# Was Obama (the constitutional scholar) correct



## Gdjjr (Nov 19, 2020)

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

If he is, and that is the case, does it not show that the "leader monkeys" (in our monkey see monkey do world) don't believe the *rules* written specifically for them apply specifically to them- inquiring minds want to know; why should *follower monkeys* follow rules written by those who don't follow rules?

Rules are made to be broken- yet, if a citizen breaks a rule he is punished. When a rule writer breaks a rule he is applauded and granted sainthood status- I don't get it- I can't find in their rules where it says they have the authority to punish citizens for breaking their rules, (not to mention the granting of sainthood to one of their own)- can someone point out, specifically, where that comes from?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


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


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


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 19, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > in his assessment of the constitution in that it says what the gov't can't do, but not what it can do?
> ...



Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated

_Thomas Jefferson_


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 19, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > in his assessment of the constitution in that it says what the gov't can't do, but not what it can do?
> ...


Good gawd, shut the fuck up


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 19, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> in his assessment of the constitution in that it says what the gov't can't do, but not what it can do?
> 
> If he is, and that is the case, does it not show that the "leader monkeys" (in our monkey see monkey do world) don't believe the *rules* written specifically for them apply specifically to them- inquiring minds want to know; why should *follower monkeys* follow rules written by those who don't follow rules?
> 
> Rules are made to be broken- yet, if a citizen breaks a rule he is punished. When a rule writer breaks a rule he is applauded and granted sainthood status- I don't get it- I can't find in their rules where it says they have the authority to punish citizens for breaking their rules, (not to mention the granting of sainthood to one of their own)- can someone point out, specifically, where that comes from?


How manyt imes did that "constitutional scholar" get his ass kicked by the Supreme court 9-0? 9? 10? 
The constitution lists the powers the fed gov has. It even states everything else is left to the states. I mean... 
Of course, i wouldnt doubt that limp wristed dipshit cant read.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 19, 2020)

Where are all the conservative constitutional scholars?


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 19, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> Where are all the conservative constitutional scholars?


Are there any?


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 20, 2020)

TNHarley said:


> Are there any?


Apparently not-


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 20, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Gdjjr said:
> ...


What do you mean?  In my opinion, he is referring to the franchise and Individual Liberty and due process.  Our welfare clause is still General not Common or Limited.  

Promoting the general welfare is what we are supposed to be doing with our form of Government.  There is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause.  So yes, in that sense, the general Government of the Union is restricted to the End justifying the Means, not means justifying the End.


----------



## dblack (Nov 20, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


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



Nope. People who want more power for the federal government have been trying to twist it that way since it all started. But that's not what the Constitution says. The only part of the Constitution that says what the government cannot do is the Bill of Rights - a set of amendments tacked on later. And the Bill of Rights was opposed by many because they thought it would lead to confusion, the exact confusion Obama and others are promoting. The rest of the Constitution designates what power government shall have, and assumes no others.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 20, 2020)

dblack said:


> the exact confusion Obama and others are promoting.


Really? can you say The Patriot Act? Who offered that as a the panacea of all that's wrong in the world?
It evisceated the 4th amendment with the "just cause" caveat called national security- it is simple, though not easy to connect the dots that have been laid out a long time before you or I was even a twinkle in daddy's eye- 
In fact, it could go all the way back to The Whiskey Tax rebellion- or come forward to Lincolns save the union at all costs- or save the world from Hitler- or "communist" beneath every bed, behind every tree-


----------



## TheParser (Nov 20, 2020)

With all due respect, some people say (in private, of course) that the Honorable Barack Obama is not in reality a "constitutional scholar."

It is really interesting that we have never heard a peep from his former students.

Most Americans respect him as a historic figure, the first President of his ethnicity in the tortured history of this country.

But "scholar"? Some people think that's pushing it a bit far.


----------



## dblack (Nov 20, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > the exact confusion Obama and others are promoting.
> ...



Well, Biden did the first draft - but I recognize it's not just Obama or the Democrats who are twisting the meaning of the Constitution - thus the "and others" in my comment.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 20, 2020)

dblack said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > in his assessment of the constitution in that it says what the gov't can't do, but not what it can do?
> ...


What does general welfare mean to you?


----------



## BS Filter (Nov 20, 2020)

Obama isn't and never was a Constitutional scholar.  Total fraud.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 20, 2020)

Right wingers have nothing but Hoax but insist they are Right simply because they are on the right wing.  Total fraud.


----------



## Hossfly (Nov 20, 2020)

BS Filter said:


> Obama isn't and never was a Constitutional scholar.  Total fraud.



I saw the headline ticker that crawls across the bottom of a news show today. It says that in Obama's 29 hour talking book that when he was in college that he read "Marx in order to impress and pick up girls."  I doubt that he ever read the Constitution and that he ever picked up girls. Bath house Barry wasn't into girls.


