who would support a return to a constitutionly sound government?

[rightwinger]

According to what is right, I am not wrong. The government perpetuating itself is NOT a Constitutional right. The Supreme Court ruling the Federal government is right to perpetuate itself doesn't make it right.

According to the constitution, you are wrong, that's the way the government is set up, SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of laws, not based on what citizens opinions are.

Maybe you need to try and amend the constitution

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't they have poor people, old people, deadbeats and freeloaders back in the days of the FF's???

Don't think I have ever read or heard about the Fed Govt shelling out the public largesse to take care of anyone back when the Constitution was written. Seems to me that if its supposed to be Constitutional via the GW clause it would have been done back in the day. After all. The FF wrote the Constitution back in the day. Apparantly the FF's didn't consider it Constitutional or we would have heard about it in letters, etc.

Seems it wasn't considered Constitutional until the 30's. Go figure.

Wow

Someone actually advocating we return to the Government structure of Colonial America. The government did not provide roads, water systems, sewer systems, hospitals or any other public or social infrastructure.
The US was a borderline third world nation and had a government struggling just to survive itself without worrying about the people.

In case you missed it, the US has grown into the richest and most powerful nation on earth. I think we can do a better job than 1780's America could

 

[Claudette]

I'm sure your right about the infrastructure but I don't think I have ever read or heard about the FF or the new Govt in Philly or DC shelling out money to assist the citizens. If it had happened I'm sure there would have been some mention in the historical record or letters between folks.

The citizens were expected to take care of themselves. Far cry from today when anyone and everyone has their hand out for the taxpayers buck.

 

[Vast LWC]

where does the general welfare clause allow stealing from one set of people to help out another?

That's called "taxation". Say it with me Tax-a-tion. Not "stealing", taxation.

Are you somehow implying that the government does not have the power to tax the citizens?

Just because there's a whole bunch of whiners out there that have started an entire movement based on the fact that they don't want to pay their taxes, doesn't make taxation "stealing".

 

[Vast LWC]

Except we were told in the Federalist Papers that that's not what it means, and there's nothing from the Constitutional Convention to suggest otherwise.

So, when did the Federalist Papers become incorporated into the Constitution? Just curious?

Was there an amendment I was unaware of?

And Hamilton was one of the primary authors of the Federalist papers, lest we forget.

 

[antagon]

that's just the point, claudette: that a government which leaves the economy and its constituents to their own devices, is a government which can't sustain economic activity like ours. a founder's fundamentalist country would perform like the poorest in the world, specifically because these theorists ignore what the founders intended as being a mechanism to keep up with the times. lead the way, its turned out. instead, you take a nostalgic view of merchantilist economics in a broke, defacto confederate, start-up nation and tout its merits without considering the shortcomings remedied by the same legislation you criticize.

 

[Vast LWC]

You are basing your definition from the viewpoint of someone who things big government should rule our lives. That clause was not meant for the US government to control our daily lives. It was meant as a failsafe in an emergency. You CHOOSE to interpret as meaning the Fed government is God Almighty.

How strange that the words "failsafe" and "emergency" are not included in the clause then. Or any other language to indicate that what you say is correct.

I guess they meant to put it in, but it just "slipped their minds", eh?

From inception, the Federal government was designed to conscript people to defend wealthy people from the British. There may have been a few idealist patriots, but the Revolutionary War was fought by the poor and waged by the wealthy to preserve their income. We've gone straight downhill from there.

Sentences mean things and they convey intent. You can't pick and choose words as you please. The intent of the Continental Congress was NEVER to replace one king with another that can't read English.

I was unaware that the British constitutional monarchy at the time was a "Progressive" form of government. (sarcasm) How interesting, I'll have to read more into that.

Be that as it may, none of this has any bearing on the subject at hand.

 

[Vast LWC]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't they have poor people, old people, deadbeats and freeloaders back in the days of the FF's???

Don't think I have ever read or heard about the Fed Govt shelling out the public largesse to take care of anyone back when the Constitution was written. Seems to me that if its supposed to be Constitutional via the GW clause it would have been done back in the day. After all. The FF wrote the Constitution back in the day. Apparantly the FF's didn't consider it Constitutional or we would have heard about it in letters, etc.

