Please show me the word "Christ" in the U.S. Constitution.

[TooTall]

Please show me the word Charity in the US Constitution.

Nope. No welfare, medicaide or other social bullshit. Zip. Nada. None. Zero.

Also ain't no Obamacare in there either. In fact there is no mention of healthcare at all in the Constitution.

Healthcare was not a significant portion of the average family's budget then.

Plus, in early America if you had whatever they could treat and could not pay they just MIGHT have thrown you out in the street to die. In the 50's something changed. Medical science evolved and some costly treatments came about. Seemed we picked a socialist system then where most everyone had a right to them expensive treatments.

If our system is socialist why are we the worst at providing health care than any other developed nation?

Why do Canadians and citizens of a lot of other countries come here for treatment if their system is so much better than ours?

 

[TooTall]

Please show me the word Charity in the US Constitution.

Nope. No welfare, medicaide or other social bullshit. Zip. Nada. None. Zero.

Also ain't no Obamacare in there either. In fact there is no mention of healthcare at all in the Constitution.

welfare is in the Constitution...

No it isn't..
It's in the Preamble. The Preamble specifically states "to PROMOTE the general welfare of the people"..
It says nothing regarding "providing welfare".....

Good catch! You beat me to it.

 

[TooTall]

.

I'm a comfy agnostic, and it has never bothered me to think that I live in a Christian nation.

I don't recall Christianity being "forced" on me, and I find many of its public traditions to be quite charming.

And, as if they're trying to keep things from going overboard, many of Christianity's practitioners regularly remind us why it can't go too far.

.

I do not attend church either. And save for the occasional knock at the door by some guy trying to drum up membership at his church, no one has ever instructed my that I must comply with their beliefs.
These libs have taken "freedom of religion" and packaged it into "freedom FROM religion"....Except of course Islam. That religion and the people who practice it have become another liberal PC protected class.

Yep, and ironic, too: What religion forces itself on people more now than Islam?

"Convert or die".

.

Catholics said that too. But they burned ya at the stake. I'd rather be beheaded.

Has that burning at the stake been a recent happening? A beheading happened last week, and if you go to Syria ISIS will be more than happy to chop off your head. I doubt you could fine a Catholic church that would burn you at the stake.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Show me the word entitlement or social security.

You people are making a stupid argument based on the stupid premise that only explicitly worded powers are constitutional powers.

That is where your argument fails - on a false premise.

The entire Document AND Bill of Rights is an explicitly defined limitation of powers to the Federal Government.

The powers are limited purposefully, with intent to limit power. You're argument just failed on the face of it, and history.

No, actually the Constitution was designed to expand powers over the failed Articles of Confederation.

 

[TooTall]

Get your attacks correct. We have the number 1 med schools, doctors, medical research facilities, drug research facilities, hospital, clinics, test labs etc. However, I would agree we don't have the best health INSURANCE system in the world.

We certainly don't have the #1 system for covering all Americans either.

When you find an example of an American or a non-American being turned away from an emergency room for treatment, you should post it here on USMB. Don't count the government ran VA hospital system.

 

[norwegen]

Show me the word entitlement or social security.

You people are making a stupid argument based on the stupid premise that only explicitly worded powers are constitutional powers.

That is where your argument fails - on a false premise.

The entire Document AND Bill of Rights is an explicitly defined limitation of powers to the Federal Government.

The powers are limited purposefully, with intent to limit power. You're argument just failed on the face of it, and history.

No, actually the Constitution was designed to expand powers over the failed Articles of Confederation.

Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Get your attacks correct. We have the number 1 med schools, doctors, medical research facilities, drug research facilities, hospital, clinics, test labs etc. However, I would agree we don't have the best health INSURANCE system in the world.

We certainly don't have the #1 system for covering all Americans either.

When you find an example of an American or a non-American being turned away from an emergency room for treatment, you should post it here on USMB. Don't count the government ran VA hospital system.

Hospitals can turn away non-emergencies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Show me the word entitlement or social security.

You people are making a stupid argument based on the stupid premise that only explicitly worded powers are constitutional powers.

