# Question for the General Welfare Crowd.



## Charles_Main (Sep 18, 2010)

Simple question. If as you guys claim. The General Welfare clause of the constitution was meant to justify Federal social Welfare programs. Then how do you explain the fact that the people that wrote the constitution in many cases went on to serve in the WH and congress, and yet it was not until FDR that we had any form of Direct Federal Social Welfare programs?

If they intended that, why when they were the ones getting to write the laws did they never pass any?

Food for thought.


----------



## blu (Sep 18, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Simple question. If as you guys claim. The General Welfare clause of the constitution was meant to justify Federal social Welfare programs. Then how do you explain the fact that the people that wrote the constitution in many cases went on to serve in the WH and congress, and yet it was not until FDR that we had any form of Direct Federal Social Welfare programs?
> 
> If they intended that, why when they were the ones getting to write the laws did they never pass any?
> 
> Food for thought.



do you reallly expect they would pass every law right away? why didn't they let blacks become full citizens since it said everyone is created equal? why did it take until mlks time?


----------



## ConHog (Sep 18, 2010)

blu said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Simple question. If as you guys claim. The General Welfare clause of the constitution was meant to justify Federal social Welfare programs. Then how do you explain the fact that the people that wrote the constitution in many cases went on to serve in the WH and congress, and yet it was not until FDR that we had any form of Direct Federal Social Welfare programs?
> ...



Your answer of course negates your own argument and emboldens the one Charles is making.

The FF did not make blacks equal, not because they didn't get around to it, but b/c they didn't believe it. By the same token, they did not create welfare not b/c they didn't get around to it, but because they didn't believe in it. 

Thank you for proving your own position wrong Blu.


----------



## Toro (Sep 18, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Simple question. If as you guys claim. The General Welfare clause of the constitution was meant to justify Federal social Welfare programs. Then how do you explain the fact that the people that wrote the constitution in many cases went on to serve in the WH and congress, and yet it was not until FDR that we had any form of Direct Federal Social Welfare programs?
> 
> If they intended that, why when they were the ones getting to write the laws did they never pass any?
> 
> Food for thought.



I have no idea and have no opinion on this matter other than to say it is simply not possible to look hundreds of years into the future and be able to visualize what society will look like.  FFS, most of us can't visualize what we're going to have for supper the next day.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 18, 2010)

I thik it is shameful that we have Generals on welfare.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 18, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> I thik it is shameful that we have Generals on welfare.



He He


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 18, 2010)

While I am not opposed to a social net to help those who need it. I am opposed to claiming it is justified under because of the words General Welfare in the preamble. 

Image the implications of that. Virtually anything could then be justified the same way. 

Say we are attacked again my radical Muslim Terrorist. Suppose then that congress passes a law to intern all Muslims in the country. What would stop them from justifying in court as acting in the General Welfare. I think it simply opens up to broad of a power.


----------



## Dante (Sep 18, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Simple question. If as you guys claim. The General Welfare clause of the constitution was meant to justify Federal social Welfare programs. Then how do you explain the fact that the people that wrote the constitution in many cases went on to serve in the WH and congress, and yet it was not until FDR that we had any form of Direct Federal Social Welfare programs?
> 
> If they intended that, why when they were the ones getting to write the laws did they never pass any?
> 
> Food for thought.



Chuck, the US Constitution as well as many state Constitutions were based on the 
Massachusetts Constitution. The brain child of John Adams. In the Mass Constitution the state originally provided for the general welfare by directing the state to support houses of worship where monies were and when needed. This from a man who stated explicitly that the the USA was not founded as a Christian nation.

Now I admit I may be simplifying things a bit much, but I hope this gets the message across in a manner that does not confuse.

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government...

...Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
...
...] [Art. XI of the Amendments substituted for this].


----------



## Dante (Sep 18, 2010)

ConHog said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



*Wrong. They believed in welfare for their time. Everything in context and with a view for the period they lived in. Welfare programs are as old as government itself. *


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 18, 2010)

Dante said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Simple question. If as you guys claim. The General Welfare clause of the constitution was meant to justify Federal social Welfare programs. Then how do you explain the fact that the people that wrote the constitution in many cases went on to serve in the WH and congress, and yet it was not until FDR that we had any form of Direct Federal Social Welfare programs?
> ...



No it is not confusing at all, and I think it kind of proves my point. See you are quoting from a commonwealths Constitution. My point all along is that it is not the power of the Federal government to run Welfare. Now if it is not the power of the Fed, then it falls to the states. Which would be entirely consistent with what you have posted. 

Notice how it says at their own expense, as in the Federal Government should not be paying for it, It should be managed at the state level. At the lower level it would be much easy to run it efficiently and cut back on abuse and corruption. The bloated Federal Bureaucracy is simply to big and daunting to take on in many cases. 

The founders were big on keeping most things local for good reason. After all we had fought a revolution to throw off the control of a government thousands of miles away, and unable to know our needs, and issues well enough to govern us. 

Kinda of the same point here. If I am going to have assholes telling me how to live, I would rather they be in Lansing than DC.


----------



## Dante (Sep 18, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> While I am not opposed to a social net to help those who need it. I am opposed to claiming it is justified under because of the words General Welfare in the preamble.
> 
> Image the implications of that. Virtually anything could then be justified the same way.
> 
> Say we are attacked again my radical Muslim Terrorist. Suppose then that congress passes a law to intern all Muslims in the country. What would stop them from justifying in court as acting in the General Welfare. I think it simply opens up to broad of a power.



Anything can be, if the people so decide. That was the intent of the framers. They did lots of homework on republics and governments in general. Government has always had social welfare programs. They just look different as society changes. There is nothing vague about the idea of the people deciding through the legislature or government just what the General Welfare is at any given moment in the course of a nation's history..


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 18, 2010)

Dante said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > While I am not opposed to a social net to help those who need it. I am opposed to claiming it is justified under because of the words General Welfare in the preamble.
> ...



Well there in lies the problem with Health care. Notice you said if the people so decide. Yet every poll tells us the people did not want this version of health care reform, and yet we have it.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 18, 2010)

Dante said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



Bull post from a shit poster.

