Want to cut taxes??

[Micky G. Jagger]

Blackstone... loved the Monarchy, he wrote "The King is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong: in him there is no folly or weakness."

That doesn't change the fact that, in 1788, there were well established common law rules of construction.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

I just looked up some of Blackstone's works

Why was a copy of Blackstone's Commentaries "in every man's hand" at the Virginia Ratification Convention?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

I'll stick to the words of people like Madison

In 1817, President James Madison claimed he used the "established and consistent rules of interpretation" to ascertain the meaning of the "clause 'to provide for common defense and general welfare.'"

 

[johnrocks]

I just looked up some of Blackstone's works, he loved the Monarchy, he wrote "The King is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong: in him there is no folly or weakness."

I'll stick to the words of people like Madison and Jefferson, I'll even disagree WITH respect toward people like Hamilton or Adams but Blackstone....I'll pass, from what little I've read of that failure so far.

Why do you suppose Blackstone's Commentaries were in every man's hand at the Virginia Ratification Convention?

The same reason a program is in every person's hand at the theatre, because it was handed to them?

He was called a failure by many, he was a Tory, he was in the House of Commons, his contributions are noted as worthy by historians from what little I've read on him but from what I've read so far, I'm not impressed, this is what Jefferson wrote to Madison regarding Blackstone.....

"In the selection of our Law Professor, we must be rigorously attentive to his political principles. You will recollect that before the Revolution, Coke Littleton was the universal elementary book of law students, and a sounder Whig never wrote, nor of profounder learning in the orthodox doctrines of the British constitution, or in what were called English liberties. You remember also that our lawyers were then all Whigs. But when his black-letter text, and uncouth. but cunning learning got out of fashion, and the honeyed Mansfieldism of Blackstone became the students' hornbook, from that moment, that profession (the nursery of our Congress) began to slide into toryism, and nearly all the young brood of lawyers now are of that hue. They suppose themselves, indeed, to be Whigs, because they no longer know what Whigism or republicanism means."

That does not look like a ringing endorsement to me Of course Judeo-Christians seem to adore him, I gotta look farther into this man.

 

[johnrocks]

I'll stick to the words of people like Madison

In 1817, President James Madison claimed he used the "established and consistent rules of interpretation" to ascertain the meaning of the "clause 'to provide for common defense and general welfare.'"

I think one of the short comings of the writings from then are how so many different interpretations come from so few words, from Madison's own mouth he said....

"“Nothing is more natural or common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of the particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity"


And that is precisely how these two phrases are interpreted, so loose that we could literally institute communism and invade countries for the "General Welfare" and "Common Defense" of our Nation. Hell, the neo cons already call pre emptive strikes.....defense

Might as well disregard the rest of the Constitution;including Article 1 Section 8 and proclaim "General Welfare" and "Common Defense" the supreme laws of the land with such a broad interpretation.

 

[saveliberty]

Your interpretation of these Clauses is so loose

Nope, you're wrong.

My interpretation isn't loose at all. It was obtained by a fair and objective application of the well established common law rules of construction, as they stood in 1788.

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

--Blackstone (1776)​

The usual and most know signification of "general" was "Comprehending many species or individuals." The usual and most know signification of "welfare" was "happiness."

Therefore, "general welfare" means "happiness of many individuals." Thus, Congress has power to tax and spend to provide for the "happiness of many individuals" of the United States.

It appears Congress has the power to tax and spend on anything it believes will make many individuals happy.

This is what, your fifth or sixth reinvention of the meaning? You dance around the meaning but refuse to accept the one that so clearly is the true intent. These men were throw off the yoke of an oppressive government. Small government with little say in their lives was happiness and pursuit of liberty. It was life itself. Now some modern day idiot is going to apply some rules of construction in order to steal those very freedoms from them and their future generations. You sir, are a thief and threat to the republic.

 

[johnrocks]

Your interpretation of these Clauses is so loose

Nope, you're wrong.

My interpretation isn't loose at all. It was obtained by a fair and objective application of the well established common law rules of construction, as they stood in 1788.

