Question for those that support sanctuary cities/states.

[danielpalos]

That is the republican doctrine.

This is the federal doctrine:

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;

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

[Humorme]

That is the republican doctrine.

This is the federal doctrine:

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;

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Constitutional "Doctrine"

ORIGINAL INTENT (Would you like me to quote the founders?)

 

[Wyatt earp]

The general power to provide for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.

General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.

Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "right wing" you always reference? Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13]"

General welfare clause - Wikipedia

I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is "right wing." And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves. And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority. This can be seen from examples such as this one:

15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal

I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.

That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing


.

 

[Humorme]

The general power to provide for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.

General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.

Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "right wing" you always reference? Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13]"

General welfare clause - Wikipedia

I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is "right wing." And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves. And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority. This can be seen from examples such as this one:

15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal

I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.

That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing


.

Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days. Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The general power to provide for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.

General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.

Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "right wing" you always reference? Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13]"

General welfare clause - Wikipedia

I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is "right wing." And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves. And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority. This can be seen from examples such as this one:

15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal

I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.

That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing


.

Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days. Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.

When I first met him/her he used to drive me crazy I would make like a 25 word paragraph and he/she would just come back with one liners of the same stuff...and it would go back and forth till now I just now skip over the posts .

 

[danielpalos]

That is the republican doctrine.

This is the federal doctrine:

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;

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Constitutional "Doctrine"

ORIGINAL INTENT (Would you like me to quote the founders?)

It is the federal doctrine not the republican doctrine.

 

[danielpalos]

The general power to provide for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.

General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.

Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "right wing" you always reference? Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13]"

General welfare clause - Wikipedia

I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is "right wing." And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves. And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority. This can be seen from examples such as this one:

15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal

I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.

That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing


.

The right wing has nothing but fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

The general power to provide for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.

General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.

Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "right wing" you always reference? Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13]"

General welfare clause - Wikipedia

I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is "right wing." And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves. And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority. This can be seen from examples such as this one:

15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal

I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.

That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing


.

Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days. Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.

I am not the one who is resorting to fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.

Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "right wing" you always reference? Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13]"

General welfare clause - Wikipedia

I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is "right wing." And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves. And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority. This can be seen from examples such as this one:

15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal

I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.

That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing


.

Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days. Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.

When I first met him/her he used to drive me crazy I would make like a 25 word paragraph and he/she would just come back with one liners of the same stuff...and it would go back and forth till now I just now skip over the posts .

Walls of text with nothing but fallacy is why I don't waste too much time.

 

[Humorme]

General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.

Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "right wing" you always reference? Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13]"

General welfare clause - Wikipedia

I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is "right wing." And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves. And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority. This can be seen from examples such as this one:

15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal

I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.

That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing


.

Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days. Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.

When I first met him/her he used to drive me crazy I would make like a 25 word paragraph and he/she would just come back with one liners of the same stuff...and it would go back and forth till now I just now skip over the posts .

Somebody kicked the one liner machine into auto-pilot.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.

Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "right wing" you always reference? Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13]"

General welfare clause - Wikipedia

I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is "right wing." And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves. And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority. This can be seen from examples such as this one:

15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal

I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.

That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing


.

Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days. Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.

When I first met him/her he used to drive me crazy I would make like a 25 word paragraph and he/she would just come back with one liners of the same stuff...and it would go back and forth till now I just now skip over the posts .

Somebody kicked the one liner machine into auto-pilot.

It was me I must have hurt her feelings...

 

[Wyatt earp]

That is the republican doctrine.

This is the federal doctrine:

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;

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Constitutional "Doctrine"

ORIGINAL INTENT (Would you like me to quote the founders?)

It is the federal doctrine not the republican doctrine.

 

[Wyatt earp]

General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.

Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "right wing" you always reference? Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13]"

General welfare clause - Wikipedia

I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is "right wing." And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves. And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority. This can be seen from examples such as this one:

15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal

I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.

That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing


.

Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days. Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.

I am not the one who is resorting to fallacy.

General welfare has been decided by the courts not to mean, specific welfare.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.

Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "right wing" you always reference? Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13]"

General welfare clause - Wikipedia

I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is "right wing." And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves. And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority. This can be seen from examples such as this one:

15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal

I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.

That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing


.

Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days. Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.

I am not the one who is resorting to fallacy.

 

[ChrisL]

 

[Humorme]

Where do you stand on Liberty?