The Framers were not attempting to recreate an old system, but to start a new one free from the traps and pitfalls of past governments.  They were attampting to create checks and balances within government and between government and the public.  Allowing a portion of the citizens to be dependent on government would jeopardize that.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 18, 2010)

Dante said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



Yes and that is why we had no Welfare at all until 150 years after they wrote it.


----------



## Dante (Sep 18, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Your point being what? Specific acts not passed in the 19th century, pertaining to 20th century society?

---

U.S. Constitution - Preamble - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is 'we the people of the United States' which has a specific meaning. We the people being an expression of national sovereignty. Not as individual states. The framers made exacting distinctions when speaking of the state legislatures and the people of the new nation. 

You are misunderstanding what the US Constitution addresses.


----------



## ConHog (Sep 18, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> While I am not opposed to a social net to help those who need it. I am opposed to claiming it is justified under because of the words General Welfare in the preamble.
> 
> Image the implications of that. Virtually anything could then be justified the same way.
> 
> Say we are attacked again my radical Muslim Terrorist. Suppose then that congress passes a law to intern all Muslims in the country. What would stop them from justifying in court as acting in the General Welfare. I think it simply opens up to broad of a power.



Exactly right, only a total loon would argue against ANY welfare programs, but be honest about it, its a power we have CHOSEN to give the government, not one they are entitled to have.


----------



## Dante (Sep 18, 2010)

small book on the Supreme Court and the beginnings of Us Government, but full of more insights than many tomes I've read through the years 

Jeffrey Rosen: The Supreme Court - The personalities and rivalries that defined America.

under 300 pages and cheap at places like Borders Book Store


----------



## Dante (Sep 18, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



The people of the nation have a voice in the Congress. That is how our government works - how it was laid out by the framers. They purposefully did not construct a mechanism for the people voicing wishes through plebiscite, which is what you are appealing to.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 18, 2010)

Dante said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Of course a Preamble is going to stress national unity in the opening.  That is part of its purpose.  They had to get a bunch of states to sign on and be a big reasonably happy family.  Did you think the Preamble was going to say, we the people of (insert states who passed the Constitution to date) in order to make some rules some us want to create establish blah blah blah?  Get a clue.


----------



## Dante (Sep 18, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



please read and address what I posted about the history and tradition of the US and the General Welfare. You are attacking a specific welfare program, and not the issue we are discussing


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 18, 2010)

Dante said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



So when the elected officals lied about what they stood for when getting the office or refuse to listen to the public it is just too bad?  Politicans have turn the whole ploitical process into using the public in order to maintain power by doling out welfare to their group.  It is a house of cards.  Money is infinite, but value is finite.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 18, 2010)

Hey bitch.  I'm shreding you out here.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 18, 2010)

Dante said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



You are the one that brought it up and said our constitution was based in part on it. So then is not relevant that they appeared to keep such things as local as possible. 





Dante said:


> It is 'we the people of the United States' which has a specific meaning. We the people being an expression of national sovereignty. Not as individual states. The framers made exacting distinctions when speaking of the state legislatures and the people of the new nation.
> 
> You are misunderstanding what the US Constitution addresses.



Please explain then. How am I misunderstanding. If the constitution does not specifically grant a power to the Fed, then it is the domain of the states is it not? Is that not just another example of attempting to keep as much government as we could on the local level?


----------



## Dante (Sep 18, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Of course a Preamble is going to stress national unity in the opening.  That is part of its purpose.  They had to get a bunch of states to sign on and be a big reasonably happy family.  Did you think the Preamble was going to say, we the people of (insert states who passed the Constitution to date) in order to make some rules some us want to create establish blah blah blah?  Get a clue.



a little more coherent and on topic.

se, you really can. 


The Constitution itself is an expression of national unity. "A republic if you can keep it" meaning the compromises that made it possible. Read what I posted earlier and maybe you can attempt a debate.


----------



## Dante (Sep 18, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > While I am not opposed to a social net to help those who need it. I am opposed to claiming it is justified under because of the words General Welfare in the preamble.
> ...



We have not chosen, the Constitution provides.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 18, 2010)

Dante said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...




I am well aware we elect representatives, Normally our response and recourse is to vote them out when they do something against our will. The Problem is, some things can be near impossible to ever reverse once implemented against our will. As will be this heath care bill. 

Catch 22 really. You are correct that we do not have a direct say and the representatives are with in their rights to pass what ever they want against our will. However I do not have to like it


----------



## Dante (Sep 18, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...


Go away


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 18, 2010)

Dante said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



seems to me it is more a power the government has chosen to take away from the states and centralize at the federal level, and that is what I have a problem with.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 18, 2010)

Dante said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



No the Constitution does not provide for the type of welfare you suggest.  You wish to derive power from a Preamble.  Preambles are simply opening statements.  Articles grant powers.  Lawyers like to muddy the waters and opened up this whole line of thinking.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 18, 2010)

Oh, so I have your attention now I see, you just can't debate the points.  Go home and think about it.


----------



## Dante (Sep 18, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



I am not arguing against local control. The Federal welfare programs are administered by state governments along with state funds. The preamble of the US Constitution and the preamble of any state constitution address different audiences. 

Take the 9th amendment for example and it's phrase "the existence of rights which are not enumerated" and apply it's spirit here.

I am not arguing for or against any specific program. I am arguing a reading of the Constitution. We have the commerce clause which was argued over by the very men who inserted it in the document. They disagreed over how narrowly or widely to -- interpret -- the clause. Fact is there is tradition on this as we as case law on this subject.

There will always be tension between powers. What is silly is the ignorance paraded around here posing as interpretation.  (note: I am not speaking of you. lol)


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 18, 2010)

Interpretation?  That is all you have paraded about Dante.  Interestingly, you are allowing Congress to intrepret the Constitution, when it is clearly the realm of the Supreme Court.


----------



## Dante (Sep 18, 2010)

I don't open or reply to trolls


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 18, 2010)

Dante said:


> I don't open or reply to trolls



Despite the fact you apparently put me in that category, you just responded bitch.


