Govt used to protect our rights. But now it is "trying to help us". On the wrong track?

[g5000]

Also, Amendment V:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[SwimExpert]

Yes, it's the wrong track because it focuses on all the wrong people. The government "helping" people is fine, so long as the people can be helped. We're hindering naturally successful people like salesmen and prostitutes, while giving all our efforts to helpless failures like winos and judges.

 

[rightwinger]

The Governments job is to do what can be done better collectively than can be done alone and to help those who need helping

that's part of it...

but i'm still wondering why the o/p thinks helping people is somehow unconstitutional.

but no doubt he'll tell you what a good christian he is.

It is the reason "We the People" formed a Government

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.

 

[rightwinger]

Lincoln said it best

Notice "Government for the people"

Doing what the people need

 

[SwimExpert]

Notice "Government for the people"

Doing what the people need

I need government to stay the **** out of my life.

 

[Little-Acorn]

As usual, the misnamed "rightwinger" tries to prove things by citing examples that don't give commands, or aren't even in the Constitution at all.

 

[rightwinger]

As usual, the misnamed "rightwinger" tries to prove things by citing examples that don't give commands, or aren't even in the Constitution at all.

The Preamble is in the Constitution

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Governments job is to do what can be done better collectively than can be done alone

Sorry, no.

The Fed govt's job is to do only what cannot be done AT ALL by states or individuals, and which are NECESSARY to the nation's well-being. Examples include national defense, setting uniform standards of weights and measures, foreign relations, etc.

If somebody thinks something can be done BETTER collectively, that doesn't mean it's OK for govt to do it. (This may come as news to our brethern of the southpaw persuasion.)

The Fed govt's job is further restricted, to only the things explicitly listed in the Constitution. Plus those that can get a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress, plus 3/4 of the states.

Anything that isn't covered by those restrictions, is the job of the States and lower governments, and the people.

and to help those who need helping

That's the job of the States and the People, not the Fed govt.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Governments job is to do what can be done better collectively than can be done alone

Sorry, no.

The Fed govt's job is to do only what cannot be done AT ALL by states or individuals, and which are NECESSARY to the nation's well-being. Examples include national defense, setting uniform standards of weights and measures, foreign relations, etc.

If somebody thinks something can be done BETTER collectively, that doesn't mean it's OK for govt to do it. (This may come as news to our brethern of the southpaw persuasion.)

The Fed govt's job is further restricted, to only the things explicitly listed in the Constitution. Plus those that can get a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress, plus 3/4 of the states.

Anything that isn't covered by those restrictions, is the job of the States and lower governments, and the people.

and to help those who need helping

That's the job of the States and the People, not the Fed govt.

Liberals, of course, abhor all those restrictions.

Especially the one about 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states. Because they know their agenda is unwanted by the American people, and doesn't have a prayer of getting 3/4 of the states to approve it.

So they try to force it upon us by other, more devious means.

 

[rightwinger]

The Governments job is to do what can be done better collectively than can be done alone

Sorry, no.

The Fed govt's job is to do only what cannot be done AT ALL by states or individuals, and which are NECESSARY to the nation's well-being. Examples include national defense, setting uniform standards of weights and measures, foreign relations, etc.

If somebody thinks something can be done BETTER collectively, that doesn't mean it's OK for govt to do it. (This may come as news to our brethern of the southpaw persuasion.)

The Fed govt's job is further restricted, to only the things explicitly listed in the Constitution. Plus those that can get a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress, plus 3/4 of the states.

Anything that isn't covered by those restrictions, is the job of the States and lower governments, and the people.

and to help those who need helping

That's the job of the States and the People, not the Fed govt.

I never understood the rights obsession with the evils of a federal government

If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the local level.......Do it at the local level
If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the state level....Do it at the state level
If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the federal level.......Do it at the federal level

 

[Little-Acorn]

I never understood the rights obsession with the evils of a federal government

That's right. You never understood.

If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the local level.......Do it at the local level

Yes. Or do it yourself without trying to force other to obey you using the power of government.

If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the state level....Do it at the state level

Yes. Or do it yourself without trying to force other to obey you using the power of government.

If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the federal level.......Do it at the federal level

Flatly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution, and for good reason.

If you want that, move to Cuba. Or to Syria and join ISIS. Their central governments do that sort of thing all the time.

Perhaps you will begin to understand, at last.

 

[rightwinger]

I never understood the rights obsession with the evils of a federal government

That's right. You never understood.

If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the local level.......Do it at the local level

Yes. Or do it yourself without trying to force other to obey you using the power of government.

