Republican drive to end social programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Bass v 2.0]

What? This coming from an asswipe that called everyone a monkey and engages in name-calling more than any other on this forum.


What a doofus!

Now you want to pick a fight with me? Lonestar, you've lost your value, I have nothing further to say.

No I don't pick fights with the mentally challenged. I was just showing how hypocritical you were.

No, you want to fight and I don't have the time for that today, slapping you up silly is getting old.

 

[Big Fitz]

I have no interest in keeping anything going. If he'd knock off lying about me, I wouldn't have any reason to keep calling him out on his lies. If he would knock off the misogynistic comments, I wouldn't keep calling him out on those either. If he'd knock off bullshitting about my personal life, I wouldn't keep calling him out on that either. And, as per usual with the little man, he falls back to his SOP of 'Shut the fuck up'.... no one on this board can tell another person to shut the fuck up without losing all credibility.... the only ones entitled to shut anyone up are the Admins and the Mods.

I like both of you, but come on, you can't tell me that he doesn't like you and vice versa. A headstrong man and woman are perfect for each other.

California Girl fucking trolls me because I called her sensitive little ass a racist.


i don't love her and she would one of the many women in my blackbook.

I didn't realize a 3/5 note card, mostly blank, could be referred to as a 'black book.

Your whole theory is so full of fail, you have to have a janitor following it around cleaning up the spillage.

 

[California Girl]

I like both of you, but come on, you can't tell me that he doesn't like you and vice versa. A headstrong man and woman are perfect for each other.

Yea, he likes me so much that he wants me to burn in hell. Sorry, Charlie, I adore you - you know it... but anyone who says they want another human being to burn in hell because of their political believes is a barbarian.

Some people pick at each other because they like each other, you ought to know that yourself and you like picking with him just as much as he likes picking with you, why else would you keep calling him little man?

I call him little man because that is what he is. It suits him. Anyone who wants other people to burn in hell for their political views is a little person. It's not my fault he's not man enough to deal with me without cheap nastiness. I get on really well with a lot of liberals on this board... because they are my intellectual equals.... like you are my intellectual equal - but we often don't agree. You never resort to childish behavior. He does. If it came to a choice between you and him Charlie.... I pick you. I like you.

 

[boedicca]

General Welfare doesn't mean taking money away from some specific people to give to other specific people.

Just sayin'.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The preamble is a general statement of principles, it hasn't any legal standing. It's the stuff beginning with "Article 1" that encompass the working parts of the Constitution.

Section 8 of Article 1 grants Congress power to tax and spend to provide for the happiness of many individuals of the United State.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

the preamble...never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments

The preamble of the Constitution, which declares that it is established for the general welfare of the Union... vested Congress with the authority over all objects of national concern.

--Fisher Ames; During a debate in the House of Representatives on establishment of the Bank of the United States; 1791​

Ames was a lawyer and a member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the United States Constitution

 

[Big Fitz]

The preamble is a general statement of principles, it hasn't any legal standing. It's the stuff beginning with "Article 1" that encompass the working parts of the Constitution.

Section 8 of Article 1 grants Congress power to tax and spend to provide for the happiness of many individuals of the United State.

No it doesn't. That's your wrong interpretation. Let's look at it from the text itself.

Article 8, section 1

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
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;

Your interpretation of this statement is not an original point of view. You know how I know this? Simple: The founding fathers had just fought a war to free themselves from a goverment that could do JUST THAT with almost no limits or defense for the citizens. They lived in a world where doing for oneself was considered normal, and charity was given personally to the organization best suited for it: the church.

Government's job is not to be a charity. Look through all of Section8 and see where charitable giving is a power of congress. I dare you to find it. General welfare is not it. When Adams was president a bill was put forth and passed through congress to give a stipend to widows and orphans ( a real problem back then ) Adams, a very Godly man, vetoed the bill and then excoriated congress for violating it's purpose and usurping the role of church

Government's job is not charitable giving. Government charitable giving is nothing more than thievery from one citizen to give to another to assuage the guilty conscience of a third, when it should be the one with the heart inspired to give, giving from themself to those in need. What someone else did or didn't do is none of their concern.

Oh, and since you're going to refer to the constitution, how about referring to section 9?

Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.


The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.


No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.


(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.


No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.


No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.


No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

I want you to note one very unconstitutional thing being done by the current congress in this limit.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

There have been several taxes and penalties proposed and passed in the last congress. AIG got slapped with a few over the bonus scandal just for one example.

