry did not ratify it nor create it... this is simple American History 101, which you evidently failed
2) The general welfare clause does not grant unlimited power to the federal government.... Are you seriously promoting and praising unlimited power of the state?? You are a fucking joke
3) No... they cannot.... by the rules set forth to them... though they have indeed done similar things with their expansion of power... which is exactly why the government needs to have it reigns pulled

 

[DiamondDave]

There's not a single state that would have ratified the Constitution if they thought that's what they were singing on to. Not one!

post-colonial delegates wrote it in the first place, crusader. steel's post is a very real statement of the constitutional role of the fed. govt, that it is a cooperative effort of the states. all thirteen. middleschool history, buddy.

Except for the fact that all 3 'points' he tries to make are utterly false

 

[DiamondDave]

Afraid so. Our founding fathers were liberals. Conservatives of the day supported the crown

Liberal myth.. you winger fucktard

Far from it. Our founding fathers were our original liberals. They looked at the existing monarchy, human rights and rights of the individual and decided we want better

The concept of "all men are created equal" was decidedly liberal for the day. Can you imagine an illiterate field worker having the same voting power as a wealthy educated landowner? Quite liberal for the day

Think of the monarchy.....Royalty was determined by birth. Your class was determined by who your parents were. Conservatives supported the crown.

Nice try....

It is a lame argument to state that those who supported smaller government, lesser government intervention, lesser authority for the government to seize property, and supported private property rights were 'liberal'.. they were revolutionary and advancing the concepts of a free society...

For you to think that conservatism means support of an oppressive rule, is simply nothing more than your little made up fantasy to try and demonize conservatives

You are more of a buffoon than we thought

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's not a single state that would have ratified the Constitution if they thought that's what they were singing on to. Not one!

post-colonial delegates wrote it in the first place, crusader. steel's post is a very real statement of the constitutional role of the fed. govt, that it is a cooperative effort of the states. all thirteen. middleschool history, buddy.

It's a 100% Bullshit Librul rewrite of American history. The States were Sovereign entities and they NEVER would have signed onto an all powerful all knowing Federal Gubbamint.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wrong again

Try and look at the enumerated powers.. the general welfare clause was never intended as some catch all to give the government authority to do anything it wants

Article 1, Section 8 states:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Where leftists and entitlement junkies go wrong is in thinking that the general welfare of the states individually and as a collective whole(you know.. the entities that created the federal government and allow the federal government to have power) is the same thing as the welfare of individuals... it is MUCH different than the welfare of individuals and the use of entitlements to individual citizens within the country...

but nice try.. even though activist entitlement junkies and power junkies in the government have abused this in exactly the way you want it to be, the wording is quite clear as is the context of the statement

Nonsense.

First, the states did not create the federal government. The document we call the US Constitution, technically, is a compact. That is, it is solemn agreement among individuals to create a community. The Preamble says "we the People...." not "we the states..." "do ordain and establish..." That's what makes it a compact. Everything after the Preamble is a consititution, i.e. a text constituting or creating a government.

Secondly, the general welfare clause, in fact, is a declaration of unlimited power for Congress. The Founders deliberately chose a vague and indefinite phrase,"provide for the general welfare," to ensure the federal government would be empowered to act in any way necessary to serve the People. This created a problem, though. Reasonable persons could have good faith disagreements about the nature of the general welfare and what policies would serve it. To avoid this problem in certain areas, the Founders defined a number of powers as necessary to provide for the general welfare. These are the so-called enumerated powers. Congress must do these things and may do anyting else it wishes.

Finally, the general welfare can be served by virtually any act of Congress as long the membership agrees. It need not be limited only the welfare of the states and exclude the welfare of individuals. If, for instance, Congress decides a half-pint of milk provided to every school child through the age of 10 years every morning would serve the general welfare, they can do it.

You're a moron and a liar. If what you say is true, and it's not, what the point of having "enumerated powers" and the 10th Amendment, liar?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Libruls in Colonial Times would have been blowing the British for free HealthCare

 

[SFC Ollie]

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson


A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson

Never spend your money before you have earned it.
Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson

It's not tyranny we desire; it's a just, limited, federal government.
Alexander Hamilton

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
James Madison


"It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."
George Washington

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams

Seems pretty conservative to me.

 

[antagon]

Wrong again

Try and look at the enumerated powers.. the general welfare clause was never intended as some catch all to give the government authority to do anything it wants

Article 1, Section 8 states:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Where leftists and entitlement junkies go wrong is in thinking that the general welfare of the states individually and as a collective whole(you know.. the entities that created the federal government and allow the federal government to have power) is the same thing as the welfare of individuals... it is MUCH different than the welfare of individuals and the use of entitlements to individual citizens within the country...

but nice try.. even though activist entitlement junkies and power junkies in the government have abused this in exactly the way you want it to be, the wording is quite clear as is the context of the statement

Nonsense.

