Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
why so? our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job, in my opinion.It appears that the Federalists need to revaluate their mission.it is the doctrinal mission of any federalist; it is the federal doctrine's mission statement.Two things.I am a federalist, this is my doctrinal mission: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.More divide and conquer bullshit? That all ya got?Any Thing and every Thing for the common defense but virtually nothing for the General Welfare, right wingers?
Y'all make it seem, like only helping the rich get richer faster, is capitally worth it, under our form of Capitalism.
The Preamble to the US Constitution does not have the force of law like the Constitution.
promote the general welfare does not mean monetary payments to anyone.
He was stupid enough to believe that 2 years ago too.Yeah and Hillary is going to be President!Loss of tax base and increased SALT. This primarily due to
Loss of swing/red state senate races due to energizing the GOP base with their mishandling of the Kavanaugh nomination.
The unraveling of the witch hunt due to declassification. In addition to reputational damage some Elected Ds will be rolled over on by Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein et al. The bright side for the Ds is that due to gerrymandering there is little likelihood of permanent seat loss but that will be rough on their leadership in both houses.
If the unconstitutionality of sanctuary status is up held on appeal many of their state and local officials will be in big trouble.
Are there other blowbacks that I missed?
The Democrats will take control of the House next month and possibly the Senate.
why do you believe that? maybe some on the left simply don't understand that the Use of mere socialism, is to be for that which is Expressly enumerated.So, that means Federal Power is unlimited?The Power to provide for the General Welfare is General; it means whatever Congress says it means, as long as it provides for the general welfare.
That's the refrain. If we interpret the general welfare clause that way, there's really no need for the rest of the Constitution.
why do you believe that? maybe some on the left simply don't understand that the Use of mere socialism, is to be for that which is Expressly enumerated.
we have a Bill of Rights; what is not covered?
yes they did, but they also held a very deep and firm conviction that there is no need so great that the members could or should vote from the national treasury to support a person, organization, or group.why so? our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job, in my opinion.It appears that the Federalists need to revaluate their mission.it is the doctrinal mission of any federalist; it is the federal doctrine's mission statement.Two things.I am a federalist, this is my doctrinal mission: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.More divide and conquer bullshit? That all ya got?
The Preamble to the US Constitution does not have the force of law like the Constitution.
promote the general welfare does not mean monetary payments to anyone.
there is no power to provide for the general warfare or common offense in our federal Constitution.He was stupid enough to believe that 2 years ago too.Yeah and Hillary is going to be President!Loss of tax base and increased SALT. This primarily due to
Loss of swing/red state senate races due to energizing the GOP base with their mishandling of the Kavanaugh nomination.
The unraveling of the witch hunt due to declassification. In addition to reputational damage some Elected Ds will be rolled over on by Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein et al. The bright side for the Ds is that due to gerrymandering there is little likelihood of permanent seat loss but that will be rough on their leadership in both houses.
If the unconstitutionality of sanctuary status is up held on appeal many of their state and local officials will be in big trouble.
Are there other blowbacks that I missed?
The Democrats will take control of the House next month and possibly the Senate.
The Republican Party must be pretty stupid too
The GOP Just Cut Bait on Four Republican Incumbents Running in Tight Races
It will probably be a dud.
Most people in favor of that movement have jobs, families, and other responsibilities. Not to say that anyone protesting on the left does NOT have jobs, families, etc., it just seems like the left always has people with availability to protest.
no argument? merely unsubstantiated opinion?why do you believe that? maybe some on the left simply don't understand that the Use of mere socialism, is to be for that which is Expressly enumerated.
we have a Bill of Rights; what is not covered?
Daniel, I'm not gonna wade through your stoner horseshit.
/—-/ Has anyone else noticed the Muller investigation has faded away from the news? Wonder if he’s slithering away in disgraceLoss of tax base and increased SALT. This primarily due to
Loss of swing/red state senate races due to energizing the GOP base with their mishandling of the Kavanaugh nomination.