Seems it wasn't considered Constitutional until the 30's. Go figure.

1. There was no health insurance, "back in the day". Doctors leeched people, instead of using an MRI, which didn't cost to much, so they didn't worry about it. Of course there wasn't much time to worry about it before they died anyway.

2. People died at 35, "back in the day", so Social Security would never be a consideration.

3. As for Medicare, see above.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm sure your right about the infrastructure but I don't think I have ever read or heard about the FF or the new Govt in Philly or DC shelling out money to assist the citizens. If it had happened I'm sure there would have been some mention in the historical record or letters between folks.

The citizens were expected to take care of themselves. Far cry from today when anyone and everyone has their hand out for the taxpayers buck.

Yes, Citizens were expected to take care of themselves. Those who couldn't became beggars or just died.

Just like in a third world country

 

[Claudette]

According to the constitution, you are wrong, that's the way the government is set up, SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of laws, not based on what citizens opinions are.

Maybe you need to try and amend the constitution

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't they have poor people, old people, deadbeats and freeloaders back in the days of the FF's???

Don't think I have ever read or heard about the Fed Govt shelling out the public largesse to take care of anyone back when the Constitution was written. Seems to me that if its supposed to be Constitutional via the GW clause it would have been done back in the day. After all. The FF wrote the Constitution back in the day. Apparantly the FF's didn't consider it Constitutional or we would have heard about it in letters, etc.

Seems it wasn't considered Constitutional until the 30's. Go figure.

Wow

Someone actually advocating we return to the Government structure of Colonial America. The government did not provide roads, water systems, sewer systems, hospitals or any other public or social infrastructure.
The US was a borderline third world nation and had a government struggling just to survive itself without worrying about the people.

In case you missed it, the US has grown into the richest and most powerful nation on earth. I think we can do a better job than 1780's America could

Wow is right.

I'm sitting here LMAO at your ridiculous comment.

Of course no one is advocating we go back to colonial times. Jeeze. Get real.

My point was that no one considered the GW clause in the light we see it today. No one until the 30's. There was a public largesse and no one used it for Welfare. In fact I think if anyone had suggested that they would have been laughed out of town.

Without the GW clause there would be no Medicare, SS or Welfare today. No great loss in my book.

 

[Claudette]

I'm sure your right about the infrastructure but I don't think I have ever read or heard about the FF or the new Govt in Philly or DC shelling out money to assist the citizens. If it had happened I'm sure there would have been some mention in the historical record or letters between folks.

The citizens were expected to take care of themselves. Far cry from today when anyone and everyone has their hand out for the taxpayers buck.

Yes, Citizens were expected to take care of themselves. Those who couldn't became beggars or just died.

Just like in a third world country

Yep. Just like a third world country. One without charities. The Salvation Armu, the Red Cross, churchs and just neighbors to extend help to those that need it.

Your a hoot RW. LMAO.

 

[DiamondDave]

I'm sure your right about the infrastructure but I don't think I have ever read or heard about the FF or the new Govt in Philly or DC shelling out money to assist the citizens. If it had happened I'm sure there would have been some mention in the historical record or letters between folks.

The citizens were expected to take care of themselves. Far cry from today when anyone and everyone has their hand out for the taxpayers buck.

Yes, Citizens were expected to take care of themselves. Those who couldn't became beggars or just died.

Just like in a third world country

We ensure freedoms within our governmental setup.... that includes the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail.... and with that freedom, you are not owed by the government or others in the citizenry to take care of your personal responsibilities even when you fail

 

[antagon]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't they have poor people, old people, deadbeats and freeloaders back in the days of the FF's???

Don't think I have ever read or heard about the Fed Govt shelling out the public largesse to take care of anyone back when the Constitution was written. Seems to me that if its supposed to be Constitutional via the GW clause it would have been done back in the day. After all. The FF wrote the Constitution back in the day. Apparantly the FF's didn't consider it Constitutional or we would have heard about it in letters, etc.

Seems it wasn't considered Constitutional until the 30's. Go figure.