That is where your argument fails - on a false premise.

The entire Document AND Bill of Rights is an explicitly defined limitation of powers to the Federal Government.

The powers are limited purposefully, with intent to limit power. You're argument just failed on the face of it, and history.

No, actually the Constitution was designed to expand powers over the failed Articles of Confederation.

Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.

It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.

 

[norwegen]

Show me the word entitlement or social security.

You people are making a stupid argument based on the stupid premise that only explicitly worded powers are constitutional powers.

That is where your argument fails - on a false premise.

The entire Document AND Bill of Rights is an explicitly defined limitation of powers to the Federal Government.

The powers are limited purposefully, with intent to limit power. You're argument just failed on the face of it, and history.

No, actually the Constitution was designed to expand powers over the failed Articles of Confederation.

Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.

It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.

It does not authorize welfare programs.

 

[Kosh]

Show me the word entitlement or social security.

You people are making a stupid argument based on the stupid premise that only explicitly worded powers are constitutional powers.

That is where your argument fails - on a false premise.

The entire Document AND Bill of Rights is an explicitly defined limitation of powers to the Federal Government.

The powers are limited purposefully, with intent to limit power. You're argument just failed on the face of it, and history.

No, actually the Constitution was designed to expand powers over the failed Articles of Confederation.

More proof that the far left does not have a clue about the US Constitution..

Empirical evidence right here!!

 

[Kosh]

Show me the word entitlement or social security.

You people are making a stupid argument based on the stupid premise that only explicitly worded powers are constitutional powers.

That is where your argument fails - on a false premise.

The entire Document AND Bill of Rights is an explicitly defined limitation of powers to the Federal Government.

The powers are limited purposefully, with intent to limit power. You're argument just failed on the face of it, and history.

No, actually the Constitution was designed to expand powers over the failed Articles of Confederation.

Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.

It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.

Even more empirical evidence that the far left is clueless as to what the Constitution means. It is just not in their programming!

 

[saveliberty]

Show me the word entitlement or social security.

You people are making a stupid argument based on the stupid premise that only explicitly worded powers are constitutional powers.

That is where your argument fails - on a false premise.

The entire Document AND Bill of Rights is an explicitly defined limitation of powers to the Federal Government.

The powers are limited purposefully, with intent to limit power. You're argument just failed on the face of it, and history.

No, actually the Constitution was designed to expand powers over the failed Articles of Confederation.

Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.

It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.

Link. It clearly states all powers NOT expressly given to the federal government are retained by states and or individuals. Since there is all this concern about what is expressly in there.

 

[orogenicman]

United States v. Butler. Look it up. folks.

You people are making a stupid argument based on the stupid premise that only explicitly worded powers are constitutional powers.

That is where your argument fails - on a false premise.

The entire Document AND Bill of Rights is an explicitly defined limitation of powers to the Federal Government.

The powers are limited purposefully, with intent to limit power. You're argument just failed on the face of it, and history.

No, actually the Constitution was designed to expand powers over the failed Articles of Confederation.

Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.

It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.

It does not authorize welfare programs.

United States v. Butler. Look it up, folks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Get your attacks correct. We have the number 1 med schools, doctors, medical research facilities, drug research facilities, hospital, clinics, test labs etc. However, I would agree we don't have the best health INSURANCE system in the world.

We certainly don't have the #1 system for covering all Americans either.

When you find an example of an American or a non-American being turned away from an emergency room for treatment, you should post it here on USMB. Don't count the government ran VA hospital system.

You people are making a stupid argument based on the stupid premise that only explicitly worded powers are constitutional powers.

That is where your argument fails - on a false premise.

The entire Document AND Bill of Rights is an explicitly defined limitation of powers to the Federal Government.

The powers are limited purposefully, with intent to limit power. You're argument just failed on the face of it, and history.

No, actually the Constitution was designed to expand powers over the failed Articles of Confederation.

Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.

It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.

It does not authorize welfare programs.

Since implied powers are a legitimate component of the Constitution, you are wrong.

