Want to cut taxes??

[rightwinger]

Nope, you're wrong.

"General welfare" means whatever Congress says it means.

And is supported by our Judicial system. If Diamond Dave is unhappy with the accepted definition of General Welfare, he can take it up with the courts.

There is 200 years of legal precidence defining the scope of General Welfare.

No... there is not 200 years of precedent... nice unsubstantiated claim though, wrongwinger

But you are right that I am unhappy with the progressive bastardization of 'the general welfare of the united states' (still love how your wingers love to leave the last part off) that has resulted in the expansion of government for the sake of power

If you are unhappy our Constitution provides you with several remedies..

- You can sue in court and prove your interpretation of "General Welfare" is the correct one
- You can elect representatives who will change the law
- You can pass an amendment to the Constitution defining the scope


Is this a great country or what? I wish you luck

 

[DiamondDave]

And is supported by our Judicial system. If Diamond Dave is unhappy with the accepted definition of General Welfare, he can take it up with the courts.

There is 200 years of legal precidence defining the scope of General Welfare.

No... there is not 200 years of precedent... nice unsubstantiated claim though, wrongwinger

But you are right that I am unhappy with the progressive bastardization of 'the general welfare of the united states' (still love how your wingers love to leave the last part off) that has resulted in the expansion of government for the sake of power

If you are unhappy our Constitution provides you with several remedies..

- You can sue in court and prove your interpretation of "General Welfare" is the correct one
- You can elect representatives who will change the law
- You can pass an amendment to the Constitution defining the scope


Is this a great country or what? I wish you luck

Again... you and extremist lefties insist on only using an excerpt of the sentence... now WHY would THAT be????

And you bet your sweet ass I will do everything I can to get big government expansions like SS, welfare, and other entitlement junkie favorites out of our system... bringing it back to what was intended, and not the way it has been since the original intent was bastardized

 

[rightwinger]

No... there is not 200 years of precedent... nice unsubstantiated claim though, wrongwinger

But you are right that I am unhappy with the progressive bastardization of 'the general welfare of the united states' (still love how your wingers love to leave the last part off) that has resulted in the expansion of government for the sake of power

If you are unhappy our Constitution provides you with several remedies..

- You can sue in court and prove your interpretation of "General Welfare" is the correct one
- You can elect representatives who will change the law
- You can pass an amendment to the Constitution defining the scope


Is this a great country or what? I wish you luck

Again... you and extremist lefties insist on only using an excerpt of the sentence... now WHY would THAT be????

And you bet your sweet ass I will do everything I can to get big government expansions like SS, welfare, and other entitlement junkie favorites out of our system... bringing it back to what was intended, and not the way it has been since the original intent was bastardized

Thats what this country is all about..

Go get the laws changed...it is your right

Good Luck

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Are you really this ******* stupid??

Do you kiss your mother with that filthy mouth?

The term "general welfare" is ambiguous. It could mean a lot of things.

George Mason, at the Virginia Ratification Convention, argued that "general welfare" could be construed to include restrictions on the press and the destruction of trial by jury.

I say we just plug in the most usual and most known significations and move on.

And provide for the general welfare is NOT an enumerated power.

Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence.

--George Mason​

what both Madison and Jefferson had to say about what "general welfare" did and didn't mean.

Do you have any evidence that the men who made the Constitution wanted it to be construed according to the opinions of Madison and Jefferson, instead of the well established common law rules of construction?

PS: Both Madison and Jefferson claimed they followed the rules of interpretation.

PS: Madison and Jefferson lost the debate in 1791 on the meaning of the general welfare clause when Congress decided it had the power to establish a national bank.

 

[DiamondDave]

Do you kiss your mother with that filthy mouth?

The term "general welfare" is ambiguous. It could mean a lot of things.

George Mason, at the Virginia Ratification Convention, argued that "general welfare" could be construed to include restrictions on the press and the destruction of trial by jury.

I say we just plug in the most usual and most known significations and move on.

Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence.

--George Mason​

what both Madison and Jefferson had to say about what "general welfare" did and didn't mean.

