who would support a return to a constitutionly sound government?

[Vast LWC]

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.

While I will not argue that the subject is open to debate, it is important to note that 80 years of precedent supports the Hamiltonian interpretation.

Unless a Supreme court reverses prior decisions, or unless a Constitutional Amendment happens, adding specific conditions under which the GW clause applies, the point is moot.

Right now, under current law, the use of the GW clause to provide for social safety net programs is, in fact, Constitutional.

 

[Claudette]

You may very well be right.

It will be interesting to see if this SC will view the GW clause differently.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

While I will not argue that the subject is open to debate, it is important to note that 80 years of precedent supports the Hamiltonian interpretation.

Unless a Supreme court reverses prior decisions, or unless a Constitutional Amendment happens, adding specific conditions under which the GW clause applies, the point is moot.

Right now, under current law, the use of the GW clause to provide for social safety net programs is, in fact, Constitutional.

That genie is out of the bottle and won't be going back

We are too far entrenched in a widespread network of social programs to throw them out as Unconstitutional. Social Security and Medicare are here to stay, so are a myriad of educational and veterans benefits. Where in the constitution does it make allowances for us to pay for medical and other benefits to Veterans?

 

[Vast LWC]

That genie is out of the bottle and won't be going back

We are too far entrenched in a widespread network of social programs to throw them out as Unconstitutional. Social Security and Medicare are here to stay, so are a myriad of educational and veterans benefits. Where in the constitution does it make allowances for us to pay for medical and other benefits to Veterans?

Personally, as we know, I am in fact of the Hamiltonian school of thought myself, and agree that a social safety net is covered by the GW clause.

I was simply pointing out the fact that it cannot be called "Unconstitutional", when it clearly is Constitutional, under current law.

 

[antagon]

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

as it is interpreted now, it is a qualification of the tax spend clause more aimed at barring usurpation of the power to tax and spend then to offer a legislative mandate itself. that said, the tax and spend power has been limited to good faith acts in the interest of general welfare, even if some folks feel that we should have left the state of the union circa 1910 in tact.

as to the third world nation bit. transferring the minimum standards of life in a pre-progressive US to present date, you would indeed be in the company of poor nations like mexico and india, to name some of the powerful, resource rich examples. can you name a developed nation which operates outside this truth? one possible example?

without a doubt your churches and charities are rampant in these non-progressive countries. being nice is not the point of welfare and social security, claudette. it is the simple fact that their government is satisfied to have large bases of people stay broke, without some of the basics and labor standards that our government has emplaced since the villainous FDR, which draws the contrast between us and them.

mexico shares much of our resource wealth, and in fact, they are a wealthy nation on a global scale. the biggest difference between their economy and canada's is that there is little or nothing in place to see that a minimum income there can sustain the consumer economy, the jobs and the lawful occupation of their citizens. there's no canadians as wealthy as slim; im pretty sure the indian moguls out shine the canucks too, but the average canadian welfare chick, blight that she is, pulls down more than the average mexican family or indian family. why else would that mexican family feel fortunate to spend all their time making trinkets for the US and canada which they cant afford themselves? where you dont have the programs you loathe, you have a country whose citizens slave for one that does. <--- hard truth about the implications of your better america.

if you take the tires off the wheels, claudette, you cant claim that the ride is going to be all the same.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is she not wearing panties?

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

Maybe she should hook up with the horny preacher from the Little Mermaid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

The problem for conservatives seems to be not that there is a Supreme Court, but that it isn't a conservative Supreme Court that would consistently make rulings that the right approved of.

I don't know how you could rig the system to achieve that, which I think is the source of frustration for the right.