First, the states did not create the federal government. The document we call the US Constitution, technically, is a compact. That is, it is solemn agreement among individuals to create a community. The Preamble says "we the People...." not "we the states..." "do ordain and establish..." That's what makes it a compact. Everything after the Preamble is a consititution, i.e. a text constituting or creating a government.

Secondly, the general welfare clause, in fact, is a declaration of unlimited power for Congress. The Founders deliberately chose a vague and indefinite phrase,"provide for the general welfare," to ensure the federal government would be empowered to act in any way necessary to serve the People. This created a problem, though. Reasonable persons could have good faith disagreements about the nature of the general welfare and what policies would serve it. To avoid this problem in certain areas, the Founders defined a number of powers as necessary to provide for the general welfare. These are the so-called enumerated powers. Congress must do these things and may do anyting else it wishes.

Finally, the general welfare can be served by virtually any act of Congress as long the membership agrees. It need not be limited only the welfare of the states and exclude the welfare of individuals. If, for instance, Congress decides a half-pint of milk provided to every school child through the age of 10 years every morning would serve the general welfare, they can do it.

You're a moron and a liar. If what you say is true, and it's not, what the point of having "enumerated powers" and the 10th Amendment, liar?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

yeah, but the constitution does allow for congress to determine taxation and national infrastructure.

you guys are hackin it up with the constitution. your interpretations have not whethered scrutiny of its more accomplished scholars. i dont claim to be one of those, but defer to the following:

the united states as it stands is a fine nation, the finest example of one there is. the constitution and how it has been impemented is part of the cause of all that.

if we took your confederate stance 150 years ago, this would not be the case, neither with regard to actual freedoms, nor with prosperity in the economic model youre hoping to twist the constitution to support.

 

[DiamondDave]

Infrastructure is public domain.. is your body, your health, your food, your place of residence, and anything else you wish as 'entitlement', public domain??

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nonsense.

First, the states did not create the federal government. The document we call the US Constitution, technically, is a compact. That is, it is solemn agreement among individuals to create a community. The Preamble says "we the People...." not "we the states..." "do ordain and establish..." That's what makes it a compact. Everything after the Preamble is a consititution, i.e. a text constituting or creating a government.

Secondly, the general welfare clause, in fact, is a declaration of unlimited power for Congress. The Founders deliberately chose a vague and indefinite phrase,"provide for the general welfare," to ensure the federal government would be empowered to act in any way necessary to serve the People. This created a problem, though. Reasonable persons could have good faith disagreements about the nature of the general welfare and what policies would serve it. To avoid this problem in certain areas, the Founders defined a number of powers as necessary to provide for the general welfare. These are the so-called enumerated powers. Congress must do these things and may do anyting else it wishes.

Finally, the general welfare can be served by virtually any act of Congress as long the membership agrees. It need not be limited only the welfare of the states and exclude the welfare of individuals. If, for instance, Congress decides a half-pint of milk provided to every school child through the age of 10 years every morning would serve the general welfare, they can do it.

You're a moron and a liar. If what you say is true, and it's not, what the point of having "enumerated powers" and the 10th Amendment, liar?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

yeah, but the constitution does allow for congress to determine taxation and national infrastructure.

you guys are hackin it up with the constitution. your interpretations have not whethered scrutiny of its more accomplished scholars. i dont claim to be one of those, but defer to the following:

the united states as it stands is a fine nation, the finest example of one there is. the constitution and how it has been impemented is part of the cause of all that.

if we took your confederate stance 150 years ago, this would not be the case, neither with regard to actual freedoms, nor with prosperity in the economic model youre hoping to twist the constitution to support.

Stop talking, seriously. You make yourself look like a bigger idiot than I thought you were before and believe me I thought you were a complete idiot at the post before this one.

You have American history 100% WRONG! Totally inaccurate! A Librul understand of the founding principles, which is to say completely wrong.

 

[Joe Steel]

Nonsense.

First, the states did not create the federal government. The document we call the US Constitution, technically, is a compact. That is, it is solemn agreement among individuals to create a community. The Preamble says "we the People...." not "we the states..." "do ordain and establish..." That's what makes it a compact. Everything after the Preamble is a consititution, i.e. a text constituting or creating a government.