----------



## Dante (Sep 18, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



The Constitution does not specify exactly what the General Welfare is. Do you know why that is?  


gawd, you're an idiot


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 18, 2010)

Dante said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Yes I do.  Why the Hell is it such a problem for you grasp it?  I see your arrogance has got the best of you and you had to reply.  You are soooo...easy.

P.S. There is no dictionary at the end of the Constitution for any terms.  You probably haven't read it that far.


----------



## Dante (Sep 18, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



You have an argument there that goes back to the beginnings of the forming of our nation. I disagree with the particular case here, but empathize and am sympathetic with the principle. There is nothing in the US Constitution preventing the Federal government doing what the states will not or that the states do poorly.

and again, the programs are state run. Individual states run federal programs differently.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 18, 2010)

Dante said:


> I am not arguing against local control. The Federal welfare programs are administered by state governments along with state funds. The preamble of the US Constitution and the preamble of any state constitution address different audiences.



Administered at the state level but legislated at the federal level. which has given them the power to do things like slap on new mandates to states who can not afford to provide for it as it is let alone with new expenses. 


Dante said:


> I am not arguing for or against any specific program. I am arguing a reading of the Constitution. We have the commerce clause which was argued over by the very men who inserted it in the document. They disagreed over how narrowly or widely to -- interpret -- the clause. Fact is there is tradition on this as we as case law on this subject.



This is the true difference between a liberal and a conservative. Liberals tend to see a lot of room for movement when they interpret the constitution where as a conservative tends to think there is not a lot of wiggle room. 


Dante said:


> There will always be tension between powers.


As there always should be, that is checks and balances in action. The problem I see is the Fed seems to always win, Gathering more and more power as the states get weaker and weaker. In the end we are losing a valuable part of the checks and balances system as the states grow less and less able to check the Feds power.  and we continue down the road away from a Federated republic to a centralized one. 



Dante said:


> What is silly is the ignorance paraded around here posing as interpretation.  (note: I am not speaking of you. lol)



LOL well thanks for that. There certainly is no shortage of people on either side of the spectrum who are guilty of that. I certainly do not claim to fully understand the intricacies of our Constitution, but I do try.


----------



## Dante (Sep 18, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Nothing in Congress is implemented against our will. Nothing the Executive, the Legislative, or the Judicial Branches of government does is against the will of the people. *We have a representative republic. *

Popular opinion is what you are talking about and the framers had very hard views on public opinion as government -- they gave us a republic to prevent such.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 18, 2010)

Dante said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Don't let that part about powers not specifically granted to the federal government shall be retained by the states or its citizens.  You have actually read the entire Constitution right?


----------



## Dante (Sep 18, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



John Adams was a lawyer as were others among the framers and founding fathers.

go away


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 18, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...




Damn you beat me to it.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 18, 2010)

Dante said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



...and which is why they severely limited the federal government's scope of powers.  They crafted a document which wouldn't allow the government to hurt the citrizens.


----------



## Dante (Sep 18, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Interpretation?  That is all you have paraded about Dante.  Interestingly, you are allowing Congress to intrepret the Constitution, when it is clearly the realm of the Supreme Court.



The Court has the final say, but you are wrong. Much has been written about the Congress as well as the Executive having a duty to interpret the Constitution. 


please, I know you want to participate, but first read what the adults are writing before you jump in -- then do a Google search or two, or three.

You are capable of learning if you put your mind to it.

.


----------



## Dante (Sep 18, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution does not specify exactly what the General Welfare is. Do you know why that is?
> ...



Okay. Go.

Pray tell, do tell why you think the framers did not define the General welfare.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 18, 2010)

Dante said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



So you admit a lawyer trick was inserted in the Preamable.  Well bitch I'm not going away and your losing points left and right.  I've been here about twenty minutes, what is your malfunction?


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

See, if I was truly an idiot, nothing I said would be of merit and you could simply ignore it.  Problem is, it does make sense and you look foolish letting the point stand without reply.  You want to stay here and post?  You got to beat the players.

Personally, if I were you, I'd use the repetative reasoning ploy Micky uses.  Maybe you can bore me into leaving.  Hint:  It didn't work too well for him.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

Sorry Charles, we seem to have lost Dante.  His ball is no where to be seen.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 19, 2010)

I was rather enjoying this one. I have been trying my self, Very hard to be as civil as I can in debates lately. It is not always easy, but I think we really need more of that in this country if were to address our many problems.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> I was rather enjoying this one. I have been trying my self, Very hard to be as civil as I can in debates lately. It is not always easy, but I think we really need more of that in this country if were to address our many problems.



A high and mighty goal to be sure.  Dante is not going to be one of those people for me.


----------



## Dante (Sep 19, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > I am not arguing against local control. The Federal welfare programs are administered by state governments along with state funds. The preamble of the US Constitution and the preamble of any state constitution address different audiences.
> ...



*1)* America had this issue since the Revolutionary War. The framers were well aware of states not meeting obligations. They also tried what you lean towards in some of your arguments.. the Articles of Confederation. 

The Federal government speaks for the people as a nation, not as individual states. 

*2)* Very true -- in general. 

but read the book I recommended. You will see conservatives and liberals doing the opposite of what we generally agree they would do. 

*3)* I think you overstate the struggle. Being on the losing side of constitutional arguments can make for warped perspective. See how mad Jefferson went during the term of John Marshall, his cousin, as the US Supreme Court's first Chief Justice. 

There are things the feds cannot intrude upon unless interpretations of certain clauses get stretched beyond reason. We have a representative republic. People using your arguments need to step back before they end up supporting what the extremists want -- direct democracy which would do exactly what you fear when it is put in place. Direct democracy would shred the US Constitution and it's checks and balances.

think about it. I'm dead serious about this one. I once was where you are 

*4)* 

and I too am trying. Lots of reading and movies and oy vey. I'm getting old as time passes by and I wrap myself in the founding of the US.


----------



## Dante (Sep 19, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Do you know what part of the Constitution proponents of welfare programs say justifies their existence? Jesus, we have had welfare programs in one form or another since colonial times.

fuck off


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

There is noise about new amendments to the Constitution clarifying the role of the federal government.  In my opinion, it is too early to promote it and have reasonable expectations of passage.  It took us a very long time to make these mistakes and fixing it will not be overnight.