If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the state level....Do it at the state level

Yes. Or do it yourself without trying to force other to obey you using the power of government.

If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the federal level.......Do it at the federal level

Flatly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution, and for good reason.

If you want that, move to Cuba. Or to Syria and join ISIS. Their central governments do that sort of thing all the time.

Perhaps you will begin to understand, at last.

Unfortunately.....nobody outside of Wingnutville thinks it is forbidden for functions to be performed at various or multiple levels of Government

Why wouldn't Americans want government functions performed where they make the most sense?

 

[SwimExpert]

I never understood the rights obsession with the evils of a federal government

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

So should our priorities be that govt should "help us"?
Or that it should protect our rights but otherwise leave us alone?

well, government is mandated to act for the "general welfare".

The usual falsehood, debunked many times on this forum.

EPA using your money to make people take shorter showers in hotels | Page 10 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The so-called "Welfare Clause" is a restriction on government, not a broad permission.

You are in error!
The limitation, or restriction as you term it, is on the purpose of the appropriation from the Public Purse, which is required to be for the "General Welfare"!

"The Congress is expressly empowered to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare. Funds in the Treasury as a result of taxation may be expended only through appropriation. (Art. I, § 9, cl. 7.) They can never accomplish the objects for which they were collected unless the power to appropriate is as broad as the power to tax. The necessary implication from the terms of the grant is that the public funds may be appropriated "to provide for the general welfare of the United States." These words cannot be meaningless, else they would not have been used. The conclusion must be that they were intended to limit and define the granted power to raise and to expend money." [Emphasis Added]
< United States v. Butler >

The ACTUAL limitation put upon Congress in Art. I, § 8, cl. 1 is ANY appropriation from the Treasury is limited to purposes for the "General Welfare". The power being held as conditional is that of spending through appropriation made on the conditional test of balancing the need/purpose against the overriding requirement of being for the general welfare. I'm afraid you got it backwards and Jillian is correct!

 

[boedicca]

Gubmint is a shakedown protection racket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Little-Acorn]

EPA using your money to make people take shorter showers in hotels | Page 10 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The so-called "Welfare Clause" is a restriction on government, not a broad permission.

You are in error! The limitation, or restriction as you term it, is on the purpose of the appropriation from the Public Purse, which is required to be for the "General Welfare"!

Right. Which is "Programs that benefit all Americans equally". The Fed govt has no authority to do things to benefit limited groups - what we call "Special Interests" today. Such programs are to be carried out by states that want them, not by the Fed.

This has already been explained to you.

Did you not understand? Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

EPA using your money to make people take shorter showers in hotels | Page 10 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The so-called "Welfare Clause" is a restriction on government, not a broad permission.

You are in error! The limitation, or restriction as you term it, is on the purpose of the appropriation from the Public Purse, which is required to be for the "General Welfare"!

Right. Which is "Programs that benefit all Americans equally". The Fed govt has no authority to do things to benefit limited groups - what we call "Special Interests" today. Such programs are to be carried out by states that want them, not by the Fed.

This has already been explained to you.

Did you not understand? Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Because you truncated the quote to limit its relationship with the totality of my post, I'll present it again so it will provide the full context of our discussion!

********
You are in error!
The limitation, or restriction as you term it, is on the purpose of the appropriation from the Public Purse, which is required to be for the "General Welfare"!

"The Congress is expressly empowered to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare. Funds in the Treasury as a result of taxation may be expended only through appropriation. (Art. I, § 9, cl. 7.) They can never accomplish the objects for which they were collected unless the power to appropriate is as broad as the power to tax. The necessary implication from the terms of the grant is that the public funds may be appropriated "to provide for the general welfare of the United States." These words cannot be meaningless, else they would not have been used. The conclusion must be that they were intended to limit and define the granted power to raise and to expend money." [Emphasis Added]
< United States v. Butler >

The ACTUAL limitation put upon Congress in Art. I, § 8, cl. 1 is ANY appropriation from the Treasury is limited to purposes for the "General Welfare". The power being held as conditional is that of spending through appropriation made on the conditional test of balancing the need/purpose against the overriding requirement of being for the general welfare. I'm afraid you got it backwards and Jillian is correct!

********
Where is this sophistry written in LAW that appropriations are for, "Programs that benefit all Americans equally" along with its precedent to override settled LAW in US v. Butler or the Constitution?