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

--Blackstone (1776)​

The usual and most know signification of "general" was "Comprehending many species or individuals." The usual and most know signification of "welfare" was "happiness."

Therefore, "general welfare" means "happiness of many individuals." Thus, Congress has power to tax and spend to provide for the "happiness of many individuals" of the United States.

It appears Congress has the power to tax and spend on anything it believes will make many individuals happy.

This is what, your fifth or sixth reinvention of the meaning? You dance around the meaning but refuse to accept the one that so clearly is the true intent. These men were throw off the yoke of an oppressive government. Small government with little say in their lives was happiness and pursuit of liberty. It was life itself. Now some modern day idiot is going to apply some rules of construction in order to steal those very freedoms from them and their future generations. You sir, are a thief and threat to the republic.

For the life of me, I don't understand why so many embrace and trust big,centralized government when it has enslaved and killed more people than plaques and epidemics.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

I just looked up some of Blackstone's works, he loved the Monarchy, he wrote "The King is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong: in him there is no folly or weakness."

I'll stick to the words of people like Madison and Jefferson, I'll even disagree WITH respect toward people like Hamilton or Adams but Blackstone....I'll pass, from what little I've read of that failure so far.

Why do you suppose Blackstone's Commentaries were in every man's hand at the Virginia Ratification Convention?

The same reason a program is in every person's hand at the theatre, because it was handed to them?

He was called a failure by many, he was a Tory, he was in the House of Commons, his contributions are noted as worthy by historians from what little I've read on him but from what I've read so far, I'm not impressed, this is what Jefferson wrote to Madison regarding Blackstone.....

"In the selection of our Law Professor, we must be rigorously attentive to his political principles. You will recollect that before the Revolution, Coke Littleton was the universal elementary book of law students, and a sounder Whig never wrote, nor of profounder learning in the orthodox doctrines of the British constitution, or in what were called English liberties. You remember also that our lawyers were then all Whigs. But when his black-letter text, and uncouth. but cunning learning got out of fashion, and the honeyed Mansfieldism of Blackstone became the students' hornbook, from that moment, that profession (the nursery of our Congress) began to slide into toryism, and nearly all the young brood of lawyers now are of that hue. They suppose themselves, indeed, to be Whigs, because they no longer know what Whigism or republicanism means."

That does not look like a ringing endorsement to me Of course Judeo-Christians seem to adore him, I gotta look farther into this man.

What signification did the lawmakers want us to give the term "ex post facto law" in the Constitution?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

I'll stick to the words of people like Madison

In 1817, President James Madison claimed he used the "established and consistent rules of interpretation" to ascertain the meaning of the "clause 'to provide for common defense and general welfare.'"

I think one of the short comings of the writings from then are how so many different interpretations come from so few words, from Madison's own mouth he said....

"“Nothing is more natural or common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of the particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity"


And that is precisely how these two phrases are interpreted, so loose that we could literally institute communism and invade countries for the "General Welfare" and "Common Defense" of our Nation. Hell, the neo cons already call pre emptive strikes.....defense

Might as well disregard the rest of the Constitution;including Article 1 Section 8 and proclaim "General Welfare" and "Common Defense" the supreme laws of the land with such a broad interpretation.

Ambiguous language can be reasonably interpreted to mean different things by reasonable men.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Your interpretation of these Clauses is so loose

Nope, you're wrong.

My interpretation isn't loose at all. It was obtained by a fair and objective application of the well established common law rules of construction, as they stood in 1788.

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

--Blackstone (1776)​

The usual and most know signification of "general" was "Comprehending many species or individuals." The usual and most know signification of "welfare" was "happiness."

Therefore, "general welfare" means "happiness of many individuals." Thus, Congress has power to tax and spend to provide for the "happiness of many individuals" of the United States.

It appears Congress has the power to tax and spend on anything it believes will make many individuals happy.

This is what, your fifth or sixth reinvention of the meaning? You dance around the meaning but refuse to accept the one that so clearly is the true intent. These men were throw off the yoke of an oppressive government. Small government with little say in their lives was happiness and pursuit of liberty. It was life itself. Now some modern day idiot is going to apply some rules of construction in order to steal those very freedoms from them and their future generations. You sir, are a thief and threat to the republic.

