Republican drive to end social programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[johnrocks]

Why do you embrace Blackstone so much, he was a Tory, the very establishment we were fighting against?

Besides his "Commentaries on the Laws of England", he was regarded as an utter failure.

I embraced the rules of construction as presented by Blackstone because the evidence weighs in favor of the proposition that the men who made the Constitution probably took for granted that the rules would apply to the instrument they were making.

When John Dickenson, at the Convention that wrote the Constitution, interpreted the term "ex post facto", he applied the rule that read,

..terms of art, or technical terms, must be taken according to the acceptation of the learned in each art, trade, and science.​

It has been shown many times that their were two or more sides with each other then as there are now, there has always been and will always be one side wanting more centralized planning and one side thinking that it is not good to have so much centralized planning.

For every Blackstone, Hamilton or Dickerson , there is a Jefferson, Madison or Brutus(Yates, Anti Federalist).

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

the definition referring to individuals INSTEAD of the definition referring to an entity known as the STATE

Huh? What definition?

 

[saveliberty]

"General Welfare of the United States" means "happiness of many individuals of the United States."

This is the sixth or seventh variation on the theme for you in regards to an interpretation of the meaning. By your very actions, you show many possibilities exist for what the framers might have meant.

You however, choose to use a minority opinion to interpret it. Further, you refuse to acknowledge that the strictest use of your methodology results in idiotic meanings like the one above.

You have spent days forwarding this ridiculous notion and for what purpose? Repeating worn out and refuted points can only be the result of someone who cannot bear to lose, has limited comprehension abilities or feels the very underpinings of his political beliefs are giving way.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Try looking at how he described the word NATIONAL...

The word "National" doesn't even appear in the clause that grants Congress power to tax and spend to provide for the happiness of many people of the United States.

 

[Liberty]

Try looking at how he described the word NATIONAL...

The word "National" doesn't even appear in the clause that grants Congress power to tax and spend to provide for the happiness of many people of the United States.

 

[jillian]

"General Welfare of the United States" means "happiness of many individuals of the United States."

no. it doesn't mean happiness. it means well-being...

like the FDA not allowing bad drugs to be sold.

like the EPA protecting our environment.

like OSHA making sure we have safe working conditions.

It doesn't mean the government has to buy you a beer on friday night and get you laid.

 

[DiamondDave]

"General Welfare of the United States" means "happiness of many individuals of the United States."

no. it doesn't mean happiness. it means well-being...

like the FDA not allowing bad drugs to be sold.

like the EPA protecting our environment.

like OSHA making sure we have safe working conditions.

It doesn't mean the government has to buy you a beer on friday night and get you laid.

Yet you forget that of the populace or of the union is not inherently the same thing as of the individuals.... The Unites States as an entity is not the individuals, but indeed the union of states

 

[Charles_Main]

"General Welfare of the United States" means "happiness of many individuals of the United States."

no. it doesn't mean happiness. it means well-being...

like the FDA not allowing bad drugs to be sold.

like the EPA protecting our environment.

like OSHA making sure we have safe working conditions.

It doesn't mean the government has to buy you a beer on friday night and get you laid.

Nope, Nor does it mean they have a blanket excuse for any and all social Welfare Programs.

As my quotes in my sig show. Our founders DID not believe the phrase about General Welfare in the Preamble granted any power to the FED AT ALL. that was not specially laid out elsewhere in the document. They intended any power not Specifically given to the FED in the Constitution to BELONG to the states. So yes we can have welfare programs in this country, however for the most part they are suppose to be controlled at the state level.

 

[DiamondDave]

Try looking at how he described the word NATIONAL...

The word "National" doesn't even appear in the clause that grants Congress power to tax and spend to provide for the happiness of many people of the United States.

Look at the definition of 'publick', which YOU in previous discussion linked to 'general'

Give it up while you are behind, twit

 

[Charles_Main]

"General Welfare of the United States" means "happiness of many individuals of the United States."

no. it doesn't mean happiness. it means well-being...

like the FDA not allowing bad drugs to be sold.

like the EPA protecting our environment.

like OSHA making sure we have safe working conditions.

It doesn't mean the government has to buy you a beer on friday night and get you laid.

Yet you forget that of the populace or of the union is not inherently the same thing as of the individuals.... The Unites States as an entity is not the individuals, but indeed the union of states

Actually it is the Many people, and the many states.

 

[Si modo]

Yup, it sure is unconstitutional for citizens to elect representatives that will legislate laws about how money is allocated.






*still unable to believe that the OP of this thread went anywhere with that*

 

[DiamondDave]

no. it doesn't mean happiness. it means well-being...

like the FDA not allowing bad drugs to be sold.

like the EPA protecting our environment.

like OSHA making sure we have safe working conditions.

It doesn't mean the government has to buy you a beer on friday night and get you laid.

Yet you forget that of the populace or of the union is not inherently the same thing as of the individuals.... The Unites States as an entity is not the individuals, but indeed the union of states

Actually it is the Many people, and the many states.

No.. it is not... the United States refers to the union of states... the federation of those states.. not the federation of the individuals...

I give you credit for trying though... see Don Pardo for some lovely parting gifts

 

[Gadawg73]

Isn't the idea of society to end government involvement in the lives of citizens involving cash transfers from one family to another unless there is a value of service received for the common good?
Just like affirmative action, what is the gauge of when we end it?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

please cite your link for reference as to where you are pulling definitions from some 1787 version... I have a reference point from the 1755 version (last I can see he published)

I use what is known as the 7th edition published in 1785 immediately following Johnson's death. I was wrong about the 1787 date.

I have other editions, but the 7th is the one closest to, and also prior to, 1787.

 

[DiamondDave]

please cite your link for reference as to where you are pulling definitions from some 1787 version... I have a reference point from the 1755 version (last I can see he published)

I use what is known as the 7th edition published in 1785 immediately following Johnson's death. I was wrong about the 1787 date.

I have other editions, but the 7th is the one closest to, and also prior to, 1787.

Link

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

"General Welfare of the United States" means "happiness of many individuals of the United States."

no. it doesn't mean happiness. it means well-being...

What rule of construction did you apply to obtain that?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Our founders DID not believe the phrase about General Welfare in the Preamble granted any power to the FED AT ALL.

Mr. George Mason held the opinion, that the clause, to provide for the common defence and general welfare, was a substantive power.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

That congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant.

--George Mason

 

[saveliberty]

Try looking at how he described the word NATIONAL...

The word "National" doesn't even appear in the clause that grants Congress power to tax and spend to provide for the happiness of many people of the United States.

You know, they had beer back then. If they wanted to provide for the happiness of Americans, they could have just passed the right to beer clause.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Look at the definition of 'publick.'

The word "publick" does not appear in the clause that grants Congress power to provide for the general welfare.