----------



## Dante (Sep 19, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



please don't play simpleton with me? Dueling quotes is a bore's game. libertydouche is a bore. new rule: one bore per thread


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

Dante said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Yes it was called charity instead of welfare and was usually organized by churches, partially because it was suppose to be separate from government.  The other things you refer to as welfare were in fact, payments due to injured soldiers or government employees or their surviving families.

That how you try to win debates?  Get the other party to stop.  How is that working for you right now?


----------



## Dante (Sep 19, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



and even Jefferson interpreted the powers broadly when it suited his purposes.

get a life or please make an argument that is less of an attack. It's boring to have all your arguments being attacks. it's reactionary as opposed to thoughtful.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

Dante said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Your just a couple clicks away from the door bitch.  I'm sure Charles and myself can make some interesting conversation.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

Dante said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Most days this is your style.  You just get to eat it today.  Again, it was because the framers knew the propensity to over step boundaries that the federal government was so limited.


----------



## Dante (Sep 19, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Nuance and thoughtful context is no lawyer's trick. The framers are very particular on some points and very broad on others for reasons. They were writing what amounts to a legal document. 

You probably think the Founding Fathers and the Framers were philosophers. They were not. Your contempt for lawyers and the law is so common.


----------



## Dante (Sep 19, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> See, if I was truly an idiot, nothing I said would be of merit and you could simply ignore it.  Problem is, it does make sense and you look foolish letting the point stand without reply.  You want to stay here and post?  You got to beat the players.
> 
> Personally, if I were you, I'd use the repetative reasoning ploy Micky uses.  Maybe you can bore me into leaving.  Hint:  It didn't work too well for him.



You mistake being a blowhard and using attack, acting like a talk show host, for debate and discussion. I have tried on numerous occasions to lift you up, but with little success. 

I asked you to read and address the arguments from my first few posts. You have not. You shoot from the lip and think you're debating. It's a sad reality.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

Dante said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Yes, broad in areas like the Preamble, which was introductory and unifying in purpose.  Then specific and pointed in others like states rights.  I have used a lawyer several times in life.  I was always the smartest person in the room, they just knew the paperwork better.


----------



## Dante (Sep 19, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> I was rather enjoying this one. I have been trying my self, Very hard to be as civil as I can in debates lately. It is not always easy, but I think we really need more of that in this country if were to address our many problems.



read your posts to me and my posts to you and see who was the most civil. 

seriously, go back. look at them, and then tell me what you think.


----------



## Dante (Sep 19, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Yes and that is why we had no Welfare at all until 150 years after they wrote it.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

Dante said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > I was rather enjoying this one. I have been trying my self, Very hard to be as civil as I can in debates lately. It is not always easy, but I think we really need more of that in this country if were to address our many problems.
> ...



I think Charles had the tougher job from the start.  So he gets extra credit.


----------



## Dante (Sep 19, 2010)

Dante said:


> There will always be tension between powers. What is silly is the ignorance paraded around here posing as interpretation.  (note: I am not speaking of you. lol)


----------



## Dante (Sep 19, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> LOL well thanks for that. There certainly is no shortage of people on either side of the spectrum who are guilty of that. I certainly do not claim to fully understand the intricacies of our Constitution, but I do try.



here, I got you to rise above the usual here.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

Dante said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > There will always be tension between powers. What is silly is the ignorance paraded around here posing as interpretation.  (note: I am not speaking of you. lol)



Debating yourself now?  Man that is going to be embrassing when you lose both sides.


----------



## Dante (Sep 19, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Damn you beat me to it.



here you fed the troll


----------



## Dante (Sep 19, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> I was rather enjoying this one. I have been trying my self, Very hard to be as civil as I can in debates lately. It is not always easy, but I think we really need more of that in this country if were to address our many problems.



again, playing with then troll?


----------



## Dante (Sep 19, 2010)

Dante said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



I shoot across your bow.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

Dante said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > LOL well thanks for that. There certainly is no shortage of people on either side of the spectrum who are guilty of that. I certainly do not claim to fully understand the intricacies of our Constitution, but I do try.
> ...



Charles already had those qualities, YOU didn't do squat.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

Dante said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Try to hit what your aiming at then.  You want me, come at me.


----------



## Dante (Sep 19, 2010)

So Charles, you wonder why debate gets stifled? When we include the trolls in a one on one discussion, they win. They win because you admit you walk away wanting better.

I really do know how to play this game, but I have shown you here how to play it well. You did pretty damn good, but you allowed the troll into the discussion between us.

D


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 19, 2010)

There is no General Welfare clause. Go ahead name a single power Congress has ever enacted that claims as its base in power a clause about General Welfare. They are smart enough to know such a claim would fail on its face.

The entire purpose of the Constitution is to LIMIT the Government to specific powers enumerated in said Constitution. A supposed General Welfare clause would have NO LIMITS at all. Anything and every thing could be claimed to be in the General Welfare of the Country.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

You realize that you have completely gone off track at this point?  Can't debate, so your jsut trying to look like the better person than Charles.  Sad really.

So, you failed to show that general welfare meant what it does today from the beginning.  I have given many reason why that does not hold.

When you tried to say various members of the Framers tried to change the meanings and I offered a retort which you have given no answer to.

Pretty much every argument put forth since I showed up you have been given a response which you have not adequately refuted.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

Dante said:


> So Charles, you wonder why debate gets stifled? When we include the trolls in a one on one discussion, they win. They win because you admit you walk away wanting better.
> 
> I really do know how to play this game, but I have shown you here how to play it well. You did pretty damn good, but you allowed the troll into the discussion between us.
> 
> D



No Dante, you had a discussion with someone you felt you were an equal to.  When I questioned you forcefully you caved and went for the troll label.  Weak, weak, weak.  When others have used that on you, they were right.


----------



## Dante (Sep 19, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There is no General Welfare clause. Go ahead name a single power Congress has ever enacted that claims as its base in power a clause about General Welfare.



I'm sorry. Did I or somebody else misspeak and say there was a General welfare clause in the Constitution?

Please, link to this so it can be addressed.


----------



## Dante (Sep 19, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> *The entire purpose of the Constitution* is to LIMIT the Government to specific powers enumerated in said Constitution.



