article 1 section 8

[Dante]

What many think of welfare, that is helping indigent Americans, was done by the states. During the Great Depression states could not meet their responsiblity to the poor the federal government took on the task. Today, that task is shared by federal and state governments.
The nation of the founder's Constitution has changed. With a nation of 13 states, mostly farmers, few corporations and our manufacturing just beginning, the government began helping manufacturers with tariffs, internal improvments and Court decisions that removed powers from the states.

Perhaps the biggest error the founders made was not providing for political parties.

Political parties existed in practice since the very beginning. Jefferson an Madison?

Political parties engage in a political process. Governing is a whole other thing. The Constitution sets up a form of government.

 

[Ravi]

Quite frankly, from a logical standpoint, that is in the best interest of the individual starving.. not INHERENTLY in the best interest of the country as an entity... and it is what that power is then relinquished to the states and the individuals themselves

It's in the interest of both the individual in question and the country as a whole. Hungry and/or poor people commit crimes, spread disease, don't spend money, etc....none of that is good for the well being of the country. Nor is it cost effective in the long run.

No.. you may FEEL that way... but it is a logical fallacy to assume that... and again, it is why the fed does not have that power and that power is relinquished to the states and the individuals respectively via the 10th amendment

I don't FEEL that way, I know it for the truth. Look around you, there are NO successful countries that don't have social safety nets.

If the fed wasn't allowed to provide for the general welfare of the country, that clause would not be in the constitution.

 

[Dante]

Basically, the government can provide for the general welfare of the country in whatever way it sees fit as long as the citizens go along with it.

Keeping the poor from starving to death is in the best interests of the country as a whole.

As long as that illegal government plans not to be restricted, or even influenced by, the United States Constitution.


You're not endorsing that, are you?

As far as I know, the USA has never had an illegal government. The USA has had laws ruled unConstitutional.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What many think of welfare, that is helping indigent Americans, was done by the states. During the Great Depression states could not meet their responsiblity to the poor the federal government took on the task. Today, that task is shared by federal and state governments.
The nation of the founder's Constitution has changed. With a nation of 13 states, mostly farmers, few corporations and our manufacturing just beginning, the government began helping manufacturers with tariffs, internal improvments and Court decisions that removed powers from the states.
Perhaps the biggest error the founders made was not providing for political parties.

1. "Private sector or government bureaucracy? In 1887, Congress passed a bill appropriating money to Texas farmers who were suffering thorough a catastrophic drought. President Grover Cleveland’s veto included this response:

“And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

Cleveland was correct: “So he challenged private citizens to come forward. And here’s perhaps the weirdest part: They responded. A number of newspapers adopted the relief campaign and in the end Americans donated not $10,000 but $100,000 to the afflicted farmers.”
Obama's plan to stimulate the economy should be to do nothing.

2. Do you happen to know the amount of voluntary charity Americans donated last year? Let me know if you would like to know. I'd be happy to tell you.



3. "The nation of the founder's Constitution has changed. With a nation of 13 states,..."

In 1887 there were 38 states that made up what was known as the United States of America

I wonder why you would think that principles vary with the number of states, or individuals....or hours and days?

Do yours?

 

[SniperFire]

Madison opposed it. It was passed anyway, by the other Federalists, including Hamilton and Washington. The winners words are the ones that matter.

Wrong as usual, dildo.

The Supremes even upheld Madison's intentions that general welfare was not for handouts to the peeps. But then a subsequent case said that Congress could decide if handouts to peeps were for the general welfare of the Nation.

So as usual it was a backdoor implementation that was an end run around the plain language of the Constitution, and Hamilton certainly did NOT argue for the backdoor interpretation.

So you are saying the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the welfare clause. You don't agree.

That's the way it goes. Sometimes you are just outvoted.

You don't even understand what was said, tard.