If congress was to do whatever it wanted for the common welfare, the constitution would have been written thusly:

"Congress shall be allowed to make all laws necessary or the common welfare of the nation as it deems appropriate."

That's why you are embarrassingly wrong.

 

[JWBooth]

The preamble of the Constitution, which declares that it is established for the general welfare of the Union... vested Congress with the authority over all objects of national concern.

--Fisher Ames; During a debate in the House of Representatives on establishment of the Bank of the United States; 1791​

Ames was a lawyer and a member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the United States Constitution

Sonny, you are going to have to step up your game if you are going to pretend to school me on the Constitution.
This no context snippit of a quote, says nothing other than that the preamble is a general statement of purpose. This little fact was covered already.

 

[saveliberty]

You're acting like a drama queen because you want the last word and you just have to win even when fuck up. My current sig is true, just look at yours and tell me its not true? You've made it your fucking mission to follow me me around from thread to thread trolling me, now deal with the shit you dish out like a good little girl and shut the fuck up.

Some stupid can be left alone and is harmless. Then there is you. You deserve to hunted down and the general public protected. An unintelligent bozo like you would see all of this as trolling. Go clean your latrine again.

Flaylo and CG's trolling was a two way street, you just made it three. Can anyone argue on this forum without resorting to insults and name calling?

So using your logic, I must have a man crush on Flaylo. Another fail on your part. People do some harmless flirting here all the time, but what is going on here is simply beating stupid back into it's hole. Not sure what your advantage is of seeing it any differently. The only thing I can figure, is you wish to distract from the subject at hand.

The usual tract of this merry-go-round is, substituting public welfare for general welfare, hiding behind specific quotes of founding authors and referencing 1937 US Supreme Court rulings. The core of the Constitution support states rights and limited federal powers, public for general is a total failure and the people can amend the Constitution at any time. In fact, it appears that will probably be the case in the next four years.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Your interpretation of this statement is not an original point of view.

Show us some evidence that the men who made the Constitution believed it should be interpreted from an original point of view.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The preamble of the Constitution, which declares that it is established for the general welfare of the Union... vested Congress with the authority over all objects of national concern.

--Fisher Ames; During a debate in the House of Representatives on establishment of the Bank of the United States; 1791​

Ames was a lawyer and a member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the United States Constitution

Sonny, you are going to have to step up your game if you are going to pretend to school me on the Constitution.
This no context snippit of a quote, says nothing other than that the preamble is a general statement of purpose. This little fact was covered already.

Nope, you're wrong.

Fisher Ames interpreted the preamble to vest Congress with "authority over all objects of national concern."

I don't agree with his interpretation. But, that was his interpretation.

 

[saveliberty]

The preamble of the Constitution, which declares that it is established for the general welfare of the Union... vested Congress with the authority over all objects of national concern.

--Fisher Ames; During a debate in the House of Representatives on establishment of the Bank of the United States; 1791​

Ames was a lawyer and a member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the United States Constitution

Sonny, you are going to have to step up your game if you are going to pretend to school me on the Constitution.
This no context snippit of a quote, says nothing other than that the preamble is a general statement of purpose. This little fact was covered already.

Nope, you're wrong.

Fisher Ames interpreted the preamble to vest Congress with "authority over all objects of national concern."

I don't agree with his interpretation. But, that was his interpretation.

Ames doesn't get to interpret the Constitution, he was a Congressman, not a Supreme Court Justice. He also was in favor of the Bill of Rights. Rights which vested a huge amount of freedoms withheld from government. Sort of shoots a big hole in your theory.

 

[editec]

"The General Welfare" does not mean welfare programs.

What does it mean?

Indeed this is part of the problem, isn't it?

Was it in the general welfare to give western land grants to settlers?

It doesn't say that can be done in the Constitution. It's a kind of welfare, too. Incidently that means everyone living in lands that were formerly owned by out government are welfare moochers. Do you westerners feel like moochers?

Should we have not done that because it isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution?

How about building the Panama canal?

Not mentioned in the Constitution, should we not have done that?

How about buying Alaska? Again, this isn't authorized in the Consitution, was that ALSO illegal?

I can do on if you'd like, but I think you're getting my point.

 

[Steerpike]

The General Welfare clause doesn't mean what the OP thinks it does.

