Question for the General Welfare Crowd.

[saveliberty]

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?

Well to be fair he's F'ing up the quote function too, so he's pretty busy ROTFLMAF

 

[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.

Being literal again dumb ass?

In this instance yes, because otherwise your argument stands. You are the one who needs the literalness to make your argument valid

 

[saveliberty]

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.

Got owned bitch. That is what most are going to see.

 

[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].

No it is not confusing at all, and I think it kind of proves my point. See you are quoting from a commonwealths Constitution. My point all along is that it is not the power of the Federal government to run Welfare. Now if it is not the power of the Fed, then it falls to the states. Which would be entirely consistent with what you have posted.

Notice how it says at their own expense, as in the Federal Government should not be paying for it, It should be managed at the state level. At the lower level it would be much easy to run it efficiently and cut back on abuse and corruption. The bloated Federal Bureaucracy is simply to big and daunting to take on in many cases.

The founders were big on keeping most things local for good reason. After all we had fought a revolution to throw off the control of a government thousands of miles away, and unable to know our needs, and issues well enough to govern us.

Kinda of the same point here. If I am going to have assholes telling me how to live, I would rather they be in Lansing than DC.

Charles' reply to my first post.

Follow the back and forth between Charles and me, and ignore the other.

 

[saveliberty]

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].

No it is not confusing at all, and I think it kind of proves my point. See you are quoting from a commonwealths Constitution. My point all along is that it is not the power of the Federal government to run Welfare. Now if it is not the power of the Fed, then it falls to the states. Which would be entirely consistent with what you have posted.

Notice how it says at their own expense, as in the Federal Government should not be paying for it, It should be managed at the state level. At the lower level it would be much easy to run it efficiently and cut back on abuse and corruption. The bloated Federal Bureaucracy is simply to big and daunting to take on in many cases.

The founders were big on keeping most things local for good reason. After all we had fought a revolution to throw off the control of a government thousands of miles away, and unable to know our needs, and issues well enough to govern us.

Kinda of the same point here. If I am going to have assholes telling me how to live, I would rather they be in Lansing than DC.

Charles' reply to my first post.

Follow the back and forth between Charles and me, and ignore the other.

How about letting people exercise their right to read what they want? A poor debater needs to use your tactic.

 

[saveliberty]

The cat had the good sense to go to sleep an hour and a half ago. I shall follow.

Moral of the story: Don't get me started on the general welfare clause and piss me off earlier in the day. I have a catch and release policy, so go about your way and have a nice day.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Because General Welfare means more than just social welfare programs. It means Congress is authorized to do what is in the best interests of the country. Roads are good for the General Welfare, Education is good for the General Welfare, Medical Research is good for the General Welfare

18th century Americans had no idea what was needed to run a 21st century country. That is why they kept the Constitution short and generic and talked more about government structure than on how they should respond in every possible situation

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Well, presumably the 'general welfare' is in the Constitution for a reason. What do you 'anti-General Welfare' crowd people think the reasons are?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Then explain why it's even mentioned. Why would the framers put 'general welfare' in the Constitution if there was no constitutional purpose in promoting the general welfare?

 

[Annie]

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.

The one program I'm pretty sure invoked general welfare would be Teddy Roosevelt and Conservation Act. I can see invoking the clause for something like saving Yellowstone for posterity, no act by a single state could do such a thing.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

Because General Welfare means more than just social welfare programs. It means Congress is authorized to do what is in the best interests of the country. Roads are good for the General Welfare, Education is good for the General Welfare, Medical Research is good for the General Welfare

18th century Americans had no idea what was needed to run a 21st century country. That is why they kept the Constitution short and generic and talked more about government structure than on how they should respond in every possible situation

No, general welfare refers to the common good enjoyed by virtually everyone, but NOT social welfare.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Because General Welfare means more than just social welfare programs. It means Congress is authorized to do what is in the best interests of the country. Roads are good for the General Welfare, Education is good for the General Welfare, Medical Research is good for the General Welfare

18th century Americans had no idea what was needed to run a 21st century country. That is why they kept the Constitution short and generic and talked more about government structure than on how they should respond in every possible situation

No, general welfare refers to the common good enjoyed by virtually everyone, but NOT social welfare.

Oh really?

So if Congress decides it is for the common good not to have children starving, not to have the poor spreading disease, not to have people begging door to door....that is not General Welfare?

 

[saveliberty]

I know you liberals are scared to death about this whole states rights thing. Seems like I get into this about twice a week or more lately. To answer your question, no it is not a federal government issue. States may decide such things fall under that heading, because they have not been restricted in the same fashion as the federal government.

By the way Obama has more straving children than past Presidents have had in some time.