 

[danielpalos]

That is the republican doctrine.

Constitutional "Doctrine"

ORIGINAL INTENT (Would you like me to quote the founders?)

It is the federal doctrine not the republican doctrine.

View attachment 170684

No, we don't. The right wing is merely clueless and Causeless. It is the republican doctrine not the federal doctrine.

This is the federal doctrine:

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;​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Everything in underlined sentence the objective of the federal doctrine, not the republican doctrine.

Only the right wing has nothing but fallacy instead of valid arguments.

 

[danielpalos]

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.

Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "right wing" you always reference? Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13]"

General welfare clause - Wikipedia

I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is "right wing." And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves. And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority. This can be seen from examples such as this one:

15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal

I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.

That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing


.

Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days. Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.

I am not the one who is resorting to fallacy.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

The general welfare is Comprehensive, especially in the federal districts.

Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "right wing" you always reference? Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13]"

General welfare clause - Wikipedia

I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is "right wing." And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves. And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority. This can be seen from examples such as this one:

15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal

I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.

That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing


.

Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days. Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.

I am not the one who is resorting to fallacy.

View attachment 170685

The Only trolls are the ones with no argument and only propaganda.

 

[Humorme]

Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "right wing" you always reference? Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13]"

General welfare clause - Wikipedia

I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is "right wing." And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves. And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority. This can be seen from examples such as this one:

15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal

I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.

That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing


.

Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days. Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.

I am not the one who is resorting to fallacy.

Do you always ascribe everything you don't like to this omnipotent "right wing" you always reference? Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13]"

General welfare clause - Wikipedia

I think the primary difference between what you and I believe is that you want a government - God and everything that does not fit that agenda is "right wing." And, since the womb to the tomb government you seek is all encompassing, it do whatever the Hell it wants at no obligation to the Rights of the citizenry it supposedly serves. And while I don't dispute that the government you love that can do what it wants, it still does not have the authority. This can be seen from examples such as this one:

15 Supreme Court Decisions that Shredded the Constitution | Sean J. Rosenthal

I may not agree with every example they set forth, but it's easy to see what is wrong.

That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing


.

Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days. Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.

I am not the one who is resorting to fallacy.

View attachment 170685

The Only trolls are the ones with no argument and only propaganda.

It is the considered opinion that nine out of every 10 posters who have read more than half a dozen of your posts agree that YOU, danielpalos are THE consummate Troll.

This idiocy that someone is causeless and clueless because they disagree with you is an insult that should be banned on this site as well as all others you participate on.

You never provide anything other than a few words taken out of context from a source and NO explanation. When it comes to the interpretation of what your sources mean, you need to reference the men who wrote your source material. In this instance, let me do it for you:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

The ONLY reason you try to pass off such quotes as propaganda is that they disprove your position of a government God that relies only on popular vote to make its point. If anyone on this board is causeless and clueless, then danielpalos, you should look in a mirror. You can then see a shining example of that individual of which you accuse others.

 

[KissMy]

 

[danielpalos]

That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing


.

Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days. Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.

I am not the one who is resorting to fallacy.

That's danielopolis the robot always says the same thing


.

Sometimes I wish they would make the guy post something relevant instead of the same litany every few days. Monotonous posts don't change any minds; they are not entertaining; those repetitive postings never educate nor enlighten.

I am not the one who is resorting to fallacy.

View attachment 170685

The Only trolls are the ones with no argument and only propaganda.

It is the considered opinion that nine out of every 10 posters who have read more than half a dozen of your posts agree that YOU, danielpalos are THE consummate Troll.

This idiocy that someone is causeless and clueless because they disagree with you is an insult that should be banned on this site as well as all others you participate on.

You never provide anything other than a few words taken out of context from a source and NO explanation. When it comes to the interpretation of what your sources mean, you need to reference the men who wrote your source material. In this instance, let me do it for you:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

The ONLY reason you try to pass off such quotes as propaganda is that they disprove your position of a government God that relies only on popular vote to make its point. If anyone on this board is causeless and clueless, then danielpalos, you should look in a mirror. You can then see a shining example of that individual of which you accuse others.

This is the federal doctrine:

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;​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Everything underlined is the objective of the federal doctrine, not the republican doctrine.

Only the right wing has nothing but fallacy instead of valid arguments.

How do you get Your version, with the federal doctrine? Congress has the Power to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.