"Mr. President, you don't believe in the Constitution. You believe in socialism."

[AllieBaba]

Lol.

"Nope Washington never held slaves

You dummies are fun".

Moron.

 

[shintao]

It's really surprising that those that cry out against "socialism" think military spending is somehow "sacred". It's not. It's a very big form of socialism. In fact, the United States Constitution is in part..socialism. There are articles and clauses that are socialism.

And I notice in the Republican responses..they focus on national defense (socialism) and breeze right over general welfare (socialism).

That's because National Defense is a power remitted to the Federal Government in the Constitution. General Welfare is not.

Actually, yes it is. We've been through this before.

It takes dedication and repetition to get the message through. Thank gawwd for cut/paste function.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility,
throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

Alexander Hamilton

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures



George Washington - 1790

"Hamilton, with Randolph’s and Jefferson’s opinions before him, spent a week working out what became one of his masterful state papers. He carefully refuted the arguments of Randolph and Jefferson and made a powerful case for a broad construction of the Constitution that resounded through subsequent decades of American history. He argued that Congress’s authority to charter a bank was implied by the clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that gave Congress the right to make all laws 'necessary and proper' to carry out its delegated powers. Without the such implied powers, Hamilton wrote 'the United States would furnish the singular spectacle of a political society without sovereignty, or of a people governed without government.' That may have been Jefferson’s ideal, but it was not Washington’s. On Feb. 25, 1791, the president signed the
bank bill into law."

MinnPost - The first tentherist debate: George Washington weighs in




President Lincoln, congress passed the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864,


James Madison


"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,they may take the care of religion into their own hands;they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parishand pay them out of their public treasury;they may take into their own hands the education of children,establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;they may assume the provision of the poor;they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislationdown to the most minute object of police,would be thrown under the power of Congress...."


Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Lol.

"Nope Washington never held slaves

You dummies are fun".

Moron.

That's it Ms. Bachman?



What fun .. beating up the idiots on the right who think they know history

 

[AllieBaba]

Er..ok.

Did Washington own slaves, professor?

 

[DiamondDave]

You are absolutely wrong. No big surprise.




I bolded the relevant parts for you..

Notice you bold only a part of the phrase, like most believers in socialist style government do

The general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES... AKA the UNION... not each and every person down on their luck within the United States

And it says that, where?

There are no prohibitions on "General Welfare" in the Constitution.

Basic fucking reading comprehension, you nitwit..... you don't just choose 2 words out of the middle of the statement.... provide for

Plus remember the specific enumerated powers given to the congress.. followed by amendment 10 which states "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."

Entitlement handouts are not a specific power granted... "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".... it is fucking crystal clear that it is to provide for the defense and welfare of the union... and it has been power hungry politicians and entitlement junkie assholes that have bastardized the constitution itself for their little games

The constitution is not wide open... it is specific in what is granted and ALL OTHER POWERS are delegated, and rightly so, not in the hands of the FED but to the states and to the people themselves

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Er..ok.

Did Washington own slaves, professor?

SEE post #61

Of course he did.

If you're talking about my sarcasm to the other dummy who claims Washington didn't own slaves and he helped end slavery .. you should get a bit of background on our argument

 

[mascale]

By 1937, The General Welfare Clause had been interpreted liberally, as not being strict constructionist, but as not being static at all.

No one knows to this date, in fact, just what George Washington might have said about the photos, even from the Sigmoidoscopy machine, much less its far more. . . invasive. . .counterpart?

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(George Washington clearly did understand about the Gay Old Times of old, we have no doubt.)

 

[Sallow]

Notice you bold only a part of the phrase, like most believers in socialist style government do

The general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES... AKA the UNION... not each and every person down on their luck within the United States

And it says that, where?

There are no prohibitions on "General Welfare" in the Constitution.

Basic fucking reading comprehension, you nitwit..... you don't just choose 2 words out of the middle of the statement.... provide for

Plus remember the specific enumerated powers given to the congress.. followed by amendment 10 which states "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."