Secondly, the general welfare clause, in fact, is a declaration of unlimited power for Congress. The Founders deliberately chose a vague and indefinite phrase,"provide for the general welfare," to ensure the federal government would be empowered to act in any way necessary to serve the People. This created a problem, though. Reasonable persons could have good faith disagreements about the nature of the general welfare and what policies would serve it. To avoid this problem in certain areas, the Founders defined a number of powers as necessary to provide for the general welfare. These are the so-called enumerated powers. Congress must do these things and may do anyting else it wishes.

Finally, the general welfare can be served by virtually any act of Congress as long the membership agrees. It need not be limited only the welfare of the states and exclude the welfare of individuals. If, for instance, Congress decides a half-pint of milk provided to every school child through the age of 10 years every morning would serve the general welfare, they can do it.

There's not a single state that would have ratified the Constitution if they thought that's what they were singing on to. Not one!

We can speculate about what the states would or would not have done but we can't be sure. The records of the state conventions are incomplete and, given the state of stenography in the late 18th century, they aren't entirely reliable.

We can be sure of the text of the Constitution and we can read what the anti-federalists said about it. I suggest you try Brutus V an VI. He discusses the general welfare clause.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nonsense.

First, the states did not create the federal government. The document we call the US Constitution, technically, is a compact. That is, it is solemn agreement among individuals to create a community. The Preamble says "we the People...." not "we the states..." "do ordain and establish..." That's what makes it a compact. Everything after the Preamble is a consititution, i.e. a text constituting or creating a government.

Secondly, the general welfare clause, in fact, is a declaration of unlimited power for Congress. The Founders deliberately chose a vague and indefinite phrase,"provide for the general welfare," to ensure the federal government would be empowered to act in any way necessary to serve the People. This created a problem, though. Reasonable persons could have good faith disagreements about the nature of the general welfare and what policies would serve it. To avoid this problem in certain areas, the Founders defined a number of powers as necessary to provide for the general welfare. These are the so-called enumerated powers. Congress must do these things and may do anyting else it wishes.

Finally, the general welfare can be served by virtually any act of Congress as long the membership agrees. It need not be limited only the welfare of the states and exclude the welfare of individuals. If, for instance, Congress decides a half-pint of milk provided to every school child through the age of 10 years every morning would serve the general welfare, they can do it.

There's not a single state that would have ratified the Constitution if they thought that's what they were singing on to. Not one!

We can speculate about what the states would or would not have done but we can't be sure. The records of the state conventions are incomplete and, given the state of stenography in the late 18th century, they aren't entirely reliable.

We can be sure of the text of the Constitution and we can read what the anti-federalists said about it. I suggest you try Brutus V an VI. He discusses the general welfare clause.

Look you fucking moron, this isn't Obama's Unconstitutional Law Class, the Constitution grants enumerated powers to the federal government, and delegates the rest to the States and to the people, it's right there in black and white!

Stop peddling the lie that the State ratified an all powerful federal government! IT'S A LIE!!!

 

[rightwinger]

Liberal myth.. you winger fucktard

Far from it. Our founding fathers were our original liberals. They looked at the existing monarchy, human rights and rights of the individual and decided we want better

The concept of "all men are created equal" was decidedly liberal for the day. Can you imagine an illiterate field worker having the same voting power as a wealthy educated landowner? Quite liberal for the day

Think of the monarchy.....Royalty was determined by birth. Your class was determined by who your parents were. Conservatives supported the crown.

Nice try....

It is a lame argument to state that those who supported smaller government, lesser government intervention, lesser authority for the government to seize property, and supported private property rights were 'liberal'.. they were revolutionary and advancing the concepts of a free society...

For you to think that conservatism means support of an oppressive rule, is simply nothing more than your little made up fantasy to try and demonize conservatives

You are more of a buffoon than we thought

You are attempting to apply 21st century political philosophies to the 18th century. Founding fathers were decidedly Liberal for the 18th century. In the 18th century there was no UNITED STATES, there was only a confederation of states that were united. Due to the dispersion of States, lack of a communications or transportation system there was no way to execute a UNITED STATES with a strong federal government. By default, we needed a State-centric government. Each state also had strong loyalties to the states themselves.
This does not make them conservative. What makes the founding fathers the LIBERALs of THEIR DAY (not 2009) was the pushing of the rights of the individual over the rights of the state and the pushing of equal rights of all citizens (except for women, blacks and indians )

18th century conservatives were Torries and were loyal to the crown

 

[antagon]

Infrastructure is public domain.. is your body, your health, your food, your place of residence, and anything else you wish as 'entitlement', public domain??

entitlements are capitalist infrastructure.

my body, food, health, etc. are not interwoven with these programs directly, however, many of my clients' are.

what do you mean 'public domain'?