This is an untruth. That was not the entire purpose.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 19, 2010)

Dante said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > *The entire purpose of the Constitution* is to LIMIT the Government to specific powers enumerated in said Constitution./QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Dante (Sep 19, 2010)

Dante said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Simple question. If as you guys claim. The General Welfare clause of the constitution was meant to justify Federal social Welfare programs. Then how do you explain the fact that the people that wrote the constitution in many cases went on to serve in the WH and congress, and yet it was not until FDR that we had any form of Direct Federal Social Welfare programs?
> ...



For those of you who desire discussion and debate minus a troll baiting session, here is where I entered the thread. I admit to being dismissive of the liberty character, but when I entered there were no attacks, until the creature showed up. Ignore it's posts and follow the back and forth with Charles and I and maybe you will see something worth commenting on. Then again, maybe not.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


----------



## Dante (Sep 19, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



In this instance yes, because otherwise your argument stands. You are the one who needs the literalness to make your argument valid


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

Dante said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Got owned bitch.  That is what most are going to see.


----------



## Dante (Sep 19, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Charles' reply to my first post.

Follow the back and forth between Charles and me, and ignore the other.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

Dante said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



How about letting people exercise their right to read what they want?  A poor debater needs to use your tactic.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

The cat had the good sense to go to sleep an hour and a half ago.  I shall follow.

Moral of the story:  Don't get me started on the general welfare clause and piss me off earlier in the day.  I have a catch and release policy, so go about your way and have a nice day.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Simple question. If as you guys claim. The General Welfare clause of the constitution was meant to justify Federal social Welfare programs. Then how do you explain the fact that the people that wrote the constitution in many cases went on to serve in the WH and congress, and yet it was not until FDR that we had any form of Direct Federal Social Welfare programs?
> 
> If they intended that, why when they were the ones getting to write the laws did they never pass any?
> 
> Food for thought.



Because General Welfare means more than just social welfare programs. It means Congress is authorized to do what is in the best interests of the country. Roads are good for the General Welfare, Education is good for the General Welfare, Medical Research is good for the General Welfare

18th century Americans had no idea what was needed to run a 21st century country. That is why they kept the Constitution short and generic and talked more about government structure than on how they should respond in every possible situation


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 19, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Simple question. If as you guys claim. The General Welfare clause of the constitution was meant to justify Federal social Welfare programs. Then how do you explain the fact that the people that wrote the constitution in many cases went on to serve in the WH and congress, and yet it was not until FDR that we had any form of Direct Federal Social Welfare programs?
> 
> If they intended that, why when they were the ones getting to write the laws did they never pass any?
> 
> Food for thought.



Well, presumably the 'general welfare' is in the Constitution for a reason.  What do you 'anti-General Welfare' crowd people think the reasons are?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 19, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There is no General Welfare clause. Go ahead name a single power Congress has ever enacted that claims as its base in power a clause about General Welfare. They are smart enough to know such a claim would fail on its face.
> 
> The entire purpose of the Constitution is to LIMIT the Government to specific powers enumerated in said Constitution. A supposed General Welfare clause would have NO LIMITS at all. Anything and every thing could be claimed to be in the General Welfare of the Country.



Then explain why it's even mentioned.  Why would the framers put 'general welfare' in the Constitution if there was no constitutional purpose in promoting the general welfare?


----------



## Annie (Sep 19, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Simple question. If as you guys claim. The General Welfare clause of the constitution was meant to justify Federal social Welfare programs. Then how do you explain the fact that the people that wrote the constitution in many cases went on to serve in the WH and congress, and yet it was not until FDR that we had any form of Direct Federal Social Welfare programs?
> 
> If they intended that, why when they were the ones getting to write the laws did they never pass any?
> 
> Food for thought.



The one program I'm pretty sure invoked general welfare would be Teddy Roosevelt and Conservation Act. I can see invoking the clause for something like saving Yellowstone for posterity, no act by a single state could do such a thing.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Simple question. If as you guys claim. The General Welfare clause of the constitution was meant to justify Federal social Welfare programs. Then how do you explain the fact that the people that wrote the constitution in many cases went on to serve in the WH and congress, and yet it was not until FDR that we had any form of Direct Federal Social Welfare programs?
> ...



No, general welfare refers to the common good enjoyed by virtually everyone, but NOT social welfare.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Oh really?

So if Congress decides it is for the common good not to have children starving, not to have the poor spreading disease, not to have people begging door to door....that is not General Welfare?


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

I know you liberals are scared to death about this whole states rights thing.  Seems like I get into this about twice a week or more lately.  To answer your question, no it is not a federal government issue.  States may decide such things fall under that heading, because they have not been restricted in the same fashion as the federal government.

By the way Obama has more straving children than past Presidents have had in some time.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> I know you liberals are scared to death about this whole states rights thing.  Seems like I get into this about twice a week or more lately.  To answer your question, no it is not a federal government issue.  States may decide such things fall under that heading, because they have not been restricted in the same fashion as the federal government.
> 
> By the way Obama has more straving children than past Presidents have had in some time.



In the interests of General Welfare, some things are done more efficiently at the federal level than at the state level. Most social welfare is handled at the state level. However, we are all Americans. As such, we should expect certain minimum standards. If states want to provide more...they are welcome to it


----------



## ConHog (Sep 19, 2010)

RW stop acting like the government is mandated by the COTUS to provide a welfare program. They are not, neither are the state governments. We choose to allow it. If a political party were willing to attempt to end them and the will of the people were behind it, they would be gone. That right there tells you that it is in fact NOT an obligation of the governments.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > I know you liberals are scared to death about this whole states rights thing.  Seems like I get into this about twice a week or more lately.  To answer your question, no it is not a federal government issue.  States may decide such things fall under that heading, because they have not been restricted in the same fashion as the federal government.
> ...



The federal government should have no power over minimum standards of the states.  Efficiency in government?  lol

The further you are from the need, the more likely you will not be able to fill the need appropriately.  Further, what you really mean is, the federal government is more efficient at amassing funds to distribute.  That sort of ease is not a benefit in my opinion.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2010)

ConHog said:


> RW stop acting like the government is mandated by the COTUS to provide a welfare program. They are not, neither are the state governments. We choose to allow it. If a political party were willing to attempt to end them and the will of the people were behind it, they would be gone. That right there tells you that it is in fact NOT an obligation of the governments.



