Was Obama (the constitutional scholar) correct

[danielpalos]

You can thumbs down all day long- it won't change the facts or the evidence, stupid.

Ad hominems are also usually considered fallacies. Ran out of logic and reason so soon?

 

[Gdjjr]

Diversions and red herrings are usually considered fallacies. Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce clause in particular with which to promote the general welfare. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. We need solutions not right wingers who merely doth protest too much.

Our welfare clause in general- that's simple English- you fail again. Promoting is not providing. Not even generally speaking- simple English.

 

[Gdjjr]

Those rules are recent and did not apply back then. Besides, if what you allege concerning the general welfare must also apply to the common Defense.

I addressed the common defense, stupid. Go back and read what I posted-

 

[danielpalos]

Diversions and red herrings are usually considered fallacies. Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce clause in particular with which to promote the general welfare. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. We need solutions not right wingers who merely doth protest too much.

Our welfare clause in general- that's simple English- you fail again. Promoting is not providing. Not even generally speaking- simple English.

Both promote and provide are used in reference to the general welfare. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

 

[Gdjjr]

Ad hominems are also usually considered fallacies. Ran out of logic and reason so soon?

The only way one can address an idiot who he feels he is superior is to address him properly- and I do.

 

[danielpalos]

Those rules are recent and did not apply back then. Besides, if what you allege concerning the general welfare must also apply to the common Defense.

I addressed the common defense, stupid. Go back and read what I posted-

It has to be the same for both or none.

 

[danielpalos]

Ad hominems are also usually considered fallacies. Ran out of logic and reason so soon?

The only way one can address an idiot who he feels he is superior is to address him properly- and I do.

Only if you have no more Point and no more valid arguments.

 

[Gdjjr]

There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

Indeed, but you're making them, stupid, not me, stupid.

Go away kid, I'm tired of fucking with your stupidity.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

Indeed, but you're making them, stupid, not me, stupid.

Go away kid, I'm tired of fucking with your stupidity.

What you allege makes no sense.

Our welfare clause is General not common.

 

[MadChemist]

Diversions and red herrings are usually considered fallacies. Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce clause in particular with which to promote the general welfare. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. We need solutions not right wingers who merely doth protest too much.

Our welfare clause in general- that's simple English- you fail again. Promoting is not providing. Not even generally speaking- simple English.

Both promote and provide are used in reference to the general welfare. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

It is amazing you seem to want to write the constitution yourself.

Which you can't......

As has been shown time and time again.....

Starting with Madison in Federalist 41:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction…. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it…. But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?

*************************

Do you need us to further explain this one to you.

Or do you think you, somehow, have the position to dismiss Madison ?

 

[danielpalos]

Diversions and red herrings are usually considered fallacies. Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce clause in particular with which to promote the general welfare. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. We need solutions not right wingers who merely doth protest too much.

Our welfare clause in general- that's simple English- you fail again. Promoting is not providing. Not even generally speaking- simple English.

Both promote and provide are used in reference to the general welfare. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

It is amazing you seem to want to write the constitution yourself.

Which you can't......

As has been shown time and time again.....

Starting with Madison in Federalist 41:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction…. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it…. But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?

*************************

Do you need us to further explain this one to you.

Or do you think you, somehow, have the position to dismiss Madison ?

lol. That quote supports my opinion not right wingers' opinion. Right wingers are simply ignorant of the Terms. Our public policies are to promote and provide for the general welfare not the general malfare. For the Good and not the Bad.

 

[MadChemist]

Diversions and red herrings are usually considered fallacies. Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce clause in particular with which to promote the general welfare. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. We need solutions not right wingers who merely doth protest too much.

Our welfare clause in general- that's simple English- you fail again. Promoting is not providing. Not even generally speaking- simple English.

Both promote and provide are used in reference to the general welfare. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

It is amazing you seem to want to write the constitution yourself.

Which you can't......

As has been shown time and time again.....

Starting with Madison in Federalist 41:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction…. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it…. But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?

*************************

Do you need us to further explain this one to you.

Or do you think you, somehow, have the position to dismiss Madison ?

lol. That quote supports my opinion not right wingers' opinion. Right wingers are simply ignorant of the Terms. Our public policies are to promote and provide for the general welfare not the general malfare. For the Good and not the Bad.

Now that is funny.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[RobbinBobbin]

Chaotic changes through the US history!