But even if it did, it isn't a mandate. It's simply a grant of power. The Congress doesn't HAVE to take specific action under the general welfare clause, or the commerce clause, etc., it simply has the power to do so if it chooses.

So taking away welfare programs wouldn't be unconstitutional even under the OP's erroneous interpretation of the general welfare clause.

 

[Avatar4321]

The Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Now I like for the Republicans and Tea bastards to prove that social welfare programs are unconstitutional and to justify voting and lobbying eliminate them. One good example in Social Security although there are others.

That's got to be the stupidest argument I've ever heard. That paragraph isnt a grant of authority to the federal government. It's an explanation of why they wrote up the Constitution. The Federal government is a government of limited powers. Anything not explicitly delegated to the Federal Government is retained to the states.

Any social progrem, if deemed necessary is solely at the discretion of the State government, not the Federal Government.

This isn't exactly rocket science. Nor is it something you can just rip out of context because you want to ignore the prescribed limits of the Federal Government.

 

[Avatar4321]

Everyone would benefit by reading the Federalist Papers. On this topic, #45 seems appropriate.

The Federal government has become what even strong federalists feared, superior to the states. The states have become lackeys.

It's time the people insist on more local control, much easier to get rid of the loons.

Local control doesn't work, we mind as well go back to the days where states forbid interracial marriages and the days when local police chiefs and mayors could sic dogs and police with water hoses on peaceful people.

Local control doesn't work?

How exactly do you come to that conclusion?

You totalitarian oppressors never really care to elaborate on that do you? You just want power.

 

[Avatar4321]

Everyone would benefit by reading the Federalist Papers. On this topic, #45 seems appropriate.

The Federal government has become what even strong federalists feared, superior to the states. The states have become lackeys.

It's time the people insist on more local control, much easier to get rid of the loons.

The 16th Amendment gutted the States, that was their Waterloo

I think you mean the 17th amendment.

 

[johnrocks]

What do you interpet 'general welfare' to be? I take it mean the welfare of all people, not just the rich.

Whereas:

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

--Blackstone​

GENERAL, (jen'-er-al) a. Comprehending many species or individuals ; not special ; not particular.

--A Dictionary of the English Language: 1785
​

WELFARE, (wel'-fare) n.i. Happiness; success; prosperity.

--A Dictionary of the English Language: 1785​

It appears that:

General welfare = The happiness of many individuals.​

Which does not mean at the unhappiness of many others.

 

[Meister]

No, ending these programs would be constitutional... if we elected to do so

As is having them also constitutional according to our current interpretation of our laws.

The world belongs to the LIVING, not to the dead.

The flounder fathers wrote a document that did NOT ties our hands with specific laws.

They understood, like those of you who imagine that there is a right "literal" interpretation of the Constitution do not, that one cannot bind the FUTURE generations to the vision of the current generation.

Most of us would not be able to VOTE, if we'd stuck to the constitution that our floundering fathers originally wrote.

Now who here wants to come out in favor of only allowing a very small percentage of the population to vote?

Who here wants to come out in favor of once again allowing slavery?

THAT would be a literal interpretation of the constitution that our floundering fathers passed.

Now I know some of you would be in favor of those changes to our society

I also know most of you who would like thise things, don't have the balls to openly admit it.

What do you interpet 'general welfare' to be? I take it mean the welfare of all people, not just the rich.

"General Welfare" didn't mean the same back then as it does now. And, it didn't mean the redistribution of wealth. We have had threads on this very subject, already

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Some stupid can be left alone and is harmless. Then there is you. You deserve to hunted down and the general public protected. An unintelligent bozo like you would see all of this as trolling. Go clean your latrine again.

Flaylo and CG's trolling was a two way street, you just made it three. Can anyone argue on this forum without resorting to insults and name calling?

So using your logic, I must have a man crush on Flaylo. Another fail on your part. People do some harmless flirting here all the time, but what is going on here is simply beating stupid back into it's hole. Not sure what your advantage is of seeing it any differently. The only thing I can figure, is you wish to distract from the subject at hand.

The usual tract of this merry-go-round is, substituting public welfare for general welfare, hiding behind specific quotes of founding authors and referencing 1937 US Supreme Court rulings. The core of the Constitution support states rights and limited federal powers, public for general is a total failure and the people can amend the Constitution at any time. In fact, it appears that will probably be the case in the next four years.

Will you please define what general welfare means to you? I do support states rights in some case by the federal government should regulate labor and civil rights and any state that goes against federal law should be dealt with accordingly.