Entitlement handouts are not a specific power granted... "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".... it is fucking crystal clear that it is to provide for the defense and welfare of the union... and it has been power hungry politicians and entitlement junkie assholes that have bastardized the constitution itself for their little games

The constitution is not wide open... it is specific in what is granted and ALL OTHER POWERS are delegated, and rightly so, not in the hands of the FED but to the states and to the people themselves

You absolutely and utterly wrong.

States and Nations are made up of people..and are a human construct.

 

[AllieBaba]

Er..ok.

Did Washington own slaves, professor?

SEE post #61

Of course he did.

If you're talking about my sarcasm to the other dummy who claims Washington didn't own slaves and he helped end slavery .. you should get a bit of background on our argument

Oh no!
You were being facetious...apologies & I'll make it up.

 

[Sallow]

idjit...

Nobody "took that industry over".....it was an agreement among the States....because they recognized that together they were stronger than being separate...

The government took over the role of defense. Doesn't matter whether it was "agreed" upon or not. The government is providing the service.

That's socialism.

"Took over"? No, it didn't. It was built in from the beginning.

And this changes the fact it is socialism..how exactly?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Look....we know that there are socialistic-leaning programs that exist in our country but that does not make us a Socialist State....as you socialist promoters/Obama supporters would want us to believe...we never have been but that's why you guys always dredge up the old deflective arguments...

Capitalism is still alive in America.....albeit barely since BO took office....he is an out-and-out Socialist commie who is leading our country into the MISERY that is Socialism...

He wants to spend us into oblivian....tax us into oblivian....demilitarize us into oblivian....green us into oblivian....regulate us into oblivian....he wants us to become part of the socialistic new world order...top down control everywhere....

Does he promote or even allow Capitalism room to do its OWN thing without his omnipotent STATISM looking over the shoulder and managing every little thing it possibly can.....?

NO....and besides an insignificant sop to Capitalism that what you basically got in his SOTU this year...

try and deny it...

 

[DiamondDave]

And it says that, where?

There are no prohibitions on "General Welfare" in the Constitution.

Basic fucking reading comprehension, you nitwit..... you don't just choose 2 words out of the middle of the statement.... provide for

Plus remember the specific enumerated powers given to the congress.. followed by amendment 10 which states "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."

Entitlement handouts are not a specific power granted... "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".... it is fucking crystal clear that it is to provide for the defense and welfare of the union... and it has been power hungry politicians and entitlement junkie assholes that have bastardized the constitution itself for their little games

The constitution is not wide open... it is specific in what is granted and ALL OTHER POWERS are delegated, and rightly so, not in the hands of the FED but to the states and to the people themselves

You absolutely and utterly wrong.

States and Nations are made up of people..and are a human construct.

You are completely and utterly wrong... the nation is not defined as each individual within the nation.... that would be the nation's populace... and could/would have been easily worded as such if that was what was intended... the United States is the Union of States... the entity known as the country, not every last spec of dust or individual within the country.... to have the common defense and general welfare of the United States ITSELF is much different than having the defense and general welfare of each citizen within the states provided for by government.. hence why the states, counties, towns, and municipalities provide police, and not the fed.. the fed provides defense agencies and entities that defend the nation as a whole

The founding fathers and constructors of the constitution chose their words well.. unfortunately for our country, power hungry asshole politicians and greedy entitlement junkies bastardized it for their own gain at the expense of others

 

[The Infidel]

Er..ok.

Did Washington own slaves, professor?

SEE post #61

Of course he did.

If you're talking about my sarcasm to the other dummy who claims Washington didn't own slaves and he helped end slavery .. you should get a bit of background on our argument

Hey dumbass... I never said he didnt.

He DID however help bring an end to the practice. You refuse to admit that and that shows your own stupidity and need to be a victim.

