The General Welfare Clause - Correct Your Ignorance Here

Discussion in 'Politics' started by SpidermanTuba, Mar 25, 2010.

  1. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258
    This is for all the folks who babble on about James Madison whenever the general welfare clause turns up in conversation.


    If you want to discuss actual, practical, real world law, and not what you wish was the law in your fanciful fantasy land, I'd suggest you familiarized yourself with a Supreme Court case called U.S. v Butler (1936). In the majority opinion, Republican appointed Justice Roberts rejects Madison's view on the general welfare clause and adopts Hamilton's view.

    United States v. Butler


    That is the actual, binding, practical law that is being applied and that is the reality of it. Sorry if you don't like it, but Madison's views on the GW clause are not legally relevant
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    He spoke to me in a dream and said you were full of shit
     
  3. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,428
    For the assistance of the pretend 'constitutionalists', they should look at the words: sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase, and they should remember it next time they pretend they KNOW what the Constitution says.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  4. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258


    No shit. I like how the 'strict constructionists" insist there is only one correct interpretation to the document, completely ignoring the fact that often the very same people who wrote the document disagreed over its meaning! If Hamilton and Madison - both who helped pen the Constitution - can't agree to its meaning, then how can there be just one true meaning? Its almost as if they meant for it to be vague and ambiguous.
     
  5. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,428
    Not to mention the fact that if constitutional scholars can't agree, then how can people who don't even know what constitutional construction is or understand the effect of us being a common law country think THEY have the answers?
     
  6. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,147
    Thanks Received:
    10,164
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,702
    what arrogrance you have. not everyone has a degree in constitutional law, but instead of teaching you demean.. does that make you feel superior? or what?
     
  7. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,147
    Thanks Received:
    10,164
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,702
    they can only converse on points as they understand them.. sometimes proven wrong sometimes not. You yourself the other day said of the states AG's who planned to sue, "it's histronics" they being 39 other attorneys disagree with you. somebody is wrong.
     
  8. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    The scotus already desided this one and they are who the founders picked to deside the constitutional disagreements.

    ITS SETTLED LAW!
     
  9. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    Out for the day dudes
     
  10. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,147
    Thanks Received:
    10,164
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,702
    yeah, so was the 2000 election but that didn't fucking stop you morons now did it?
     

Share This Page