Question for the General Welfare Crowd.

[Procrustes Stretched]

Exactly right, only a total loon would argue against ANY welfare programs, but be honest about it, its a power we have CHOSEN to give the government, not one they are entitled to have.

We have not chosen, the Constitution provides.

No the Constitution does not provide for the type of welfare you suggest. You wish to derive power from a Preamble. Preambles are simply opening statements. Articles grant powers. Lawyers like to muddy the waters and opened up this whole line of thinking.

John Adams was a lawyer as were others among the framers and founding fathers.

go away

 

[Charles_Main]

seems to me it is more a power the government has chosen to take away from the states and centralize at the federal level, and that is what I have a problem with.

You have an argument there that goes back to the beginnings of the forming of our nation. I disagree with the particular case here, but empathize and am sympathetic with the principle. There is nothing in the US Constitution preventing the Federal government doing what the states will not or that the states do poorly.

and again, the programs are state run. Individual states run federal programs differently.

Don't let that part about powers not specifically granted to the federal government shall be retained by the states or its citizens. You have actually read the entire Constitution right?

Damn you beat me to it.

 

[saveliberty]

The people of the nation have a voice in the Congress. That is how our government works - how it was laid out by the framers. They purposefully did not construct a mechanism for the people voicing wishes through plebiscite, which is what you are appealing to.

I am well aware we elect representatives, Normally our response and recourse is to vote them out when they do something against our will. The Problem is, some things can be near impossible to ever reverse once implemented against our will. As will be this heath care bill.

Catch 22 really. You are correct that we do not have a direct say and the representatives are with in their rights to pass what ever they want against our will. However I do not have to like it

Nothing in Congress is implemented against our will. Nothing the Executive, the Legislative, or the Judicial Branches of government does is against the will of the people. We have a representative republic.

Popular opinion is what you are talking about and the framers had very hard views on public opinion as government -- they gave us a republic to prevent such.

...and which is why they severely limited the federal government's scope of powers. They crafted a document which wouldn't allow the government to hurt the citrizens.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Interpretation? That is all you have paraded about Dante. Interestingly, you are allowing Congress to intrepret the Constitution, when it is clearly the realm of the Supreme Court.

The Court has the final say, but you are wrong. Much has been written about the Congress as well as the Executive having a duty to interpret the Constitution.


please, I know you want to participate, but first read what the adults are writing before you jump in -- then do a Google search or two, or three.

You are capable of learning if you put your mind to it.

.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Constitution does not specify exactly what the General Welfare is. Do you know why that is?


gawd, you're an idiot

Yes I do.

Okay. Go.

Pray tell, do tell why you think the framers did not define the General welfare.

 

[saveliberty]

We have not chosen, the Constitution provides.

No the Constitution does not provide for the type of welfare you suggest. You wish to derive power from a Preamble. Preambles are simply opening statements. Articles grant powers. Lawyers like to muddy the waters and opened up this whole line of thinking.

John Adams was a lawyer as were others among the framers and founding fathers.

go away

So you admit a lawyer trick was inserted in the Preamable. Well bitch I'm not going away and your losing points left and right. I've been here about twenty minutes, what is your malfunction?

 

[saveliberty]

See, if I was truly an idiot, nothing I said would be of merit and you could simply ignore it. Problem is, it does make sense and you look foolish letting the point stand without reply. You want to stay here and post? You got to beat the players.

Personally, if I were you, I'd use the repetative reasoning ploy Micky uses. Maybe you can bore me into leaving. Hint: It didn't work too well for him.

 

[saveliberty]

Sorry Charles, we seem to have lost Dante. His ball is no where to be seen.

 

[Charles_Main]

I was rather enjoying this one. I have been trying my self, Very hard to be as civil as I can in debates lately. It is not always easy, but I think we really need more of that in this country if were to address our many problems.

 

[saveliberty]

I was rather enjoying this one. I have been trying my self, Very hard to be as civil as I can in debates lately. It is not always easy, but I think we really need more of that in this country if were to address our many problems.