Example 1: An appropriation for a bridge repairs on I90 between the Idaho border and Missoula, MT certainly does not effect the citizens of Hawaii, but could well benefit those in the region using I90 in that area and those outside the area for the commerce it carries, all in varying degrees, but CERTAINLY NOT EQUALLY! So are you saying that bridge repair appropriation was unconstitutional, and if so cite the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution or the SCOTUS decision that would support such a claim of unconstitutionality!

You assert, "The Fed govt has no authority to do things to benefit limited groups...."

Example 2: Really? So you are saying that a limited group like all of my fellow WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq vets should not be entitled to VA benefits because the VA doesn't benefit those who DID NOT put their ass on the line during those conflicts. Where the Hell did you come up with this logic???? So Veterans are a "Special Interest Group" to you? That is irrational in the extreme. So are you claiming that VA appropriations are unconstitutional, and if so cite the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution or the SCOTUS decision that would support such a claim of unconstitutionality!

Don't even try to characterize me as obtuse. With you ignoring the SCOTUS citation within my post to you, which outlined the Constitutional definition of "the general welfare", its supremacy to the subordinate spending clause and its accompanying narrative, its you who is being deliberately imperceptive! So enlighten us all and tell us how SCOTUS got it so very wrong!

 

[Little-Acorn]

Where is this sophistry written in LAW that appropriations are for, "Programs that benefit all Americans equally" along with its precedent to override settled LAW in US v. Butler or the Constitution?

Your second (maybe it's your third, hard to tell in that illiterate sentence) guess is correct: It's in the Constitution. The part already named.

Example 1: An appropriation for a bridge repairs on I90 between the Idaho border and Missoula, MT certainly does not effect the citizens of Hawaii, but could well benefit those in the region using I90 in that area and those outside the area for the commerce it carries, all in varying degrees, but CERTAINLY NOT EQUALLY! So are you saying that bridge repair appropriation was unconstitutional, and if so cite the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution or the SCOTUS decision that would support such a claim of unconstitutionality!

You assert, "The Fed govt has no authority to do things to benefit limited groups...."

Example 2: Really? So you are saying that a limited group like all of my fellow WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq vets should not be entitled to VA benefits because the VA doesn't benefit those who DID NOT put their ass on the line during those conflicts. Where the Hell did you come up with this logic???? So Veterans are a "Special Interest Group" to you? That is irrational in the extreme. So are you claiming that VA appropriations are unconstitutional, and if so cite the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution or the SCOTUS decision that would support such a claim of unconstitutionality!

Don't even try to characterize me as obtuse.

I don't have to. you're doing a fine job all by yourself.

(patiently)
The Constitution authorizes certain powers. Among them are the power to regulate interstate commerce (covers your I-90 bridge) and the power to run national defense (covers the veterans and their medical needs).

All clear so far?

And for the things it doesn't explicitly mention, there is the so-called "Welfare clause". Which limits expenditures for things not mentioned, to only programs that benefit all Americans (referred to as "General Welfare" in 1789).

For programs that benefit smaller groups ("Special interests") (this means the ones NOT specifically covered in the Const already), the states or the people must do those if they want it done. The Fed govt is prohibited from those.

Now that I've pointed these things out to you, you can no longer pretend anybody thought the "Welfare clause" must cover anything and everything the Fed govt does, even I.C. and Veterans. One section of your obtuseness has been exposed and removed.

No charge.

 

[rightwinger]

Where is this sophistry written in LAW that appropriations are for, "Programs that benefit all Americans equally" along with its precedent to override settled LAW in US v. Butler or the Constitution?

Your second (maybe it's your third, hard to tell in that illiterate sentence) guess is correct: It's in the Constitution. The part already named.

Example 1: An appropriation for a bridge repairs on I90 between the Idaho border and Missoula, MT certainly does not effect the citizens of Hawaii, but could well benefit those in the region using I90 in that area and those outside the area for the commerce it carries, all in varying degrees, but CERTAINLY NOT EQUALLY! So are you saying that bridge repair appropriation was unconstitutional, and if so cite the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution or the SCOTUS decision that would support such a claim of unconstitutionality!

You assert, "The Fed govt has no authority to do things to benefit limited groups...."

Example 2: Really? So you are saying that a limited group like all of my fellow WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq vets should not be entitled to VA benefits because the VA doesn't benefit those who DID NOT put their ass on the line during those conflicts. Where the Hell did you come up with this logic???? So Veterans are a "Special Interest Group" to you? That is irrational in the extreme. So are you claiming that VA appropriations are unconstitutional, and if so cite the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution or the SCOTUS decision that would support such a claim of unconstitutionality!

Don't even try to characterize me as obtuse.

I don't have to. you're doing a fine job all by yourself.