I am not saying they are mandated to do anything. What I am saying is that they are given broad latitude to do what is best for the country.
Of course, if enough people elect officials who want to end welfare, social security, veterans benefits...they can do it

But they won't


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



"Should"??

Well guess what?  They do under the supremacy clause of the Constitution

More efficient?  Stop with your nonsense that state government is the paradigm of efficiency while the federal government is a bunch of incompetents.

During WWII the federal government oversaw the largest production increase in human history
The federal government created an atomic bomb in 2 1/2 years
The federal government put a man on the moon in ten years


----------



## ConHog (Sep 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > RW stop acting like the government is mandated by the COTUS to provide a welfare program. They are not, neither are the state governments. We choose to allow it. If a political party were willing to attempt to end them and the will of the people were behind it, they would be gone. That right there tells you that it is in fact NOT an obligation of the governments.
> ...



Although I quoted you, my post wasn't really directed towards you, but rather towards the loonier people who we well know are absolutely convinced that they have a RIGHT to welfare. I never thought you were one of those.

Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## boedicca (Sep 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Correct.    They are deciding on the welfare of a specific group of people to be funded by other people.

It's the nonsense that specific benefits for specific people are somehow in the interest of the General Welfare that inevitably leads to messes such as the mortgage fueled financial crisis.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2010)

boedicca said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Are you under the impression that every piece of legislation will help every person equally? General Welfare means for the overall good of the country. Roads are for the General Welfare of the whole country. The whole country benefits from a comprehensive transportation system.
I get no direct benefit from a new bridge being built in Wisconsin. But the country as a whole benefits


----------



## The T (Sep 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 
And what good is it when Government has so many roadblocks on business that they have created the conditions we see today?

And what good is it for society to have a bunch of moochers created BY the government as a result of their policies?


----------



## boedicca (Sep 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




No, the country as a whole does not benefit from a bridge in Wisconsin.  A small group benefits at the expense of the rest of us.

It's not the governments job to dole out benefits.   What you are neglecting is that without all of this government interference, the people in Wisconsin could probably build a better bridge for far cheaper without the Feds "help".


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2010)

The T said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



The moochers are on both ends. We pass laws that encourages business to stay in business while they receive subsidized loans and benefits. 

Our welfare also pays for people who are disabled and unable to work.

Either way. Both programs are examples of programs passed unde general welfare


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2010)

boedicca said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



If they could...they would

The country as a whole benefits from a robust transportation infrastructure. This infrastructure enables goods and services to move about quickly and cheaply.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Then why doesn't the federal government fund the local street in front of my house?  It has a back entrance to a middle school and front entrance to a high school along its length.  You see, at some point your argument falls apart.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



No it doesn't ...because the federal government looks at the big picture

The interstate highway system was envisioned by Eisenhower who understood that being able to move across the country unrestricted was an economic and military necessity. In post WWII America we had no way of rapidly moving troops and supplies around in the case of a nuclear attack

Much of the funding and justification for the multi-billion dollar expenditure was for national security


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



So people in large metropolitan areas are more important than me?  How is that equity?  I noticed you abandoned the commerce argument in favor of a national defense one.  National defense is one thing that the feds are in charge of.  Probably why it does fall under general welfare.  Yet it hasn't stopped the feds from building bridges and roads to obscure places without military importance.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



No...just commenting on a little known factoid about our interstate highway system.

And in answer to your question.....yes highways in high density areas are more important than roads in the back woods. I've already pointed out how General Welfare does not mean that each person benefits equally.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



In order to meet some possible sense of equity, I would think any welfare must potentially provide for any citizen to be termed general.  He have and continue to manufacture military parts in our community.  I think your argument falls short.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...




Where would you get that impression?  In what world is there ever equity?  The Constitution does not discuss equity of legislation. 

Can you point to any legal opinion that supports your opinion?


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



So why is it that liberals are Hell bent on creating this equality/equity amongst people by redistribution and regulation?  By your own admission, it has no legal basis.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...




Do you really have that simplistic a view of life that you actually think liberals say everyone should have equality in equity?  Multi millionaires will still be multi millionaires, that does not mean the working poor do not deserve a fair shake in life. 
And by the way...there has been a redistribution of personal wealth over the last 30 years. It has gone from the middle class to the wealthy


----------



## ConHog (Sep 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



In regards to the national highway system. It was created for national defense. at least that was the main reason. and so it is totally unrelated to THIS conversation because clearly the feds have jurisdiction over national defense.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Life lesson here Right:

In the defining moments of your life, things ARE simple.

Birth of a child.
Losing a job.
Burying someone close.
Firing a weapon that takes a life.
Watching your daughter get married.

For some reason people want to complicate the rest of it for you.  Don't let them.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Nice try my friend

Your views in life ignore those in need, those who have been unjustly affected by factors out of their control, those who are afterthoughts in the attempt to accumulate wealth


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2010)

ConHog said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



People forget the mindset of the 1950s. A nuclear attack was imminent. If there was an attack, there was no way to quickly move troops and supplies to mwhere they were needed. The old two lane highway system would have taken weeks to move to the affected areas. A National highway system was critical to the national defense.

Now it is looked at as a nice way to transport goods accross the country


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



If your their friend, help them.  Don't wait for some government agency to humiliate them and place them in a system to be process like beef.  I got a friend who is going through a tough financial time.  She knows we have spare bedrooms that are hers for the asking.  Your trying to complicate again.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Personal charity is wonderful. It provides close friends with a safety net when they are in dire need.

But what happens to people who do not have the network of friends to help them?  If your good friend has a child with leukemia   are you going to pick up the bills? We need a social welfare program to help those who otherwise would be left to suffer


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Oh yes, I see the advantages of your system.  Keep people socially isolated and controlled by being their source of life giving needs and information.