A high and mighty goal to be sure. Dante is not going to be one of those people for me.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I am not arguing against local control. The Federal welfare programs are administered by state governments along with state funds. The preamble of the US Constitution and the preamble of any state constitution address different audiences.

1) Administered at the state level but legislated at the federal level. which has given them the power to do things like slap on new mandates to states who can not afford to provide for it as it is let alone with new expenses.

I am not arguing for or against any specific program. I am arguing a reading of the Constitution. We have the commerce clause which was argued over by the very men who inserted it in the document. They disagreed over how narrowly or widely to -- interpret -- the clause. Fact is there is tradition on this as we as case law on this subject.

2) This is the true difference between a liberal and a conservative. Liberals tend to see a lot of room for movement when they interpret the constitution where as a conservative tends to think there is not a lot of wiggle room.

There will always be tension between powers.

3) As there always should be, that is checks and balances in action. The problem I see is the Fed seems to always win, Gathering more and more power as the states get weaker and weaker. In the end we are losing a valuable part of the checks and balances system as the states grow less and less able to check the Feds power. and we continue down the road away from a Federated republic to a centralized one.

What is silly is the ignorance paraded around here posing as interpretation. (note: I am not speaking of you. lol)

4) LOL well thanks for that. There certainly is no shortage of people on either side of the spectrum who are guilty of that. I certainly do not claim to fully understand the intricacies of our Constitution, but I do try.

1) America had this issue since the Revolutionary War. The framers were well aware of states not meeting obligations. They also tried what you lean towards in some of your arguments.. the Articles of Confederation.

The Federal government speaks for the people as a nation, not as individual states.

2) Very true -- in general.

but read the book I recommended. You will see conservatives and liberals doing the opposite of what we generally agree they would do.

3) I think you overstate the struggle. Being on the losing side of constitutional arguments can make for warped perspective. See how mad Jefferson went during the term of John Marshall, his cousin, as the US Supreme Court's first Chief Justice.

There are things the feds cannot intrude upon unless interpretations of certain clauses get stretched beyond reason. We have a representative republic. People using your arguments need to step back before they end up supporting what the extremists want -- direct democracy which would do exactly what you fear when it is put in place. Direct democracy would shred the US Constitution and it's checks and balances.

think about it. I'm dead serious about this one. I once was where you are

4)

and I too am trying. Lots of reading and movies and oy vey. I'm getting old as time passes by and I wrap myself in the founding of the US.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

seems to me it is more a power the government has chosen to take away from the states and centralize at the federal level, and that is what I have a problem with.

You have an argument there that goes back to the beginnings of the forming of our nation. I disagree with the particular case here, but empathize and am sympathetic with the principle. There is nothing in the US Constitution preventing the Federal government doing what the states will not or that the states do poorly.

and again, the programs are state run. Individual states run federal programs differently.

Don't let that part about powers not specifically granted to the federal government shall be retained by the states or its citizens. You have actually read the entire Constitution right?

Do you know what part of the Constitution proponents of welfare programs say justifies their existence? Jesus, we have had welfare programs in one form or another since colonial times.

fuck off

 

[saveliberty]

There is noise about new amendments to the Constitution clarifying the role of the federal government. In my opinion, it is too early to promote it and have reasonable expectations of passage. It took us a very long time to make these mistakes and fixing it will not be overnight.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You have an argument there that goes back to the beginnings of the forming of our nation. I disagree with the particular case here, but empathize and am sympathetic with the principle. There is nothing in the US Constitution preventing the Federal government doing what the states will not or that the states do poorly.

and again, the programs are state run. Individual states run federal programs differently.

Don't let that part about powers not specifically granted to the federal government shall be retained by the states or its citizens. You have actually read the entire Constitution right?

Damn you beat me to it.

please don't play simpleton with me? Dueling quotes is a bore's game. libertydouche is a bore. new rule: one bore per thread

 

[saveliberty]

You have an argument there that goes back to the beginnings of the forming of our nation. I disagree with the particular case here, but empathize and am sympathetic with the principle. There is nothing in the US Constitution preventing the Federal government doing what the states will not or that the states do poorly.

and again, the programs are state run. Individual states run federal programs differently.