(patiently)
The Constitution authorizes certain powers. Among them are the power to regulate interstate commerce (covers your I-90 bridge) and the power to run national defense (covers the veterans and their medical needs).

All clear so far?

And for the things it doesn't explicitly mention, there is the so-called "Welfare clause". Which limits expenditures for things not mentioned, to only programs that benefit all Americans (referred to as "General Welfare" in 1789).

For programs that benefit smaller groups ("Special interests") (this means the ones NOT specifically covered in the Const already), the states or the people must do those if they want it done. The Fed govt is prohibited from those.

Now that I've pointed these things out to you, you can no longer pretend anybody thought the "Welfare clause" must cover anything and everything the Fed govt does, even I.C. and Veterans. One section of your obtuseness has been exposed and removed.

No charge.

Show a single court case that supports your bizarre interpretation

You lose

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Where is this sophistry written in LAW that appropriations are for, "Programs that benefit all Americans equally" along with its precedent to override settled LAW in US v. Butler or the Constitution?

Your second (maybe it's your third, hard to tell in that illiterate sentence) guess is correct: It's in the Constitution. The part already named.

Example 1: An appropriation for a bridge repairs on I90 between the Idaho border and Missoula, MT certainly does not effect the citizens of Hawaii, but could well benefit those in the region using I90 in that area and those outside the area for the commerce it carries, all in varying degrees, but CERTAINLY NOT EQUALLY! So are you saying that bridge repair appropriation was unconstitutional, and if so cite the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution or the SCOTUS decision that would support such a claim of unconstitutionality!

You assert, "The Fed govt has no authority to do things to benefit limited groups...."

Example 2: Really? So you are saying that a limited group like all of my fellow WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq vets should not be entitled to VA benefits because the VA doesn't benefit those who DID NOT put their ass on the line during those conflicts. Where the Hell did you come up with this logic???? So Veterans are a "Special Interest Group" to you? That is irrational in the extreme. So are you claiming that VA appropriations are unconstitutional, and if so cite the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution or the SCOTUS decision that would support such a claim of unconstitutionality!

Don't even try to characterize me as obtuse.

I don't have to. you're doing a fine job all by yourself.

(patiently)
The Constitution authorizes certain powers. Among them are the power to regulate interstate commerce (covers your I-90 bridge) and the power to run national defense (covers the veterans and their medical needs).

All clear so far?

And for the things it doesn't explicitly mention, there is the so-called "Welfare clause". Which limits expenditures for things not mentioned, to only programs that benefit all Americans (referred to as "General Welfare" in 1789).

For programs that benefit smaller groups ("Special interests") (this means the ones NOT specifically covered in the Const already), the states or the people must do those if they want it done. The Fed govt is prohibited from those.

Now that I've pointed these things out to you, you can no longer pretend anybody thought the "Welfare clause" must cover anything and everything the Fed govt does, even I.C. and Veterans. One section of your obtuseness has been exposed and removed.

No charge.

You Tea Bagging idiots make up all kinds of shit as you go along once your bullshit has been flushed into the open . You flatly stated initially, "The so-called "Welfare Clause" is a restriction on government, not a broad permission." That is blatantly false as proven in my cite in US v. Butler, which you will not mention because it blows your idiotic assumptions out of the water! You provide not one iota of substantive proof to back up your absurd notion that all Treasury appropriation must be, "Programs that benefit all Americans equally" AND "The Fed govt has no authority to do things to benefit limited groups - what we call "Special Interests" today."

With the two examples I provided, you danced around them and really fell into some deep, deep shit. First you claimed all appropriations must benefit all Americans equally, and second you claimed, in effect, that VA appropriations were for a "special interest group" and should be administered by the several States, not the federal! All that BS was proven false beforehand through reasoning bolstered by the decision in US v. Butler. But in your puffed up certitude you IGNORED that SCOTUS interpreted the meaning of Art I Sec 8, cls 1 in US v. Butler, and ran with the Tea Party Bull Shit Dogma as a cover for your perfidy! Transparently STUPID!

Your vacuous responses lacks all foundation and credibility, fool! You won't and can't cite the Article, Section and/or Clause from the Constitution or any SCOTUS decision, which supports anything remotely close to your vacant assertions because they simply DO NOT EXIST! All you have provided is your faulty, supercilious and vapid Tea Party interpretations of the tax and spend clause of the Constitution with ad hominem thrown in for a flavoring distraction. You lack substance and knowledge regarding the subject at hand, and frankly make yourself appear more ignorant with every post on this topic.