The unraveling of the witch hunt due to declassification. In addition to reputational damage some Elected Ds will be rolled over on by Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein et al. The bright side for the Ds is that due to gerrymandering there is little likelihood of permanent seat loss but that will be rough on their leadership in both houses.
If the unconstitutionality of sanctuary status is up held on appeal many of their state and local officials will be in big trouble.
Are there other blowbacks that I missed?
i am the federalist, not You.yes they did, but they also held a very deep and firm conviction that there is no need so great that the members could or should vote from the national treasury to support a person, organization, or group.why so? our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job, in my opinion.It appears that the Federalists need to revaluate their mission.it is the doctrinal mission of any federalist; it is the federal doctrine's mission statement.Two things.I am a federalist, this is my doctrinal mission: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.
The Preamble to the US Constitution does not have the force of law like the Constitution.
promote the general welfare does not mean monetary payments to anyone.
To them the general welfare did not mean giving of the treasury, but supporting the institutions and concepts the help and keep us free. By free, that pertains to the Bill of Rights and against foreign invasion.
An example would be, an army is amassing on one of our borders. They would form an army which consisted of volunteer and conscripted regulars and state militias and fight to repel the invaders because that would promote the general welfare of the nation.
State treasuries would benefit from higher paid labor paying more in taxes and creating more in demand; it is a left wing goal.Thanks for turning up a blowback I missed. Since most state income taxes are stated as a percentage of federal income tax there is much greater incentive to bug out than I acc
what charts are you reading?/—-/ Has anyone else noticed the Muller investigation has faded away from the news? Wonder if he’s slithering away in disgraceLoss of tax base and increased SALT. This primarily due to
Loss of swing/red state senate races due to energizing the GOP base with their mishandling of the Kavanaugh nomination.
The unraveling of the witch hunt due to declassification. In addition to reputational damage some Elected Ds will be rolled over on by Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein et al. The bright side for the Ds is that due to gerrymandering there is little likelihood of permanent seat loss but that will be rough on their leadership in both houses.
If the unconstitutionality of sanctuary status is up held on appeal many of their state and local officials will be in big trouble.
Are there other blowbacks that I missed?
It is so broad as to be specific. You can claim to be a federalist, that does not alter the fact that the phrase "general welfare' is not a license for the federal government to do as it pleases.i am the federalist, not You.yes they did, but they also held a very deep and firm conviction that there is no need so great that the members could or should vote from the national treasury to support a person, organization, or group.why so? our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job, in my opinion.It appears that the Federalists need to revaluate their mission.it is the doctrinal mission of any federalist; it is the federal doctrine's mission statement.Two things.
The Preamble to the US Constitution does not have the force of law like the Constitution.
promote the general welfare does not mean monetary payments to anyone.
To them the general welfare did not mean giving of the treasury, but supporting the institutions and concepts the help and keep us free. By free, that pertains to the Bill of Rights and against foreign invasion.
An example would be, an army is amassing on one of our borders. They would form an army which consisted of volunteer and conscripted regulars and state militias and fight to repel the invaders because that would promote the general welfare of the nation.
The power to provide for the general welfare is general, not major, specific, or common under our common law.
Congress is delegated the Power to Tax to Solve any given problem of our Republic.It is so broad as to be specific. You can claim to be a federalist, that does not alter the fact that the phrase "general welfare' is not a license for the federal government to do as it pleases.i am the federalist, not You.yes they did, but they also held a very deep and firm conviction that there is no need so great that the members could or should vote from the national treasury to support a person, organization, or group.why so? our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job, in my opinion.It appears that the Federalists need to revaluate their mission.it is the doctrinal mission of any federalist; it is the federal doctrine's mission statement.
To them the general welfare did not mean giving of the treasury, but supporting the institutions and concepts the help and keep us free. By free, that pertains to the Bill of Rights and against foreign invasion.