 

[rightwinger]

I know you liberals are scared to death about this whole states rights thing. Seems like I get into this about twice a week or more lately. To answer your question, no it is not a federal government issue. States may decide such things fall under that heading, because they have not been restricted in the same fashion as the federal government.

By the way Obama has more straving children than past Presidents have had in some time.

In the interests of General Welfare, some things are done more efficiently at the federal level than at the state level. Most social welfare is handled at the state level. However, we are all Americans. As such, we should expect certain minimum standards. If states want to provide more...they are welcome to it

 

[ConHog]

RW stop acting like the government is mandated by the COTUS to provide a welfare program. They are not, neither are the state governments. We choose to allow it. If a political party were willing to attempt to end them and the will of the people were behind it, they would be gone. That right there tells you that it is in fact NOT an obligation of the governments.

 

[saveliberty]

I know you liberals are scared to death about this whole states rights thing. Seems like I get into this about twice a week or more lately. To answer your question, no it is not a federal government issue. States may decide such things fall under that heading, because they have not been restricted in the same fashion as the federal government.

By the way Obama has more straving children than past Presidents have had in some time.

In the interests of General Welfare, some things are done more efficiently at the federal level than at the state level. Most social welfare is handled at the state level. However, we are all Americans. As such, we should expect certain minimum standards. If states want to provide more...they are welcome to it

The federal government should have no power over minimum standards of the states. Efficiency in government? lol

The further you are from the need, the more likely you will not be able to fill the need appropriately. Further, what you really mean is, the federal government is more efficient at amassing funds to distribute. That sort of ease is not a benefit in my opinion.

 

[rightwinger]

RW stop acting like the government is mandated by the COTUS to provide a welfare program. They are not, neither are the state governments. We choose to allow it. If a political party were willing to attempt to end them and the will of the people were behind it, they would be gone. That right there tells you that it is in fact NOT an obligation of the governments.

I am not saying they are mandated to do anything. What I am saying is that they are given broad latitude to do what is best for the country.
Of course, if enough people elect officials who want to end welfare, social security, veterans benefits...they can do it

But they won't

 

[rightwinger]

I know you liberals are scared to death about this whole states rights thing. Seems like I get into this about twice a week or more lately. To answer your question, no it is not a federal government issue. States may decide such things fall under that heading, because they have not been restricted in the same fashion as the federal government.

By the way Obama has more straving children than past Presidents have had in some time.

In the interests of General Welfare, some things are done more efficiently at the federal level than at the state level. Most social welfare is handled at the state level. However, we are all Americans. As such, we should expect certain minimum standards. If states want to provide more...they are welcome to it

The federal government should have no power over minimum standards of the states. Efficiency in government? lol

The further you are from the need, the more likely you will not be able to fill the need appropriately. Further, what you really mean is, the federal government is more efficient at amassing funds to distribute. That sort of ease is not a benefit in my opinion.

"Should"??

Well guess what? They do under the supremacy clause of the Constitution

More efficient? Stop with your nonsense that state government is the paradigm of efficiency while the federal government is a bunch of incompetents.

During WWII the federal government oversaw the largest production increase in human history
The federal government created an atomic bomb in 2 1/2 years
The federal government put a man on the moon in ten years

 

[ConHog]

RW stop acting like the government is mandated by the COTUS to provide a welfare program. They are not, neither are the state governments. We choose to allow it. If a political party were willing to attempt to end them and the will of the people were behind it, they would be gone. That right there tells you that it is in fact NOT an obligation of the governments.

I am not saying they are mandated to do anything. What I am saying is that they are given broad latitude to do what is best for the country.
Of course, if enough people elect officials who want to end welfare, social security, veterans benefits...they can do it

But they won't

Although I quoted you, my post wasn't really directed towards you, but rather towards the loonier people who we well know are absolutely convinced that they have a RIGHT to welfare. I never thought you were one of those.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[boedicca]

Because General Welfare means more than just social welfare programs. It means Congress is authorized to do what is in the best interests of the country. Roads are good for the General Welfare, Education is good for the General Welfare, Medical Research is good for the General Welfare

18th century Americans had no idea what was needed to run a 21st century country. That is why they kept the Constitution short and generic and talked more about government structure than on how they should respond in every possible situation

No, general welfare refers to the common good enjoyed by virtually everyone, but NOT social welfare.

Oh really?

So if Congress decides it is for the common good not to have children starving, not to have the poor spreading disease, not to have people begging door to door....that is not General Welfare?

Correct. They are deciding on the welfare of a specific group of people to be funded by other people.

It's the nonsense that specific benefits for specific people are somehow in the interest of the General Welfare that inevitably leads to messes such as the mortgage fueled financial crisis.