Stop invoking the Constitution

[Bfgrn]

The "original intent" was never agreed on or defined. Jefferson drafted an amendment that would authorize the purchase of Louisiana retroactively. But Jefferson’s cabinet members argued against the need for an amendment, and Congress disregarded his draft. The Senate ratified the treaty in October of 1803.

The Louisiana Purchase exposed the limitations of the strict constructionist approach to spending power. Jefferson abandoning HIS beliefs was pragmatic and signaled a more pragmatic interpretation of the general welfare clause...the "Hamilton way" prevailed as it does today.

And it didn't stop Jefferson from calling for spending "be applied in time of peace to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each State" in his second inaugural address.

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


So because of the Louisiana Purchase the politicians now have the authority to use US Treasury funds to feed you, clothe you, insured you, educate you, quench your thirst and engage in wars just so they can enrich war profiteers?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

You need to use bigger font asshole.

Social insurance is constitutional and is completely congruent with the intent of 'general welfare'

You need to use bigger font asshole.

Yeah, I know. That is a non-violent way to scream at parasites such as yourself.

Social insurance is constitutional and is completely congruent with the intent of 'general welfare'

Yeah, right. I wonder why it took the politicians 148 years to find out that the intent of the Founding Fathers was to create yet another socialist republic. Or did it take that long for US parasites to unite.

Hey pea brain, the 'welfare state' is a construct of wealthy capitalistic societies. The first 'welfare state' was Bismarck’s Prussia, which to the dismay of German Social Democrats had instituted compulsory health insurance in 1883. That created a sudden panic on the left. Karl Marx had died weeks before, so the socialist leader August Bebel consulted his friend Friedrich Engels, who insisted that socialists should vote against it, as they did. The first welfare state on earth was created against socialist opposition.

The forgotten truth about health provision is that socialism and state welfare are old enemies, and welfare overspending is a characteristic of advanced capitalist economies.

The Forgotten Churchill
The man who stared down Hitler also helped create the modern welfare state

Better start yelling at yourself you ignorant asshole.


"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

Thus proving that the far left has no clue about the Constitution other than what their religious programming tells them..

Is there an adult in the room that can read to you before you emote all over the keyboard?

 

[Bfgrn]

This thread is another perfect example of how the far left does not understand the Constitution. To them it is just a GD piece of paper..

Excuse you Kosh, but for the last damned time I am am not a maligned liberal. Or is everyone a liberal to you? If you are ignorant of the constitution, then you don't have any business shoving it other people's faces. It's that simple. If you worship the Constitution, then make sure to do what it says. I bet a lot of us don't even know what all the other 17 Amendments do! So why flaunt this "GD piece of paper" if you don't know anything about it but the 10 original Amendments?

It's like someone saying "Obey the Bible!" without having ever read it.

If you read the far left comments on this thread it shows they do not understand the Constitution, unless you consider yourself part of the far left religion.

Let us look at those that want to abolish the 2nd Amendment, mostly on the far left. They want to disarm the citizens, the police and allow the criminals and terrorists to have the "right" to bear arms.

NO ONE ever proposed abolishing the 2nd amendment. Typical far right wing bullshit.

 

[Kosh]

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


So because of the Louisiana Purchase the politicians now have the authority to use US Treasury funds to feed you, clothe you, insured you, educate you, quench your thirst and engage in wars just so they can enrich war profiteers?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

You need to use bigger font asshole.

Social insurance is constitutional and is completely congruent with the intent of 'general welfare'

You need to use bigger font asshole.

Yeah, I know. That is a non-violent way to scream at parasites such as yourself.

Social insurance is constitutional and is completely congruent with the intent of 'general welfare'

Yeah, right. I wonder why it took the politicians 148 years to find out that the intent of the Founding Fathers was to create yet another socialist republic. Or did it take that long for US parasites to unite.

Hey pea brain, the 'welfare state' is a construct of wealthy capitalistic societies. The first 'welfare state' was Bismarck’s Prussia, which to the dismay of German Social Democrats had instituted compulsory health insurance in 1883. That created a sudden panic on the left. Karl Marx had died weeks before, so the socialist leader August Bebel consulted his friend Friedrich Engels, who insisted that socialists should vote against it, as they did. The first welfare state on earth was created against socialist opposition.

The forgotten truth about health provision is that socialism and state welfare are old enemies, and welfare overspending is a characteristic of advanced capitalist economies.

The Forgotten Churchill
The man who stared down Hitler also helped create the modern welfare state

Better start yelling at yourself you ignorant asshole.


