Was Obama (the constitutional scholar) correct

[justinacolmena]

Yes, our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited and must therefore provide for any given contingency.

Such as, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms in accordance with the Second Amendment?

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

constitutioncenter.org

Don’t forget, people are left in extreme poverty when this right is arbitarily revoked for life under a doctor’s orders that cannot be contested in court. Try to find a job when “mental illness” or “danger to self or others” shows up on a government-mandated extended background check as the equivalent of a violent crime felony conviction, drug addiction, or a dishonorable discharge from the military. And the gun dealers per FFL rules require applicants to incriminate themselves on federal forms under penalty of perjury when purchasing a firearm, violating not only the Second Amendment but the Fifth Amendment as well.

Fifth Amendment - Self-incrimination Clause

 

[justinacolmena]

I wouldn't give sainthood . I would put 180 grains of lead in his head giving him justice.

That's a 1920s Al Capone trope. Some random dude with a bullet will make a martyr out of another liberal and guns will be banned forever after that, just as the Marxists intend.

 

[MadChemist]

in his assessment of the constitution in that it says what the gov't can't do, but not what it can do?

Yes, our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited and must therefore provide for any given contingency.

You keep pushing this point of view.

Do we have to keep showing you how you are wrong ?

 

[danielpalos]

in his assessment of the constitution in that it says what the gov't can't do, but not what it can do?

Yes, our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited and must therefore provide for any given contingency.

You keep pushing this point of view.

Do we have to keep showing you how you are wrong ?

lol. You only have ignorance not any understanding of the plain terms used in our Constitution. Why do y'all believe your ignorance? It is annoying and just plain unethical and immoral.

 

[Gdjjr]

You only have ignorance not any understanding of the plain terms used in our Constitution.

I'll put my word comprehension skills up against anyone's- keep in mind, Mr Know-it-all, interpretation and context do not exist without definition. Period.

 

[danielpalos]

You only have ignorance not any understanding of the plain terms used in our Constitution.

I'll put my word comprehension skills up against anyone's- keep in mind, Mr Know-it-all, interpretation and context do not exist without definition. Period.

Thanks. But, can you do it without resorting to fallacy?

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;

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

What part of the italicized portion of Article 1, Section 8 do you believe supports Your assertion and not mine?

 

[Gdjjr]

What part of the italicized portion of Article 1, Section 8 do you believe supports Your assertion and not mine?

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

general Welfare, is not welfare in general. Period. Welfare is a noun when capitalized- FYI- person, place or thing, not an action.

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence

To defend, is not, to offend, generally speaking- making it common is a lie. Just because a congress critter, or POTUS declares Authorization of Military Action is not a Declaration of War- therefore, the defense of, is a lie- no matter how it's sliced or diced- the Debts, for the Defense are just that. Offense is not Defense. If it goes all out, lining the pockets (through campaign donations) by Defense Contractor Lobbyist of congress critters and POTUS is not providing for anything other than the previously mentioned retirement portfolio- it does not "defend" us- it does, in fact, cause us misery- in more than one way. Yes, the Defense Industry is deeply embedded in our economy (of top down Keynesean economics) which is hardly what the constitution authorizes, i.e., to coin and set the value of money- to abdicate a responsibility to another is not in the constitution and it doesn't absolve them of theft or immoral actions under false pretense and/or the color of law- acting under the color of law, is not adhering to a rule of law- there's that word, rule, again, which the employees (elected servants) disregard, with regularity- and people like yourself, who believe you're really intelligent who disregard the definition of words, undet the pretext of interpretation or context, try to make simple English an esoteric endeavor- it ain't.

Making the complicated seem simple is what the true intellectual does.
Intentionally making the simple seem complicated is what the Pseudo intellectual does - without definition, interpretation and context does not exist.

 

[danielpalos]

general Welfare, is not welfare in general. Period. Welfare is a noun when capitalized- FYI- person, place or thing, not an action.

Why do you believe that? And, even if we go with your view, the general welfare being a Thing, means it is a general power within which all necessary and proper laws should be pursuant to. The general welfare is not the same as the general malfare.

And, if what you claim holds for the general welfare how can you claim the opposite for the common Defense?

Besides,

our Founding Fathers used capitalization for Emphasis instead of italics or underlining.

 

[Gdjjr]

our Founding Fathers used capitalization for Emphasis instead of italics or underlining.

Where did you get that notion? They used Simple English- for a reason- it's easy to comprehend.

the general welfare being a Thing, means it is a general power within which all necessary and proper laws should be pursuant to.

Really? So, you feel the fed gov't can think for you? I don't recall seeing that in the constitution. Can you point it out?
Pursuant to what? Who/what defines necessary, and/or proper? Pursuant to? What? Is that merely an interpretation? Or is it indeed proper to make theft legal, as long as its the gov't doing it? Or is it necessary to force what's good as long as the gov't is doing it? Who/what defined good? If something is good why does it have to be forced? Who is it good for? The forced, or the enforcer?

Actions always speak louder than words- yet, the pen, it is said, is mightier than the sword- unless a gov't inflicts its will, properly for the good- SMH-

"Laws", by definition, restrict- which favors one over another, which is not pursuant to, the preamble explanation of securing our liberty.

 

[danielpalos]

Where did you get that notion? They used Simple English- for a reason- it's easy to comprehend.

Because it does emphasize those terms. Simple English is still there, just without italics and underlining.

The rules you mention are not that old.

 

[danielpalos]

Really? So, you feel the fed gov't can think for you?

You need to explain your view. It is not readily apparent to me.

The Point about the use of the Terms is express not implied in any manner. The Term, general welfare cannot be confused with the Term, general Warfare nor general Malfare.

The general powers are the scope of the particular powers.

 

[MadChemist]

in his assessment of the constitution in that it says what the gov't can't do, but not what it can do?

Yes, our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited and must therefore provide for any given contingency.

You keep pushing this point of view.

Do we have to keep showing you how you are wrong ?

lol. You only have ignorance not any understanding of the plain terms used in our Constitution. Why do y'all believe your ignorance? It is annoying and just plain unethical and immoral.

This is an argument ?

We've shown time and time again that the General Welfare Clause is, in fact, limited. You've never been able to show otherwise.

 

[norwegen]

The only welfare liberals know is government handouts.

 

[danielpalos]

We've shown time and time again that the General Welfare Clause is, in fact, limited. You've never been able to show otherwise.

You have not shown it. There is no theoretical upward limit to general welfare markets. How can a general power not cover any given contingency in the most generalistic fashion and manner deemed both necessary and proper in modern times?

 

[danielpalos]

The only welfare liberals know is government handouts.

You seem to imply that right wing modus operandi would be the let the Poor starve simply because they are not worth it under Capitalism.

 

[Gdjjr]

You seem to imply that right wing modus operandi would be the let the Poor starve simply because they are not worth it under Capitalism.

What capitalism are you referring to? Crony capitalism practiced in the keynesean economic policy we employ, or the drug cartel form of pure capitalism? SMH- get a refund on your education.

 

[Gdjjr]

Simple English is still there,

Simple English is a word becomes a noun when capitalized in a sentence- person, place, or thing- not an action.

 

[danielpalos]

You seem to imply that right wing modus operandi would be the let the Poor starve simply because they are not worth it under Capitalism.

What capitalism are you referring to? Crony capitalism practiced in the keynesean economic policy we employ, or the drug cartel form of pure capitalism? SMH- get a refund on your education.

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.

 

[Gdjjr]

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

 

[danielpalos]

Simple English is still there,

Simple English is a word becomes a noun when capitalized in a sentence- person, place, or thing- not an action.

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.