 

[The T]

What many think of welfare, that is helping indigent Americans, was done by the states. During the Great Depression states could not meet their responsiblity to the poor the federal government took on the task. Today, that task is shared by federal and state governments.
The nation of the founder's Constitution has changed. With a nation of 13 states, mostly farmers, few corporations and our manufacturing just beginning, the government began helping manufacturers with tariffs, internal improvments and Court decisions that removed powers from the states.
Perhaps the biggest error the founders made was not providing for political parties.

They actually said that the party system would be our undoing. Of course they were correct.

[SIZE=-1]However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]~GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796[/SIZE]
​

 

[Dante]

What many think of welfare, that is helping indigent Americans, was done by the states. During the Great Depression states could not meet their responsiblity to the poor the federal government took on the task. Today, that task is shared by federal and state governments.
The nation of the founder's Constitution has changed. With a nation of 13 states, mostly farmers, few corporations and our manufacturing just beginning, the government began helping manufacturers with tariffs, internal improvments and Court decisions that removed powers from the states.
Perhaps the biggest error the founders made was not providing for political parties.

They actually said that the party system would be our undoing. Of course they were correct.

not true. do not confuse factionalism with parties. and it is Madison you speak of?

 

[jillian]

The current day definition of "welfare" was not in use when the founding fathers wrote our constitution.

It is that simple.

Which has nothing to do with anything.

Welfare is well-being. It always has been and still is

 

[jillian]

Wrong as usual, dildo.

The Supremes even upheld Madison's intentions that general welfare was not for handouts to the peeps. But then a subsequent case said that Congress could decide if handouts to peeps were for the general welfare of the Nation.

So as usual it was a backdoor implementation that was an end run around the plain language of the Constitution, and Hamilton certainly did NOT argue for the backdoor interpretation.

So you are saying the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the welfare clause. You don't agree.

That's the way it goes. Sometimes you are just outvoted.

You don't even understand what was said, tard.

I'd say it's you who doesn't understand what was said. But feel free to elaborate, if you're capable

 

[Dante]

There is no need to change it. The founders were correct. It is built on a premise that our leaders are honest and are not want to shred the very essence of what allows them to serve the people. Sadly, most are corrupt and dishonest. Any system will eventually fail unless honesty, accountability, and responsibility are cornerstones.

The people ratified the US Constitution and it contains an amendment that allows, asks, the people to change it at will. The process is made difficult because they knew a bit about human nature

I see nothing wrong with it. The founders were right about both. Our leaders are consistently wrong about the constitution. They are abusing the propositions of common defence and general welfare. It is they that need to go....not the constitution.

Dante never said the US Constitution needs to go, so I do not understand your pronouncements.

By what standards and reality do you claim our elected leaders are consistently wrong? Where has this ever been proven? Abuses of power upset you?

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and others were accused of abusing Presidential power. It appears to be an American tradition

 

[Dante]

What many think of welfare, that is helping indigent Americans, was done by the states. During the Great Depression states could not meet their responsiblity to the poor the federal government took on the task. Today, that task is shared by federal and state governments.
The nation of the founder's Constitution has changed. With a nation of 13 states, mostly farmers, few corporations and our manufacturing just beginning, the government began helping manufacturers with tariffs, internal improvments and Court decisions that removed powers from the states.
Perhaps the biggest error the founders made was not providing for political parties.

They actually said that the party system would be our undoing. Of course they were correct.

[SIZE=-1]However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]~GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796[/SIZE]
​

That is not an argument against political parties, it is a warning about abuse and human nature.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Quite frankly, from a logical standpoint, that is in the best interest of the individual starving.. not INHERENTLY in the best interest of the country as an entity... and it is what that power is then relinquished to the states and the individuals themselves

It's in the interest of both the individual in question and the country as a whole. Hungry and/or poor people commit crimes, spread disease, don't spend money, etc....none of that is good for the well being of the country. Nor is it cost effective in the long run.