I am right. The Constitution authorizes whatever can be passed legislatively and survive judicial review. Those are the rules of the Constitutional game.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Just sayin'...


How many times does "God" or "Christ" appear in the 27 Amendments to the Constitution?


0

Zero.


None?

Not at all?

Nil.

Nein.

Zip.

Zippo.

Ziltch.


You'd think our "Christian" founders would have included something, someone so important to their beliefs.

Maybe the liberals have secretly removed it when the country wasn't looking...

If religion was really insignificant in this country and has no real place in our nation, they wouldn't have placed it's importance under the FIRST Amendment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You people are making a stupid argument based on the stupid premise that only explicitly worded powers are constitutional powers.

That is where your argument fails - on a false premise.

The entire Document AND Bill of Rights is an explicitly defined limitation of powers to the Federal Government.

The powers are limited purposefully, with intent to limit power. You're argument just failed on the face of it, and history.

No, actually the Constitution was designed to expand powers over the failed Articles of Confederation.

Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.

It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.

Link. It clearly states all powers NOT expressly given to the federal government are retained by states and or individuals. Since there is all this concern about what is expressly in there.

If that were true then there would be no such thing as judicial review and the states could therefore pass any law they wanted and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights be damned.

 

[norwegen]

United States v. Butler. Look it up. folks.

The entire Document AND Bill of Rights is an explicitly defined limitation of powers to the Federal Government.

The powers are limited purposefully, with intent to limit power. You're argument just failed on the face of it, and history.

No, actually the Constitution was designed to expand powers over the failed Articles of Confederation.

Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.

It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.

It does not authorize welfare programs.

United States v. Butler. Look it up, folks.

Case law is irrelevant. What people do to violate the Constitution is irrelevant. You lefties are a daft lot.

What is relevant is what the Constitution authorizes. Where does the Constitution permit the federal government to take property from some people and give it to others?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just sayin'...


How many times does "God" or "Christ" appear in the 27 Amendments to the Constitution?


0

Zero.


None?

Not at all?

Nil.

Nein.

Zip.

Zippo.

Ziltch.


You'd think our "Christian" founders would have included something, someone so important to their beliefs.

Maybe the liberals have secretly removed it when the country wasn't looking...

If religion was really insignificant in this country and has no real place in our nation, they wouldn't have placed it's importance under the FIRST Amendment.

The 1st Amendment is there to keep such things from happening as, for example, angry bigoted Christians trying to ban the building of mosques in their community.

 

[NYcarbineer]

United States v. Butler. Look it up. folks.

No, actually the Constitution was designed to expand powers over the failed Articles of Confederation.

Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.

It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.

It does not authorize welfare programs.

United States v. Butler. Look it up, folks.

Case law is irrelevant. What people do to violate the Constitution is irrelevant. You lefties are a daft lot.

What is relevant is what the Constitution authorizes. Where does the Constitution permit the federal government to take property from some people and give it to others?

You are not arbiter of what the Constitution authorizes.

 

[norwegen]

Get your attacks correct. We have the number 1 med schools, doctors, medical research facilities, drug research facilities, hospital, clinics, test labs etc. However, I would agree we don't have the best health INSURANCE system in the world.

We certainly don't have the #1 system for covering all Americans either.

When you find an example of an American or a non-American being turned away from an emergency room for treatment, you should post it here on USMB. Don't count the government ran VA hospital system.

The entire Document AND Bill of Rights is an explicitly defined limitation of powers to the Federal Government.

The powers are limited purposefully, with intent to limit power. You're argument just failed on the face of it, and history.

No, actually the Constitution was designed to expand powers over the failed Articles of Confederation.

Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.

It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.

It does not authorize welfare programs.

Since implied powers are a legitimate component of the Constitution, you are wrong.

I am right. The Constitution authorizes whatever can be passed legislatively and survive judicial review. Those are the rules of the Constitutional game.

Implied powers are not a legitimate component of the Constitution. That a few Federalists and Democrats thought they should be only made the issue one of contention. The petulance of the left doesn't constitutionally legitimize anything.