"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

Thus proving that the far left has no clue about the Constitution other than what their religious programming tells them..

Is there an adult in the room that can read to you before you emote all over the keyboard?

Once again the far left shows that they have the mentality of a two year old..

 

[Kosh]

This thread is another perfect example of how the far left does not understand the Constitution. To them it is just a GD piece of paper..

Excuse you Kosh, but for the last damned time I am am not a maligned liberal. Or is everyone a liberal to you? If you are ignorant of the constitution, then you don't have any business shoving it other people's faces. It's that simple. If you worship the Constitution, then make sure to do what it says. I bet a lot of us don't even know what all the other 17 Amendments do! So why flaunt this "GD piece of paper" if you don't know anything about it but the 10 original Amendments?

It's like someone saying "Obey the Bible!" without having ever read it.

If you read the far left comments on this thread it shows they do not understand the Constitution, unless you consider yourself part of the far left religion.

Let us look at those that want to abolish the 2nd Amendment, mostly on the far left. They want to disarm the citizens, the police and allow the criminals and terrorists to have the "right" to bear arms.

NO ONE ever proposed abolishing the 2nd amendment. Typical far right wing bullshit.

Yes we know that you have to cover for your religion.

 

[Bfgrn]

And the chirping continues...

The recent posts of Kosh the parrot...

See the far left shows they want communism/socialism..

The far left proves they do not understand such things..

Far left propaganda based on religious dogma.

See the far left posts bunk and expects others to prove them wrong!

They want you to prove a negative.

Even more proof that the far left does not understand what they post, but expect others to prove them wrong!

The mentality of a two year old..

Sorry you can NOT prove a negative.

And the far left propaganda drones on...

Proof that this one is not connected in anyway to reality..

Oh look more far left propaganda not connected to reality..

The far left programming responding to certain keywords, how cute..

More proof how dangerous the far left religion is..

Yes I am sure that is what is in the far left programming..

And the far left propaganda drones on...

The far left would much rather see the world burn than admit they are wrong!

Once again the far left shows that they have the mentality of a two year old..

Yes we know that you have to cover for your religion.

 

[Contumacious]

[

Hey pea brain, the 'welfare state' is a construct of wealthy capitalistic societies. The first 'welfare state' was Bismarck’s Prussia, which to the dismay of German Social Democrats had instituted compulsory health insurance in 1883.

What a stupid fuck.

I need a bigger font.

The miserable piece of shit states "the 'welfare state' is a construct of wealthy capitalistic societies".


The cum swallower did not identify the factual basis for his conclusion since there are NO CAPITALISTIC SOCIETIES"

In a Capitalistic society all transactions are voluntary - so it may be possible for a Capitalist to donate money to a church or a philanthropic group for
eleemosynary purposes.

But if the philanthropy is ordered by the government then fascism or socialism is the prevailing system.


.


.

 

[Abatis]

I place very little credence in your apparent claim of authority and in fact I question your fundamental understanding of the Constitution.

I never claimed any authority, thus I question your ability to read and comprehend complex sentences.

Your entire OP is a claim of authority.

How does one make the demands on others you do in the OP, without putting on an air of unimpeachable knowledge and understanding?

I'm guessing you just don't realize how much of an ass you sound like.

You are definitely a waste of time.

 

[danielpalos]

Unless you are prepared to apply it fairly and equally to anyone who is a citizen in America, while obeying it completely and fully yourself; or if you know nothing about it, or of the rights it grants you. Stop invoking it if you plan on twisting its precepts to fit your agenda. Don't invoke the Constitution unless you're ready to exercise it.

Carry on.

Are you talking about the Constitution as written or the one bastardized by the courts and politicians? They're not the same you know.

As far as I'm concerned the US Constitution has 10 amendments.

The rest are merely busy work for the intellectually less fortunate. There is no reason for any of the Amendments beyond the Bill of Rights.

Really, do you think the 22nd Amendment was busy work?

Yup; just politics as usual while the People slept through use them and lose them class for politics.

 

[danielpalos]

[

Hey pea brain, the 'welfare state' is a construct of wealthy capitalistic societies. The first 'welfare state' was Bismarck’s Prussia, which to the dismay of German Social Democrats had instituted compulsory health insurance in 1883.

What a stupid fuck.

I need a bigger font.

The miserable piece of shit states "the 'welfare state' is a construct of wealthy capitalistic societies".


The cum swallower did not identify the factual basis for his conclusion since there are NO CAPITALISTIC SOCIETIES"

In a Capitalistic society all transactions are voluntary - so it may be possible for a Capitalist to donate money to a church or a philanthropic group for
eleemosynary purposes.