----------



## marksinvirginia (Sep 19, 2010)

Anything can be, if the people so decide. That was the intent of the framers. They did lots of homework on republics and governments in general. Government has always had social welfare programs. They just look different as society changes. There is nothing vague about the idea of the people deciding through the legislature or government just what the General Welfare is at any given moment in the course of a nation's history..[/QUOTE]



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

The people can vote to dissolve the United States,  if they wish.   But the words "promote" and "provide" for the general welfare  do not mean the government is required to give out money to people who would rather lay on their asses.   That may be the Democrat's interpretation...  but it was not the intent of the framers. 

~Mark


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



As opposed to ignoring their life giving needs and information


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



As opposed to draining these resources with something called taxes and thwarting charity.


----------



## lizzie (Sep 19, 2010)

blu said:


> why didn't they let blacks become full citizens since it said everyone is created equal? why did it take until mlks time?


 
Because at the time, slaves were pretty much considered personal property, just as women and children were at that time in America, and as women are in a good portion of the world today.


----------



## lizzie (Sep 19, 2010)

Dante said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > While I am not opposed to a social net to help those who need it. I am opposed to claiming it is justified under because of the words General Welfare in the preamble.
> ...


 
If the "general welfare" bankrupts the country, is it still considered general welfare for the good of the country?


----------



## ConHog (Sep 19, 2010)

Good Lord some of you people on BOTH sides are insane. Ever hear of a middle ground? Yes the government should provide a minimal safety net for people in need, provided those people were tax paying citizens at some point in their lives. No that system should not ever become a way of life. 

It's that simple.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 20, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Lord save me!

If I didn"t have to pay all these taxes, I could "trickle down" the money to charity


----------



## ConHog (Sep 20, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The obvious problem with that being that who would voluntarily pay for some of the things the government forces us to pay for, and that doesn't mean just welfare programs. I honestly think that some of these idiots would completely defund the military if given the chance, just for example.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 20, 2010)

boedicca said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



So the Center for Disease Control is unconstitutional?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 20, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> I know you liberals are scared to death about this whole states rights thing.  Seems like I get into this about twice a week or more lately.  To answer your question, no it is not a federal government issue.  States may decide such things fall under that heading, because they have not been restricted in the same fashion as the federal government.
> 
> By the way Obama has more straving children than past Presidents have had in some time.



Why are you trying to blame Obama for starving children if you think starvation isn't a federal concern?

And, btw, we have a Civil War in our history that makes fearing 'state's rights' a legitimate fear.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 20, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > I know you liberals are scared to death about this whole states rights thing.  Seems like I get into this about twice a week or more lately.  To answer your question, no it is not a federal government issue.  States may decide such things fall under that heading, because they have not been restricted in the same fashion as the federal government.
> ...



Fear states rights? Good god this attitude is exactly what is going to allow this country to turn into a lesser version of itself. 

By the way the states the left the union and caused the civil war. Would not have invaded and tried subjugate the North. So what are you trying to say we have to fear states attacking us? Wrong what you need to fear is the Fed attacking your states.


----------



## Dante (Sep 20, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> I was rather enjoying this one. I have been trying my self, Very hard to be as civil as I can in debates lately. It is not always easy, but I think we really need more of that in this country if were to address our many problems.





Dante said:


> So Charles, you wonder why debate gets stifled? When we include the trolls in a one on one discussion, they win. They win because you admit you walk away wanting better.
> 
> I really do know how to play this game, but I have shown you here how to play it well. You did pretty damn good, but you allowed the troll into the discussion between us.
> 
> D



repeating...


----------



## The T (Sep 20, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > I know you liberals are scared to death about this whole states rights thing. Seems like I get into this about twice a week or more lately. To answer your question, no it is not a federal government issue. States may decide such things fall under that heading, because they have not been restricted in the same fashion as the federal government.
> ...


 

Is this why the FED ignores the Ninth and Tenth with impunity?

Imagine that?

You're a fucking MORON.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

marksinvirginia said:


> The people can vote to dissolve the United States, if they wish.
> 
> ~Mark



interesting concept. Do you have any arguments with facts and theories to back this assertion up?


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

marksinvirginia said:


> But the words "promote" and "provide" for the general welfare do not mean the government is required to give out money to people who would rather lay on their asses.
> 
> ~Mark



who said they do? are you making up arguments and debating yourself?


----------



## Twofox (Sep 21, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



A preamble is a general outline of what the document is about.  Since it is a legal document, anything it empowers is laid out in articles.  Since general welfare is debatable, then we are obliged to amend the constitution to specify, in articles, any new powers.  

To me "General welfare" means something similar to general protection, and making laws that keep the citizens safe.  To me it does not mean to provide subsistance living for everyone who wants it.  This is the debate posed by the OP.  The deffinition of the phrase.

General Welfare legal definition of General Welfare. General Welfare synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Madison and Hamilton argued both sides of this issue.  Keep in mind that Hamiltion tended towards a more powerful fed overall.

Also see:  http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_general_welfare_mean

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. However, it is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. Unlike most General Welfare clauses, however, the clause in the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted as a limitation on the power of the United States Congress to use its powers of taxing and spending. The narrow construction of the General welfare clause is unusual when compared to similar clauses in most State constitutions, and many constitutions of other countries.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Good Lord some of you people on BOTH sides are insane. Ever hear of a middle ground? Yes the government should provide a minimal safety net for people in need, provided those people were tax paying citizens at some point in their lives. No that system should not ever become a way of life.
> 
> It's that simple.



Middle ground? I was unaware we were seeking a solution where reaching an agreement was the goal here. Please, clue me in


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

lizzie said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



I would think if the people want to bankrupt the nation they may. But I think elected leaders would be duty and honor bound to represent to the people a better way of living. 

According to some misinformed people here, if the people wanted to bankrupt the nation, Congress has to and should go along. I disagree and so would the framers. A representative republic does not work that way.

The framers and the founders never agreed to back popular or direct democracy. And never has the American public. I would consider taking up arms against that possibility becoming real.


----------



## Twofox (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Yet the congress bankrupting the country, or the gov't exercising too much control over it's citizens is also something folks would take up arms over.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Twofox said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > lizzie said:
> ...



You miss the boat. 

The people have recourse against the actions of any particular Congress. It's called elections.