Do you have any evidence that the men who made the Constitution wanted it to be construed according to the opinions of Madison and Jefferson, instead of the well established common law rules of construction?

PS: Both Madison and Jefferson claimed they followed the rules of interpretation.

PS: Madison and Jefferson lost the debate in 1791 on the meaning of the general welfare clause when Congress decided it had the power to establish a national bank.

Again.. YOU choose to use the definition of 'welfare' that pertains to individuals, not to states... YOU are trying to manipulate.. and YOU are the one trying to take only a part of the statement out of context.... there is a reason why 'The United States' is the direct object in the sentence

Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.

It was those wishing to abuse power over the years who have brought upon us this nanny government cradle to grave abomination

Socialist piece of shit

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The term general welfare has a very specific meaning

Nope, you're wrong.

"General welfare" means whatever Congress says it means.

That is what it has come to but as Oddball showed, that is not what Madison intended.

Too bad he wasn't shown that the men who made the Constitution wanted it to mean whatever James Madison wanted it to mean; instead of it meaning what the rules of construction said it meant.

 

[Oddball]

Do you kiss your mother with that filthy mouth?

The term "general welfare" is ambiguous. It could mean a lot of things.

George Mason, at the Virginia Ratification Convention, argued that "general welfare" could be construed to include restrictions on the press and the destruction of trial by jury.

I say we just plug in the most usual and most known significations and move on.

Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence.

--George Mason​

what both Madison and Jefferson had to say about what "general welfare" did and didn't mean.

Do you have any evidence that the men who made the Constitution wanted it to be construed according to the opinions of Madison and Jefferson, instead of the well established common law rules of construction?

PS: Both Madison and Jefferson claimed they followed the rules of interpretation.

PS: Madison and Jefferson lost the debate in 1791 on the meaning of the general welfare clause when Congress decided it had the power to establish a national bank.

I have Both Madison's and Jefferson's unambiguous writings as to what they meant to go by...Is English a second language for you?


And it doesn't matter what people who weren't Madison and Jefferson did to go against what was their clearly stated intents...All that makes them is usurpers and subversives.
But if you want to use that phony standard, I guess it could be just as easily said that the central banking crowd lost the debate when Jackson abolished the National Bank, couldn't it?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

defense spending is a constitutionally mandated expense

General welfare spending is a constitutionally mandated expense. In fact, the same clause that grants Congress power to tax and spend money for the common defense also grants it power to tax and spend for the general welfare.

whereas most of our federal budget is not

How did you arrive at that opinion?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

I chalk it up to stunned disbelief that anyone could ask such a naïve question.

I have added your name to the list of people who haven't been able to point out even one regulation they believe is unreasonable.

PS: Are you one of those middle aged white tea beggar dudes who has failed to achieve financial success and blames it all on the government?

....After "conservatives" convinced him.....even HE could become a 1%er; one day!!!!!!

He should practice rugged individualism and the Protestant work ethic and pretend he believes all of that stuff about American Exceptional-ism.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Nope, you're wrong.

"General welfare" means whatever Congress says it means.

And is supported by our Judicial system. If Diamond Dave is unhappy with the accepted definition of General Welfare, he can take it up with the courts.

There is 200 years of legal precidence defining the scope of General Welfare.

No, it's only the last 80-100 years of progressives and their Orwellian re-interpreting of original intent.

Give us a few examples of Orwellian re-interpreting of original intent. Then we can smoke some pot and rap a little.

 

[Oddball]

Just go back and re-read your posts on the topic...That should suffice.

 

[DiamondDave]

defense spending is a constitutionally mandated expense

General welfare spending is a constitutionally mandated expense. In fact, the same clause that grants Congress power to tax and spend money for the common defense also grants it power to tax and spend for the general welfare.

whereas most of our federal budget is not

How did you arrive at that opinion?