Don't let that part about powers not specifically granted to the federal government shall be retained by the states or its citizens. You have actually read the entire Constitution right?

Do you know what part of the Constitution proponents of welfare programs say justifies their existence? Jesus, we have had welfare programs in one form or another since colonial times.

fuck off

Yes it was called charity instead of welfare and was usually organized by churches, partially because it was suppose to be separate from government. The other things you refer to as welfare were in fact, payments due to injured soldiers or government employees or their surviving families.

That how you try to win debates? Get the other party to stop. How is that working for you right now?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I am well aware we elect representatives, Normally our response and recourse is to vote them out when they do something against our will. The Problem is, some things can be near impossible to ever reverse once implemented against our will. As will be this heath care bill.

Catch 22 really. You are correct that we do not have a direct say and the representatives are with in their rights to pass what ever they want against our will. However I do not have to like it

Nothing in Congress is implemented against our will. Nothing the Executive, the Legislative, or the Judicial Branches of government does is against the will of the people. We have a representative republic.

Popular opinion is what you are talking about and the framers had very hard views on public opinion as government -- they gave us a republic to prevent such.

...and which is why they severely limited the federal government's scope of powers. They crafted a document which wouldn't allow the government to hurt the citrizens.

and even Jefferson interpreted the powers broadly when it suited his purposes.

get a life or please make an argument that is less of an attack. It's boring to have all your arguments being attacks. it's reactionary as opposed to thoughtful.

 

[saveliberty]

Don't let that part about powers not specifically granted to the federal government shall be retained by the states or its citizens. You have actually read the entire Constitution right?

Damn you beat me to it.

please don't play simpleton with me? Dueling quotes is a bore's game. libertydouche is a bore. new rule: one bore per thread

Your just a couple clicks away from the door bitch. I'm sure Charles and myself can make some interesting conversation.

 

[saveliberty]

Nothing in Congress is implemented against our will. Nothing the Executive, the Legislative, or the Judicial Branches of government does is against the will of the people. We have a representative republic.

Popular opinion is what you are talking about and the framers had very hard views on public opinion as government -- they gave us a republic to prevent such.

...and which is why they severely limited the federal government's scope of powers. They crafted a document which wouldn't allow the government to hurt the citrizens.

and even Jefferson interpreted the powers broadly when it suited his purposes.

get a life or please make an argument that is less of an attack. It's boring to have all your arguments being attacks. it's reactionary as opposed to thoughtful.

Most days this is your style. You just get to eat it today. Again, it was because the framers knew the propensity to over step boundaries that the federal government was so limited.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No the Constitution does not provide for the type of welfare you suggest. You wish to derive power from a Preamble. Preambles are simply opening statements. Articles grant powers. Lawyers like to muddy the waters and opened up this whole line of thinking.

John Adams was a lawyer as were others among the framers and founding fathers.

go away

So you admit a lawyer trick was inserted in the Preamable. Well bitch I'm not going away and your losing points left and right. I've been here about twenty minutes, what is your malfunction?

Nuance and thoughtful context is no lawyer's trick. The framers are very particular on some points and very broad on others for reasons. They were writing what amounts to a legal document.

You probably think the Founding Fathers and the Framers were philosophers. They were not. Your contempt for lawyers and the law is so common.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

See, if I was truly an idiot, nothing I said would be of merit and you could simply ignore it. Problem is, it does make sense and you look foolish letting the point stand without reply. You want to stay here and post? You got to beat the players.

Personally, if I were you, I'd use the repetative reasoning ploy Micky uses. Maybe you can bore me into leaving. Hint: It didn't work too well for him.

You mistake being a blowhard and using attack, acting like a talk show host, for debate and discussion. I have tried on numerous occasions to lift you up, but with little success.

I asked you to read and address the arguments from my first few posts. You have not. You shoot from the lip and think you're debating. It's a sad reality.