Question for the General Welfare Crowd.

[saveliberty]

John Adams was a lawyer as were others among the framers and founding fathers.

go away

So you admit a lawyer trick was inserted in the Preamable. Well bitch I'm not going away and your losing points left and right. I've been here about twenty minutes, what is your malfunction?

Nuance and thoughtful context is no lawyer's trick. The framers are very particular on some points and very broad on others for reasons. They were writing what amounts to a legal document.

You probably think the Founding Fathers and the Framers were philosophers. They were not. Your contempt for lawyers and the law is so common.

Yes, broad in areas like the Preamble, which was introductory and unifying in purpose. Then specific and pointed in others like states rights. I have used a lawyer several times in life. I was always the smartest person in the room, they just knew the paperwork better.

 

[Dante]

I was rather enjoying this one. I have been trying my self, Very hard to be as civil as I can in debates lately. It is not always easy, but I think we really need more of that in this country if were to address our many problems.

read your posts to me and my posts to you and see who was the most civil.

seriously, go back. look at them, and then tell me what you think.

 

[Dante]

Yes and that is why we had no Welfare at all until 150 years after they wrote it.

 

[saveliberty]

I was rather enjoying this one. I have been trying my self, Very hard to be as civil as I can in debates lately. It is not always easy, but I think we really need more of that in this country if were to address our many problems.

read your posts to me and my posts to you and see who was the most civil.

seriously, go back. look at them, and then tell me what you think.

I think Charles had the tougher job from the start. So he gets extra credit.

 

[Dante]

There will always be tension between powers. What is silly is the ignorance paraded around here posing as interpretation. (note: I am not speaking of you. lol)

 

[Dante]

LOL well thanks for that. There certainly is no shortage of people on either side of the spectrum who are guilty of that. I certainly do not claim to fully understand the intricacies of our Constitution, but I do try.

here, I got you to rise above the usual here.

 

[saveliberty]

There will always be tension between powers. What is silly is the ignorance paraded around here posing as interpretation. (note: I am not speaking of you. lol)

Debating yourself now? Man that is going to be embrassing when you lose both sides.

 

[Dante]

Damn you beat me to it.

here you fed the troll

 

[Dante]

I was rather enjoying this one. I have been trying my self, Very hard to be as civil as I can in debates lately. It is not always easy, but I think we really need more of that in this country if were to address our many problems.

again, playing with then troll?

 

[Dante]

Don't let that part about powers not specifically granted to the federal government shall be retained by the states or its citizens. You have actually read the entire Constitution right?

Damn you beat me to it.

please don't play simpleton with me? Dueling quotes is a bore's game. libertydouche is a bore. new rule: one bore per thread

I shoot across your bow.

 

[saveliberty]

LOL well thanks for that. There certainly is no shortage of people on either side of the spectrum who are guilty of that. I certainly do not claim to fully understand the intricacies of our Constitution, but I do try.

here, I got you to rise above the usual here.

Charles already had those qualities, YOU didn't do squat.

 

[saveliberty]

Damn you beat me to it.

please don't play simpleton with me? Dueling quotes is a bore's game. libertydouche is a bore. new rule: one bore per thread

I shoot across your bow.

Try to hit what your aiming at then. You want me, come at me.

 

[Dante]

So Charles, you wonder why debate gets stifled? When we include the trolls in a one on one discussion, they win. They win because you admit you walk away wanting better.

I really do know how to play this game, but I have shown you here how to play it well. You did pretty damn good, but you allowed the troll into the discussion between us.

D

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is no General Welfare clause. Go ahead name a single power Congress has ever enacted that claims as its base in power a clause about General Welfare. They are smart enough to know such a claim would fail on its face.

The entire purpose of the Constitution is to LIMIT the Government to specific powers enumerated in said Constitution. A supposed General Welfare clause would have NO LIMITS at all. Anything and every thing could be claimed to be in the General Welfare of the Country.

 

[saveliberty]

You realize that you have completely gone off track at this point? Can't debate, so your jsut trying to look like the better person than Charles. Sad really.

So, you failed to show that general welfare meant what it does today from the beginning. I have given many reason why that does not hold.

When you tried to say various members of the Framers tried to change the meanings and I offered a retort which you have given no answer to.

Pretty much every argument put forth since I showed up you have been given a response which you have not adequately refuted.

 

[saveliberty]

So Charles, you wonder why debate gets stifled? When we include the trolls in a one on one discussion, they win. They win because you admit you walk away wanting better.

I really do know how to play this game, but I have shown you here how to play it well. You did pretty damn good, but you allowed the troll into the discussion between us.

D

No Dante, you had a discussion with someone you felt you were an equal to. When I questioned you forcefully you caved and went for the troll label. Weak, weak, weak. When others have used that on you, they were right.

 

[Dante]

There is no General Welfare clause. Go ahead name a single power Congress has ever enacted that claims as its base in power a clause about General Welfare.

I'm sorry. Did I or somebody else misspeak and say there was a General welfare clause in the Constitution?

Please, link to this so it can be addressed.

 

[Dante]

The entire purpose of the Constitution is to LIMIT the Government to specific powers enumerated in said Constitution.

This is an untruth. That was not the entire purpose.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The entire purpose of the Constitution is to LIMIT the Government to specific powers enumerated in said Constitution./QUOTE]

This is an untruth. That was not the entire purpose.

Being literal again dumb ass?

 

[Dante]

Simple question. If as you guys claim. The General Welfare clause of the constitution was meant to justify Federal social Welfare programs. Then how do you explain the fact that the people that wrote the constitution in many cases went on to serve in the WH and congress, and yet it was not until FDR that we had any form of Direct Federal Social Welfare programs?

If they intended that, why when they were the ones getting to write the laws did they never pass any?

Food for thought.

Chuck, the US Constitution as well as many state Constitutions were based on the
Massachusetts Constitution. The brain child of John Adams. In the Mass Constitution the state originally provided for the general welfare by directing the state to support houses of worship where monies were and when needed. This from a man who stated explicitly that the the USA was not founded as a Christian nation.

Now I admit I may be simplifying things a bit much, but I hope this gets the message across in a manner that does not confuse.

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government...

...Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
...
...] [Art. XI of the Amendments substituted for this].

For those of you who desire discussion and debate minus a troll baiting session, here is where I entered the thread. I admit to being dismissive of the liberty character, but when I entered there were no attacks, until the creature showed up. Ignore it's posts and follow the back and forth with Charles and I and maybe you will see something worth commenting on. Then again, maybe not.