Wow

Someone actually advocating we return to the Government structure of Colonial America. The government did not provide roads, water systems, sewer systems, hospitals or any other public or social infrastructure.
The US was a borderline third world nation and had a government struggling just to survive itself without worrying about the people.

In case you missed it, the US has grown into the richest and most powerful nation on earth. I think we can do a better job than 1780's America could

Wow is right.

I'm sitting here LMAO at your ridiculous comment.

Of course no one is advocating we go back to colonial times. Jeeze. Get real.

My point was that no one considered the GW clause in the light we see it today. No one until the 30's. There was a public largesse and no one used it for Welfare. In fact I think if anyone had suggested that they would have been laughed out of town.

Without the GW clause there would be no Medicare, SS or Welfare today. No great loss in my book.

so you dont advocate abiding by the constitution? picking and choosing from it to fit your world view and denying its provisions which act against it amounts to as much.

and so you advocate a return to the turn of the century. still neck and neck with the shitholes of the planet by today's standards.

do you understand the point of the GW clause?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So if you take the power of determining the constitutionality of laws out of the hands of the Supreme Court,

whose hands do you put it into?

The People.

And how would that work, precisely?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So if you take the power of determining the constitutionality of laws out of the hands of the Supreme Court,

whose hands do you put it into?

No one? So how does 'return to constitutionally sound government' supposed to occur if you don't dismantle the Supreme Court or take away their power to rule on the constitutionality of laws?

Because that's how it works now.

Easy, you have the other branches of government do what the Supreme Court has abdicated. And that is follow the Constitution. Because if they follow the Constitution, the Supreme Court never hears a case and cant corrupt the Constitution.

'You have' them do that... And who would have the authority to oversee the other branches in order to in fact see to it that they did 'follow the Constitution'?

hey, I have an idea for that!!! how about a judicial body with the power to rule on the constitutionality of laws!!

 

[antagon]

So if you take the power of determining the constitutionality of laws out of the hands of the Supreme Court,

whose hands do you put it into?

The People.

And how would that work, precisely?

works in never never land, ask tinkerbell.

 

[Vast LWC]

The People.

And how would that work, precisely?

works in never never land, ask tinkerbell.

But only if you clap real hard and say "I Believe"?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The People.

And how would that work, precisely?

works in never never land, ask tinkerbell.

Is she not wearing panties?

 

[DiamondDave]

Is she not wearing panties?

Always knew Tink had a little freaky deaky in her... LOL

 

[Claudette]

Wow

Someone actually advocating we return to the Government structure of Colonial America. The government did not provide roads, water systems, sewer systems, hospitals or any other public or social infrastructure.
The US was a borderline third world nation and had a government struggling just to survive itself without worrying about the people.

In case you missed it, the US has grown into the richest and most powerful nation on earth. I think we can do a better job than 1780's America could

Wow is right.

I'm sitting here LMAO at your ridiculous comment.

Of course no one is advocating we go back to colonial times. Jeeze. Get real.

My point was that no one considered the GW clause in the light we see it today. No one until the 30's. There was a public largesse and no one used it for Welfare. In fact I think if anyone had suggested that they would have been laughed out of town.

Without the GW clause there would be no Medicare, SS or Welfare today. No great loss in my book.

so you dont advocate abiding by the constitution? picking and choosing from it to fit your world view and denying its provisions which act against it amounts to as much.

and so you advocate a return to the turn of the century. still neck and neck with the shitholes of the planet by today's standards.

do you understand the point of the GW clause?

Was the GW clause meant to supply the public largess to one and all?? Was it meant to fund all these entitlements that we now have?? If so. Why wasn't it used before the 30's??

I also wonder if todays SC will interpret it differently from the SC in FDR's day. The same SC that at first found parts of FDR's proposals Unconstitutional. They then caved under threats from FDR.

Should be interesting because the SC will be surely have to render a decision.

How would not having the GW clause make us a third world country?? Jeeze. We have charities, churchs and other means for folks to get help. LMAO

 

[Dr Gregg]

I'm still waiting on the answer to my previous question of what is the point of the Supreme Court branch of the government if its not to interpret and rule on the constitutionality of laws?

You do realize the branches are in place to provide checks and balances and prevent one branch of gov't from becoming too powerful