Changing the system we have into a popular or direct democracy would be a revolution. It would over turn most every institution and the balance of powers with checks and balances that has allowed America to exist all these years. 

and notice I said 'consider' taking up arms over. You truly are a loser


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Twofox said:


> A preamble is a general outline of what the document is about.  Since it is a legal document, anything it empowers is laid out in articles.  Since general welfare is debatable, then we are obliged to amend the constitution to specify, in articles, any new powers.
> 
> To me "General welfare" means something similar to general protection, and making laws that keep the citizens safe.



"...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..."

Then the preamble would be full of redundancies.

gawd, pay attention to what you read and then what you post.


----------



## Twofox (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> Twofox said:
> 
> 
> > A preamble is a general outline of what the document is about.  Since it is a legal document, anything it empowers is laid out in articles.  Since general welfare is debatable, then we are obliged to amend the constitution to specify, in articles, any new powers.
> ...



Yeah troll more.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Twofox said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



*To me it does not mean to provide subsistance living for everyone who wants it.* 


and no one said it did. But if the people decided through their representatives that this is what they wanted it would be so. But no one has ever argued for a subsistance[sic] living *for everyone who wants it.*


you're making shit up and then arguing with yourself.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Twofox said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Twofox said:
> ...



look at the substance of my posts as a whole here, and not my style and you will see that you are a troll without having a clue you are. 

you do address any points made or make new ones. you make talk show type of speeches and deliver straw man arguments you then go on to refute.

there's more, but I decided to make tonight -- Be Kind To Douchebag Nite

enjoy


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> Twofox said:
> 
> 
> > A preamble is a general outline of what the document is about.  Since it is a legal document, anything it empowers is laid out in articles.  Since general welfare is debatable, then we are obliged to amend the constitution to specify, in articles, any new powers.
> ...



If you were paying attention to what you read, you might have noticed some interesting choice of words by the Framers.

Justice is established, not tranquilty, common defense or general welfare.

Tranquility is insured, not justice, common defense or general welfare.

Common defense is provided, not justice, tranquility or general welfare.

General welfare is promoted, not established, insured or provided.


----------



## Twofox (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> Twofox said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Yer an idiot that I won't argue with.  Picking apart a post so you can discount someones point over trivial shit is immature and what trolls do.


----------



## Paulie (Sep 21, 2010)

Even the enumerated powers _themselves_ weren't specific enough.

"To regulate commerce among foreign nations, among the several states, among the indian tribes, ... "

That certainly doesn't point out what bureaucracies may or may not apply.  I'm not sure how one just assumes that _any_ regulatory legislation is authorized via this clause, but it certainly seems as though it is based on how congress seems to look at it.

The constitution is vague as hell, and we need to amend it to clarify just what would be considered "necessary and proper" to carry out those powers in today's world.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> marksinvirginia said:
> 
> 
> > The people can vote to dissolve the United States, if they wish.
> ...



The only way I could see it happening legally would be if we elected representatives who would some how Amend the Constitution to dissolve the union.


----------



## Chris (Sep 21, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Simple question. If as you guys claim. The General Welfare clause of the constitution was meant to justify Federal social Welfare programs. Then how do you explain the fact that the people that wrote the constitution in many cases went on to serve in the WH and congress, and yet it was not until FDR that we had any form of Direct Federal Social Welfare programs?
> 
> If they intended that, why when they were the ones getting to write the laws did they never pass any?
> 
> Food for thought.



The people who wrote the Constitution chewed tobacco and owned slaves.

Times change.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 21, 2010)

Chris said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Simple question. If as you guys claim. The General Welfare clause of the constitution was meant to justify Federal social Welfare programs. Then how do you explain the fact that the people that wrote the constitution in many cases went on to serve in the WH and congress, and yet it was not until FDR that we had any form of Direct Federal Social Welfare programs?
> ...



True, they smoke it now and call them illegal servants.  You may have overlooked it, but they are quickly making slaves out of us.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Twofox said:
> ...


please stop thinking I'll play a game of dueling framers' quotes without a context. I am far too bored by the sophomoric point scoring you people engage in.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Your withdrawal from the discussion is dually noted.  I was reviewing the sentence structure and its impact on the debate.  Further, I did not bring that quote into the fray, but it is certainly proper to continue with information brough into a debate.  You lose bitch.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Even the enumerated powers _themselves_ weren't specific enough.
> 
> "To regulate commerce among foreign nations, among the several states, among the indian tribes, ... "
> 
> ...



One must ask why the framers saw fit to specify certain things and to be vague with others. This can be done with a very simple set of questions with some very simple conclusions. 

_Necessary and proper_ is a phrase that is purposefully left open to debate and interpretation, so that it can be used 'in today's world' or in the world of any other time.

Clarifying it in an amendment, for the particular circumstances of today would be tantamount to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. 

We have a representative republic with three branches of government along with certain checks and balances. This and our type of democratic politics is the framework we've always used to *consider/interpret* how to carry out powers granted. 

It works. It is a slow and deliberative process, but it works. As tie passes what seems of grave and immediate concern usually ends up just being populist or progressive bullshit.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > marksinvirginia said:
> ...



I would think we'd need all the states on board to agree that if any portion, say 75% say dissovle, dissolve we could. Similar to how the USA was formed. As a group all 13 states agreed ahead of time that if a certain number agreed on something, it was all for one, one for all.


----------



## Dante (Sep 21, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



can you two hysterical buffoons take this elsewhere?


----------



## Paulie (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Even the enumerated powers _themselves_ weren't specific enough.
> ...



I happen to think that flies in the face of limiting government power.

If all congress needs to do is interpret what is "necessary and proper" at any given time, then they really don't have any limitation at all.

An amendment establishes the limitation for NOW.  If in the future, the people decide that times have progressed to where something more is needed, then another amendment would be necessary.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Alter my quotes and then think I'll just walk away?  I'm here for awhile bitch.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 21, 2010)

Dante said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Not sure why your so delusional.  Congress would never give up power.  Also, Congress doesn't have that power.  As noted, 75% of the states must pass the measure by a majority within their states.  More likely, a civil war would just breakout under those conditions.  Since major cities seem to get the bulk of federal funds, I would imagine it would be a seige of these cities.


----------