Again... you and your ilk wish to only use a portion of the sentence... EPIC FAIL... it has been shown to you over and over and over and over again how that with a direct object, the sentence means something COMPLETELY different... any person who has passed 10th grade English would be able to understand that

Most of our federal budget is NOT covered under the specific enumerated powers within the Constitution... and over the years we have had more and more power hungry politicians grab more power, expand the nanny state, all in the name of votes and power

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The term general welfare has a very specific meaning

Nope, you're wrong.

"General welfare" means whatever Congress says it means.

we have a constitution.

The Constitution grants Congress power to tax and spend to provide for the general welfare.

remember the SPECIFIC powers granted to the congress via our constitution.

The Constitution specifically grants Congress power to tax and spend to provide for the general welfare.

limited scope of powers

The power of Congress to tax and spend to provide for the general welfare is within the scope of Congressional powers.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

defense spending is a constitutionally mandated expense

General welfare spending is a constitutionally mandated expense. In fact, the same clause that grants Congress power to tax and spend money for the common defense also grants it power to tax and spend for the general welfare.

whereas most of our federal budget is not

How did you arrive at that opinion?

Most of our federal budget is NOT covered under the specific enumerated powers within the Constitution.

Name all of the things in our federal budget that you believe are not covered under the specific enumerated powers within the Constitution.

the nanny state

Americans love the nanny state, dude.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

what both Madison and Jefferson had to say about what "general welfare" did and didn't mean.

Do you have any evidence that the men who made the Constitution wanted it to be construed according to the opinions of Madison and Jefferson, instead of the well established common law rules of construction?

PS: Both Madison and Jefferson claimed they followed the rules of interpretation.

PS: Madison and Jefferson lost the debate in 1791 on the meaning of the general welfare clause when Congress decided it had the power to establish a national bank.

I have Both Madison's and Jefferson's writings

I have the statements of Hamilton, Washington, Marshall and Gerry. That mean I beat you 4 to 2.

PS: I really win 4 to 1 because Jefferson doesn't count. He wasn't an elected delegate to any of the conventions that made the Constitution.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

And it doesn't matter what people who weren't Madison and Jefferson did to go against what was their clearly stated intents.

Huh? I thought we were going by the words in the Constitution.

All that makes them is usurpers and subversives.

Nope, you're wrong. Ambiguous language can be reasonably interpreted by reasonable men to mean different things.

The great spokesman for New England Federalism believed that the mere mention of some thing in the preamble to the Constitution gave Congress power over that thing.

Congress had an implied power of using every means, not positively prohibited by the Constitution, to execute the ends for which that government was instituted. Every constitutional right should be so liberally construed as to effect the public good. The preamble of the Constitution declares that it is established for the general welfare of the Union. This vested Congress with the authority over all objects of national concern, or of a general nature. A national bank undoubtedly came under this idea; and though not specially mentioned.

--See Speech by Fisher Ames in House of Representatives in 1797 on establishment of a national bank​

 

[Oddball]

Madison was the primary author of the Constitution, knucklehead. He also spelled out, in very explicit detail, what he did and didn't mean by "general welfare" in Federalist #41.
Seems you've very conveniently glossed over this fact time and again.

That you're "interpreting" your way out of original intent shows that you're either willingly obtuse or simply a subversive, who pays but mere lip service to the Constitution when it suits your Fabian socialist authoritarian politics...After all, if "general welfare" were truly the be-all-end-all of Article 1, Section 8, why did it not just stop after "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"?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Madison was the primary author of the Constitution

Why do you say that, when he only one of the 55 men who were members of the Convention that framed the Constitution? He wasn't even the President of the Convention.

Roger Sherman actually got more of his proposals into the final version of the Constitution than Madison did.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Madison spelled out, in very explicit detail, what he did and didn't mean by "general welfare."

Hamilton and Gerry spell out, in very explicit detail, what they did and didn't mean by "general welfare." Also, their interpretation prevailed over that of Madison.

 

[Oddball]

So....frigging....what?

If "general welfare" was supposed to be as all-encompassing as you claim, why did not Article 1, Section 8, just stop after "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"?

I'll tell you why...Because that clause was there to set up the specifically enumerated and limited powers to follow, not just to pad out the document.