I don't write the rules of construction, dude, I just apply them.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Nope, you're wrong.

My interpretation isn't loose at all. It was obtained by a fair and objective application of the well established common law rules of construction, as they stood in 1788.

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

--Blackstone (1776)​

The usual and most know signification of "general" was "Comprehending many species or individuals." The usual and most know signification of "welfare" was "happiness."

Therefore, "general welfare" means "happiness of many individuals." Thus, Congress has power to tax and spend to provide for the "happiness of many individuals" of the United States.

It appears Congress has the power to tax and spend on anything it believes will make many individuals happy.

This is what, your fifth or sixth reinvention of the meaning? You dance around the meaning but refuse to accept the one that so clearly is the true intent. These men were throw off the yoke of an oppressive government. Small government with little say in their lives was happiness and pursuit of liberty. It was life itself. Now some modern day idiot is going to apply some rules of construction in order to steal those very freedoms from them and their future generations. You sir, are a thief and threat to the republic.

For the life of me, I don't understand why so many embrace and trust big,centralized government when it has enslaved and killed more people than plaques and epidemics.

A big nation facing big challenges needs a big government.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

I'll stick to the words of people like Madison

In 1817, President James Madison claimed he used the "established and consistent rules of interpretation" to ascertain the meaning of the "clause 'to provide for common defense and general welfare.'"

I think one of the short comings of the writings from then are how so many different interpretations come from so few words, from Madison's own mouth he said....

"“Nothing is more natural or common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of the particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity"


And that is precisely how these two phrases are interpreted, so loose that we could literally institute communism and invade countries for the "General Welfare" and "Common Defense" of our Nation. Hell, the neo cons already call pre emptive strikes.....defense

Might as well disregard the rest of the Constitution;including Article 1 Section 8 and proclaim "General Welfare" and "Common Defense" the supreme laws of the land with such a broad interpretation.

You quote Madison, I quote Hamilton. Let's call the whole thing off.

 

[saveliberty]

This is what, your fifth or sixth reinvention of the meaning? You dance around the meaning but refuse to accept the one that so clearly is the true intent. These men were throw off the yoke of an oppressive government. Small government with little say in their lives was happiness and pursuit of liberty. It was life itself. Now some modern day idiot is going to apply some rules of construction in order to steal those very freedoms from them and their future generations. You sir, are a thief and threat to the republic.

For the life of me, I don't understand why so many embrace and trust big,centralized government when it has enslaved and killed more people than plaques and epidemics.

A big nation facing big challenges needs a big government.

The nation has been big for a long time. Did it ever occur to you that the big challenges are the result of having a big government?

 

[Dick Tuck]

In 1817, President James Madison claimed he used the "established and consistent rules of interpretation" to ascertain the meaning of the "clause 'to provide for common defense and general welfare.'"

I think one of the short comings of the writings from then are how so many different interpretations come from so few words, from Madison's own mouth he said....

"“Nothing is more natural or common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of the particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity"


And that is precisely how these two phrases are interpreted, so loose that we could literally institute communism and invade countries for the "General Welfare" and "Common Defense" of our Nation. Hell, the neo cons already call pre emptive strikes.....defense

Might as well disregard the rest of the Constitution;including Article 1 Section 8 and proclaim "General Welfare" and "Common Defense" the supreme laws of the land with such a broad interpretation.

You quote Madison, I quote Hamilton. Let's call the whole thing off.

Why? Madison oppossed the "general welfare" clause, and Hamilton supported it. The convention adopted it, so Madison lost that round. I hand founders intent to the winning side of that issue.

 

[Dick Tuck]

For the life of me, I don't understand why so many embrace and trust big,centralized government when it has enslaved and killed more people than plaques and epidemics.

A big nation facing big challenges needs a big government.

The nation has been big for a long time. Did it ever occur to you that the big challenges are the result of having a big government?

Blame Jefferson for the Louisiana Purchase, and Monroe for the policy of Manifest Destiny. Those are most likely the two greatest "big government" endeavors in our history.