 

[DiamondDave]

Infrastructure is public domain.. is your body, your health, your food, your place of residence, and anything else you wish as 'entitlement', public domain??

entitlements are capitalist infrastructure.

my body, food, health, etc. are not interwoven with these programs directly, however, many of my clients' are.

what do you mean 'public domain'?

Entitlements are not infrastructure.. a road is infrastructure.. an entity such as the post office is infrastructure.. a school is infrastructure... and all of those things are indeed public domain or otherwise stated public property

Your body is yours.. nobody else has a right to take possession of it for you... your house is not public domain where the government or other citizens can claim dominion over it or have free access to it .... your responsibility for what is yours stays with you, not to others in the citizenry and not to the government.. if you are a ward of the court or a ward of the state, I can understand the government taking care of your needs as you are inherently controlled by or in the care of the government... but your freedoms give YOU the responsibility for your own care, upkeep, well being, etc....

You simply are not owed something for your personal upkeep, at the expense of someone else's freedoms, just because you fucking exist.. if you are not public property, you do not get government assistance for your personal need

 

[Joe Steel]

There's not a single state that would have ratified the Constitution if they thought that's what they were singing on to. Not one!

post-colonial delegates wrote it in the first place, crusader. steel's post is a very real statement of the constitutional role of the fed. govt, that it is a cooperative effort of the states. all thirteen. middleschool history, buddy.

I have to disagree with you on this point. The federal government isn't a cooperative effort of the state governments. It exists apart from and above them. Note the supremacy clause. The federal government can impose its will on the states by setting aside their laws.

Secondly, we must recall the circumstances of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The delegates were sent to Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation. Had they done that, you'd be correct. The federal government would still be a cooperative effort. However, the Articles were virtually useless, preserving the power of the power of the states and giving the United States almost no power, so the delegates scrapped them and started all over. That's a powerful argument for the strong central government theory.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Far from it. Our founding fathers were our original liberals. They looked at the existing monarchy, human rights and rights of the individual and decided we want better

The concept of "all men are created equal" was decidedly liberal for the day. Can you imagine an illiterate field worker having the same voting power as a wealthy educated landowner? Quite liberal for the day

Think of the monarchy.....Royalty was determined by birth. Your class was determined by who your parents were. Conservatives supported the crown.

Nice try....

It is a lame argument to state that those who supported smaller government, lesser government intervention, lesser authority for the government to seize property, and supported private property rights were 'liberal'.. they were revolutionary and advancing the concepts of a free society...

For you to think that conservatism means support of an oppressive rule, is simply nothing more than your little made up fantasy to try and demonize conservatives

You are more of a buffoon than we thought

You are attempting to apply 21st century political philosophies to the 18th century. Founding fathers were decidedly Liberal for the 18th century. In the 18th century there was no UNITED STATES, there was only a confederation of states that were united. Due to the dispersion of States, lack of a communications or transportation system there was no way to execute a UNITED STATES with a strong federal government. By default, we needed a State-centric government. Each state also had strong loyalties to the states themselves.
This does not make them conservative. What makes the founding fathers the LIBERALs of THEIR DAY (not 2009) was the pushing of the rights of the individual over the rights of the state and the pushing of equal rights of all citizens (except for women, blacks and indians )

18th century conservatives were Torries and were loyal to the crown

Ah the liberals of their day, But by todays standards (we do live in today I believe) they are quite Conservative. Therefore the USA was founded by right wing conservatives.

 

[antagon]

You're a moron and a liar. If what you say is true, and it's not, what the point of having "enumerated powers" and the 10th Amendment, liar?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

yeah, but the constitution does allow for congress to determine taxation and national infrastructure.

you guys are hackin it up with the constitution. your interpretations have not whethered scrutiny of its more accomplished scholars. i dont claim to be one of those, but defer to the following:

the united states as it stands is a fine nation, the finest example of one there is. the constitution and how it has been impemented is part of the cause of all that.

if we took your confederate stance 150 years ago, this would not be the case, neither with regard to actual freedoms, nor with prosperity in the economic model youre hoping to twist the constitution to support.

Stop talking, seriously. You make yourself look like a bigger idiot than I thought you were before and believe me I thought you were a complete idiot at the post before this one.

You have American history 100% WRONG! Totally inaccurate! A Librul understand of the founding principles, which is to say completely wrong.

look, dummy, you're the one whose looking past the fact that the constitution charters a government which has for nearly 250 years worked within its confines to affect the state we are now. the constitution enumerates the right of the congress to create laws, levy and apportion tax. it states reasons why: for general welfare, etc. and left those to be the framework for elected persons in their time to determine.

if you want to have a cussing match, start another thread and ill oblige. im not saying that wont be fun. if youve got something to say, say it. dont hide behind your librul-labeling, contribute something instead.