No.. you may FEEL that way... but it is a logical fallacy to assume that... and again, it is why the fed does not have that power and that power is relinquished to the states and the individuals respectively via the 10th amendment

I love being on Dave's side for a change

Ravi, in the example of a starving person, it would be in the best interest of the country to let that person starve and die. This would put the least amount of burden on the Government (as it would only do corpse removal, and maybe not even that) and then therefore be best for the country, as a country. Clearly, that is not in the best interest of the person, and in times of drought or disease, would not be in the best interest of the population as a whole. But, strictly speaking, that's different.

 

[Navy1960]

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

Seems simple enough, when taken in context.

 

[SniperFire]

So you are saying the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the welfare clause. You don't agree.

That's the way it goes. Sometimes you are just outvoted.

You don't even understand what was said, tard.

I'd say it's you who doesn't understand what was said. But feel free to elaborate, if you're capable

Jillian, you are of course one of the more ignorant posters in the forum.

I would try to assist you, but alas, I cannot use crayon for you.

 

[Mad Scientist]

The current day definition of "welfare" was not in use when the founding fathers wrote our constitution.

It is that simple.

Which has nothing to do with anything.

Welfare is well-being. It always has been and still is

Right. But the Preamble says "Promote the General Welfare" not "Provide the General Welfare".

Also see; "Provide for the Common Defense".

 

[PoliticalChic]

Basically, the government can provide for the general welfare of the country in whatever way it sees fit as long as the citizens go along with it.

Keeping the poor from starving to death is in the best interests of the country as a whole.

As long as that illegal government plans not to be restricted, or even influenced by, the United States Constitution.


You're not endorsing that, are you?

As far as I know, the USA has never had an illegal government. The USA has had laws ruled unConstitutional.

The only law that the citizenry of this nation agreed to be governed by is the Constitution.

Not the whims of judges who find their notions superior to the Constitution.

Therefore, any Supreme Court, or any court, decision, not grounded in the text, and meaning of the Constitution, is, essentially illegal.
And this applies to a government that is informed by such laws.


"A mere change in public
opinion since the adoption of the Constitution, unaccompanied
by a constitutional amendment, should not change the
meaning of the Constitution. A merely temporary majoritarian
groundswell should not abrogate some individual liberty truly
protected by the Constitution."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



Unless, of course, this is your opinion:

Justice Wm. Brennan, jr…1985 Georgetown speech supported the “transformative purpose” of the Constitution, in which he argued for an “aspiration to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity…”

 

[The T]

They actually said that the party system would be our undoing. Of course they were correct.

[SIZE=-1]However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]~GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796[/SIZE]​

That is not an argument against political parties, it is a warning about abuse and human nature.

And parties are made up of what?

FAIL

 

[LordBrownTrout]

What many think of welfare, that is helping indigent Americans, was done by the states. During the Great Depression states could not meet their responsiblity to the poor the federal government took on the task. Today, that task is shared by federal and state governments.
The nation of the founder's Constitution has changed. With a nation of 13 states, mostly farmers, few corporations and our manufacturing just beginning, the government began helping manufacturers with tariffs, internal improvments and Court decisions that removed powers from the states.
Perhaps the biggest error the founders made was not providing for political parties.

They actually said that the party system would be our undoing. Of course they were correct.

not true. do not confuse factionalism with parties. and it is Madison you speak of?

John Adams, specifially:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

Although, most had no high regard a party system. Madison was my favorite founder though.

 

[Dante]

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

Seems simple enough, when taken in context.

but the phrase is 'general welfare of the United States' - 'of' - general welfare of - of who/whom?

 

[jillian]

You don't even understand what was said, tard.

I'd say it's you who doesn't understand what was said. But feel free to elaborate, if you're capable

Jillian, you are of course one of the more ignorant posters in the forum.

I would try to assist you, but alas, I cannot use crayon for you.

Ands side from the fact that it is, in fact, you, who is glaringly subliterate, I look forward to you actually making an attempt at an argument.

I could use the entertainment.

But if it makes you feel better about always being embarrassed......