California embodies left-wing misery

[hadit]

Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution. We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.

Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?

Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.

Is that what they meant when they wrote it?

 

[hadit]

We need national policy to help recover the economy.

Getting rid of democrats would work.

Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.

Come get us shit stain.

Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.

Fake.

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Nope, using your standard, the right to bear arms is doubly protected.

 

[hadit]

We need national policy to help recover the economy.

Getting rid of democrats would work.

Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.

Come get us shit stain.

Soon enough booger boy.

Good, We got plenty of ammo for you scum.

Well all you need to do is learn how to load your weapon and then to hit something with the projectile instead of the butt! As for scum they are mostly in Tezas.

You need to meet some real people.

 

[P@triot]

Elon Musk has officially moved operations to Texas. Because, well, California is a shit-hole of left-wing misery that continues to lose good people and good jobs to Texas.

 

[P@triot]

Hahahahaha! Shit-hole California fails again thanks to idiotic left-wing ideology.

 

[danielpalos]

It is not unlimited but that our tax monies are only to be used for the general welfare and common defense, along with paying the debt.

So the federal government isn't empowered to use taxes for the Patent Office? Or Postal roads? Or paying salaries of federal employees? First you claim the federal government has unlimited powers, now you claim they have three.

More ignorance from the cross-dressing queen of ignorance

It has to provide for the general welfare as we understand it.

 

[danielpalos]

We need national policy to help recover the economy.

Getting rid of democrats would work.

Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.

Come get us shit stain.

Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.

Fake.

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

No Individual right there. Collective and plural terms are express not implied.

for comparison and contrast:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Tenth Amendment is clear. The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.

The 10th Amendment is clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to **** it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:

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.

Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.

Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.

Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare" to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.

We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.

No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.

Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense. To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.

Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.

I am getting it from our Constitution, expressly.

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;

You confuse everything that may be done for general welfare with anything that could be done for the general badfare or the general warfare.

That's not what I asked. You continue doggedly to insist that term means something the people who wrote it didn't intend. Quote something from the people who wrote it that shows they wanted the federal government to have unlimited power to do what it wanted under the guise of "general welfare".

It is not unlimited but that our tax monies are only to be used for the general welfare and common defense, along with paying the debt.

And what did they mean by the term "general welfare". They wrote about it, they explained what they meant, so you tell us what THEY meant, NOT what you wish they meant.

Our Constitution is express not implied for the right wing. Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency from the top down. For comparison and contrast, there are no express terms in our federal Constitution regarding the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the general defense or common offense.

 

[danielpalos]

Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution. We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.

Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?

Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.

Is that what they meant when they wrote it?

Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

 

[danielpalos]

We need national policy to help recover the economy.

Getting rid of democrats would work.

Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.

Come get us shit stain.

Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.

Fake.

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Nope, using your standard, the right to bear arms is doubly protected.

It should have been, even for homosexuals in the military. Where was the right wing then?

 

[Nostra]

We need national policy to help recover the economy.

Getting rid of democrats would work.

Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.

Come get us shit stain.

Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.

Fake.

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

No Individual right there. Collective and plural terms are express not implied.

for comparison and contrast:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Constitution: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

Simpleton Danny: No Individual right there.

 

[danielpalos]

Elon Musk has officially moved operations to Texas. Because, well, California is a shit-hole of left-wing misery that continues to lose good people and good jobs to Texas.

We need to upgrade our economy anyway.

 

[Nostra]

We need national policy to help recover the economy.

Getting rid of democrats would work.

Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.

Come get us shit stain.

Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.

Fake.

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

No Individual right there. Collective and plural terms are express not implied.

for comparison and contrast:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Do individuals have the right to peacefully assemble?

 

[danielpalos]

We need national policy to help recover the economy.

Getting rid of democrats would work.

Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.

Come get us shit stain.

Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.

Fake.

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

No Individual right there. Collective and plural terms are express not implied.

for comparison and contrast:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Constitution: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

Simpleton Danny: No Individual right there.

the collective People is the term they used not the individual Person. The right of the persons to keep and bear Arms is what they would have used and expressed if that is what they meant, instead of merely imply it. Our Constitution is express not implied in any way.

 

[danielpalos]

We need national policy to help recover the economy.

Getting rid of democrats would work.

Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.

Come get us shit stain.

Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.

Fake.

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

No Individual right there. Collective and plural terms are express not implied.

for comparison and contrast:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Do individuals have the right to peacefully assemble?

Sure, especially as persons of the People for redress of grievances purposes.

 

[P@triot]

For comparison and contrast, there are no express terms in our federal Constitution regarding the general badfare

That's because "badfare" isn't a word, you high school dropout. Therefore, it wouldn't be in any legal document.

 

[P@triot]

Our Constitution is express not implied...

Exactly. And it expressly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. No matter how many times you troll, we'll just keep defeating your propaganda with facts. I promise I am infinitely more relentless than you.

 

[hadit]

Our Tenth Amendment is clear. The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.

The 10th Amendment is clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to **** it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:

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.

Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.

Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.

Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare" to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.

We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.

No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.

Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense. To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.

Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.

I am getting it from our Constitution, expressly.

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;

You confuse everything that may be done for general welfare with anything that could be done for the general badfare or the general warfare.

That's not what I asked. You continue doggedly to insist that term means something the people who wrote it didn't intend. Quote something from the people who wrote it that shows they wanted the federal government to have unlimited power to do what it wanted under the guise of "general welfare".

It is not unlimited but that our tax monies are only to be used for the general welfare and common defense, along with paying the debt.

And what did they mean by the term "general welfare". They wrote about it, they explained what they meant, so you tell us what THEY meant, NOT what you wish they meant.

Our Constitution is express not implied for the right wing. Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency from the top down. For comparison and contrast, there are no express terms in our federal Constitution regarding the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the general defense or common offense.

That made absolutely no sense and didn't relate to the question at all.

 

[P@triot]

It should have been, even for homosexuals in the military. Where was the right wing then?

Homosexuals were never denied the right to keep and bear arms. Not in the 1700's. Not in the 1800's. Not in the 1900's. And not in the 2000's. Thanks for playing. You lose.

 

[hadit]

Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution. We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.

Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?

Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.

Is that what they meant when they wrote it?

Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.