 

[Sallow]

Look....we know that there are socialistic-leaning programs that exist in our country but that does not make us a Socialist State....as you socialist promoters/Obama supporters would want us to believe...we never have been but that's why you guys always dredge up the old deflective arguments...

Capitalism is still alive in America.....albeit barely since BO took office....he is an out-and-out Socialist commie who is leading our country into the MISERY that is Socialism...

He wants to spend us into oblivian....tax us into oblivian....demilitarize us into oblivian....green us into oblivian....regulate us into oblivian....he wants us to become part of the socialistic new world order...top down control everywhere....

Does he promote or even allow Capitalism room to do its OWN thing without his omnipotent STATISM looking over the shoulder and managing every little thing it possibly can.....?

NO....and besides an insignificant sop to Capitalism that what you basically got in his SOTU this year...

try and deny it...

Deny what?

Our economy is by and large..Capitalist. That's absolutely correct.

There are parts of our government that are socialist.

We have a blended economy. I agree with it.

As I've posted before..Capitalism drives the bus. Socialism picks up the loose ends.

I have no idea why this is such a hard concept for conservatives.

 

[The Infidel]

The government took over the role of defense. Doesn't matter whether it was "agreed" upon or not. The government is providing the service.

That's socialism.

"Took over"? No, it didn't. It was built in from the beginning.

And this changes the fact it is socialism..how exactly?

How about YOU explain to all of us knucle dragging dummies just how it is socialism?

Please enlighten me with your brilliance.

 

[bodecea]

I guess that's why "General Welfare" is not in the Constitution at all....

Define "general welfare" please

Are you looking for a specific "only fits one way" definition? Or do you think the Founders left that somewhat general....like "provide for the common defense"?

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Er..ok.

Did Washington own slaves, professor?

SEE post #61

Of course he did.

If you're talking about my sarcasm to the other dummy who claims Washington didn't own slaves and he helped end slavery .. you should get a bit of background on our argument

Oh no!
You were being facetious...apologies & I'll make it up.

No need .. I wasn't clear

My apologies to you.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's not a hard concept and we grasp it.

What the left doesn't get is that our POTUS is a socialist, if not an actual commie, and is trying to drag the US down. Deny it if you like, it's true.

 

[Sallow]

Basic fucking reading comprehension, you nitwit..... you don't just choose 2 words out of the middle of the statement.... provide for

Plus remember the specific enumerated powers given to the congress.. followed by amendment 10 which states "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."

Entitlement handouts are not a specific power granted... "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".... it is fucking crystal clear that it is to provide for the defense and welfare of the union... and it has been power hungry politicians and entitlement junkie assholes that have bastardized the constitution itself for their little games

The constitution is not wide open... it is specific in what is granted and ALL OTHER POWERS are delegated, and rightly so, not in the hands of the FED but to the states and to the people themselves

You absolutely and utterly wrong.

States and Nations are made up of people..and are a human construct.

You are completely and utterly wrong... the nation is not defined as each individual within the nation.... that would be the nation's populace... and could/would have been easily worded as such if that was what was intended... the United States is the Union of States... the entity known as the country, not every last spec of dust or individual within the country.... to have the common defense and general welfare of the United States ITSELF is much different than having the defense and general welfare of each citizen within the states provided for by government.. hence why the states, counties, towns, and municipalities provide police, and not the fed.. the fed provides defense agencies and entities that defend the nation as a whole

The founding fathers and constructors of the constitution chose their words well.. unfortunately for our country, power hungry asshole politicians and greedy entitlement junkies bastardized it for their own gain at the expense of others

Now you are wrong and preaching Socialism.

 

[bodecea]

idjit...

Nobody "took that industry over".....it was an agreement among the States....because they recognized that together they were stronger than being separate...

The government took over the role of defense. Doesn't matter whether it was "agreed" upon or not. The government is providing the service.

That's socialism.

"Took over"? No, it didn't. It was built in from the beginning.

No it wasn't....thus problems such at Shay's Rebellion.