----------



## BS Filter (Nov 20, 2020)

Hossfly said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> > Obama isn't and never was a Constitutional scholar.  Total fraud.
> ...


It's well known that Obumbo met Holder at a barh house in Chicago.


----------



## justinacolmena (Dec 23, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> Where are all the conservative constitutional scholars?





TNHarley said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > Where are all the conservative constitutional scholars?
> ...











						What If We Wrote the Constitution Today?
					

Proposals from libertarian, conservative, and progressive scholars displayed a few striking differences—but also some profound similarities.




					www.theatlantic.com
				





> Unsurprisingly, the conservative team proposes a Constitution that clearly recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms “ordinarily used for self-defense or recreational purposes,” but it does allow for the federal and state governments to pass “reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms, and the keeping of arms by persons determined, with due process, to be dangerous to themselves or others.”


These failed RINO acadamics are not conservative at all. They are running mental hospitals, psychiatric wards, and insane asylums in front of legal gun purchases and they have betrayed a complete ignorance of the Constitution in their stunning denial of due process.


> The progressive proposal, by contrast, does not explicitly recognize an individual’s right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, but emphasizes, like the conservatives, that gun ownership is “subject to reasonable regulation.”


Failed leftist assholes limit guns to their hired mercenary soldiers, professional law enforcement officers, and licensed security personnel.


> The libertarian version alone contains no provisions for the regulation of gun rights, stating unequivocally, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”


The failed academics have demoted gun rights to a minor political party.


----------



## badbob85037 (Dec 23, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> in his assessment of the constitution in that it says what the gov't can't do, but not what it can do?
> 
> If he is, and that is the case, does it not show that the "leader monkeys" (in our monkey see monkey do world) don't believe the *rules* written specifically for them apply specifically to them- inquiring minds want to know; why should *follower monkeys* follow rules written by those who don't follow rules?
> 
> Rules are made to be broken- yet, if a citizen breaks a rule he is punished. When a rule writer breaks a rule he is applauded and granted sainthood status- I don't get it- I can't find in their rules where it says they have the authority to punish citizens for breaking their rules, (not to mention the granting of sainthood to one of their own)- can someone point out, specifically, where that comes from?


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


----------



## justinacolmena (Dec 24, 2020)

danielpalos said:


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


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





						The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
					

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



					constitutioncenter.org
				



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


			Fifth Amendment - Self-incrimination Clause
		

*


----------



## justinacolmena (Dec 24, 2020)

badbob85037 said:


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


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


----------



## MadChemist (Dec 24, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > in his assessment of the constitution in that it says what the gov't can't do, but not what it can do?
> ...



You keep pushing this point of view.

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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 26, 2020)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Gdjjr said:
> ...


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


----------



## Gdjjr (Dec 26, 2020)

danielpalos said:


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


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 26, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


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


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

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, 

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

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

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


----------



## Gdjjr (Dec 26, 2020)

danielpalos said:


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





danielpalos said:


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


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



danielpalos said:


> _to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence _


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

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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 26, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


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


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

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

Besides,

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


----------



## Gdjjr (Dec 26, 2020)

danielpalos said:


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


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



danielpalos said:


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


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

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

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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 26, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


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


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

The rules you mention are not that old.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 26, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


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


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

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

The general powers are the scope of the particular powers.


----------



## MadChemist (Dec 26, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



This is an argument ?

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


----------



## norwegen (Dec 26, 2020)

The only welfare liberals know is government handouts.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 26, 2020)

MadChemist said:


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


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 26, 2020)

norwegen said:


> The only welfare liberals know is government handouts.


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


----------



## Gdjjr (Dec 26, 2020)

danielpalos said:


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


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


----------



## Gdjjr (Dec 26, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Simple English is still there,


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 26, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


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


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


----------



## Gdjjr (Dec 26, 2020)

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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 26, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Simple English is still there,
> ...


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 26, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


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


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


----------



## Gdjjr (Dec 26, 2020)

danielpalos said:


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


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


----------



## Gdjjr (Dec 26, 2020)

danielpalos said:


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


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 26, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


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


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


----------



## Gdjjr (Dec 26, 2020)

danielpalos said:


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


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 26, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


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


It has to be the same for both or none.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 26, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


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


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


----------



## Gdjjr (Dec 26, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.


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

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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 26, 2020)

Gdjjr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
> ...


What you allege makes no sense.  

Our welfare clause is General not common.


----------



## MadChemist (Dec 26, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



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

Which you can't......

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

Starting with Madison in Federalist 41:

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

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

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

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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 27, 2020)

MadChemist said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Gdjjr said:
> ...


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


----------



## MadChemist (Dec 27, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Now that is funny.

Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## RobbinBobbin (Mar 10, 2021)

Chaotic changes through the US history!


----------