But if the philanthropy is ordered by the government then fascism or socialism is the prevailing system.


.


.

Ok. How about this, socialism starts with a social Contract not any form of capital contract.

Providing for the common defense and general welfare implies a welfare-State or our Founding Fathers would have omitted our Commerce Clause and provided for the common Offense or general Warfare instead, if they really wanted a Warfare-State.

 

[paperview]

As the world and nation changed the Constitution had to change or our interpretation of it. While it has only been amended 27 times, hundreds of changes, maybe thousands, have taken place with usage, court decisions and other means. How many laws or usages do we use today that might be declared unconstitutional if they went before the Court?
This nation's Constitution is 8700 words long and amended 27 times, Alabama's is 172,000 words and amended 800 times. Which is the better system?

Excellent.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The "original intent" was never agreed on or defined. Jefferson drafted an amendment that would authorize the purchase of Louisiana retroactively. But Jefferson’s cabinet members argued against the need for an amendment, and Congress disregarded his draft. The Senate ratified the treaty in October of 1803.

The Louisiana Purchase exposed the limitations of the strict constructionist approach to spending power. Jefferson abandoning HIS beliefs was pragmatic and signaled a more pragmatic interpretation of the general welfare clause...the "Hamilton way" prevailed as it does today.

And it didn't stop Jefferson from calling for spending "be applied in time of peace to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each State" in his second inaugural address.

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


So because of the Louisiana Purchase the politicians now have the authority to use US Treasury funds to feed you, clothe you, insured you, educate you, quench your thirst and engage in wars just so they can enrich war profiteers?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

You need to use bigger font asshole.

Social insurance is constitutional and is completely congruent with the intent of 'general welfare'

You need to use bigger font asshole.

Yeah, I know. That is a non-violent way to scream at parasites such as yourself.

Social insurance is constitutional and is completely congruent with the intent of 'general welfare'

Yeah, right. I wonder why it took the politicians 148 years to find out that the intent of the Founding Fathers was to create yet another socialist republic. Or did it take that long for US parasites to unite.

Hey pea brain, the 'welfare state' is a construct of wealthy capitalistic societies. The first 'welfare state' was Bismarck’s Prussia, which to the dismay of German Social Democrats had instituted compulsory health insurance in 1883. That created a sudden panic on the left. Karl Marx had died weeks before, so the socialist leader August Bebel consulted his friend Friedrich Engels, who insisted that socialists should vote against it, as they did. The first welfare state on earth was created against socialist opposition.

The forgotten truth about health provision is that socialism and state welfare are old enemies, and welfare overspending is a characteristic of advanced capitalist economies.

The Forgotten Churchill
The man who stared down Hitler also helped create the modern welfare state

Better start yelling at yourself you ignorant asshole.


"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

Hayek endorsed a minimum basic income, for all.

The state should ensure “a certain minimum income for everyone … a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself.”

Law Legislation and Liberty Volume 3 The Political Order of a Free People - F. A. Hayek - Google Books

 

[BULLDOG]

Unless you are prepared to apply it fairly and equally to anyone who is a citizen in America, while obeying it completely and fully yourself; or if you know nothing about it, or of the rights it grants you. Stop invoking it if you plan on twisting its precepts to fit your agenda. Don't invoke the Constitution unless you're ready to exercise it.

Carry on.

Are you talking about the Constitution as written or the one bastardized by the courts and politicians? They're not the same you know.

The constitution and it's case law are inseparable, The constitution is the skeleton and case law is the flesh. The founders knew that if they did not make the document flexible and amendable it would fail. Don't know where you guys get this idea that it was meant to be rigid and is adequate on it's own.

That's what all the folks that have bastardized the document say. General welfare was never intended to be a general power of the feds, expenditures are limited by Section 8 just like defense spending.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Check this out:

“Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.”

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

"A power to lay taxes for any purposes whatsoever is a general power; a power to lay taxes for certain specified purposes is a limited power. A power to lay taxes for the common defense and general welfare of the United States is not in common sense a general power. It is limited to those objects. It cannot constitutionally transcend them."

-Judge Joseph Story, 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.

‘[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts
or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.’’ The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power."

Killian, Johnny; George Costello; Kenneth Thomas (2004). The Constitution of the United States of America—Analysis and Interpretation

Looks like OKTexas nailed you, Bfgrn.

Was that a part of any judgment which would canonize it into law, or just a comment? The difference is, if part of a judgment, it would be valid precedent. If not, it means nothing when it comes to interpretation of the law.