An example would be, an army is amassing on one of our borders. They would form an army which consisted of volunteer and conscripted regulars and state militias and fight to repel the invaders because that would promote the general welfare of the nation.
The power to provide for the general welfare is general, not major, specific, or common under our common law.
Let's try to remember the purpose and function of each aspect of our government. The Federal government has no authority to act in areas of social issues, those are the purview of the States. The feds are to act as arbiters in disputes between the States, and as a national defense, with the President acting as our spokesperson to the world.
Well, no. They do have the power to levy tax, but they are still constrained by the Constitution. This kind of statement lends Me to believe that you think that every problem can be solved by government, or by just throwing enough money at it. That is fundamentally flawed.Congress is delegated the Power to Tax to Solve any given problem of our Republic.It is so broad as to be specific. You can claim to be a federalist, that does not alter the fact that the phrase "general welfare' is not a license for the federal government to do as it pleases.i am the federalist, not You.yes they did, but they also held a very deep and firm conviction that there is no need so great that the members could or should vote from the national treasury to support a person, organization, or group.why so? our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job, in my opinion.It appears that the Federalists need to revaluate their mission.
To them the general welfare did not mean giving of the treasury, but supporting the institutions and concepts the help and keep us free. By free, that pertains to the Bill of Rights and against foreign invasion.
An example would be, an army is amassing on one of our borders. They would form an army which consisted of volunteer and conscripted regulars and state militias and fight to repel the invaders because that would promote the general welfare of the nation.
The power to provide for the general welfare is general, not major, specific, or common under our common law.
Let's try to remember the purpose and function of each aspect of our government. The Federal government has no authority to act in areas of social issues, those are the purview of the States. The feds are to act as arbiters in disputes between the States, and as a national defense, with the President acting as our spokesperson to the world.
They are! Stupid as shit!He was stupid enough to believe that 2 years ago too.Yeah and Hillary is going to be President!Loss of tax base and increased SALT. This primarily due to
Loss of swing/red state senate races due to energizing the GOP base with their mishandling of the Kavanaugh nomination.
The unraveling of the witch hunt due to declassification. In addition to reputational damage some Elected Ds will be rolled over on by Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein et al. The bright side for the Ds is that due to gerrymandering there is little likelihood of permanent seat loss but that will be rough on their leadership in both houses.
If the unconstitutionality of sanctuary status is up held on appeal many of their state and local officials will be in big trouble.
Are there other blowbacks that I missed?
The Democrats will take control of the House next month and possibly the Senate.
The Republican Party must be pretty stupid too
The GOP Just Cut Bait on Four Republican Incumbents Running in Tight Races
"In order to" does not mean "law and order" or "in an orderly fashion." It means "so that" or "to make it possible."words are fundamental, right wingers. our federal doctrine is writing. Order is not anarchy or chaos.
lol. Yes, they are; limited by our federal Constitution. it is in writing.Well, no.Congress is delegated the Power to Tax to Solve any given problem of our Republic.It is so broad as to be specific. You can claim to be a federalist, that does not alter the fact that the phrase "general welfare' is not a license for the federal government to do as it pleases.i am the federalist, not You.yes they did, but they also held a very deep and firm conviction that there is no need so great that the members could or should vote from the national treasury to support a person, organization, or group.why so? our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job, in my opinion.
To them the general welfare did not mean giving of the treasury, but supporting the institutions and concepts the help and keep us free. By free, that pertains to the Bill of Rights and against foreign invasion.
An example would be, an army is amassing on one of our borders. They would form an army which consisted of volunteer and conscripted regulars and state militias and fight to repel the invaders because that would promote the general welfare of the nation.
The power to provide for the general welfare is general, not major, specific, or common under our common law.
Let's try to remember the purpose and function of each aspect of our government. The Federal government has no authority to act in areas of social issues, those are the purview of the States. The feds are to act as arbiters in disputes between the States, and as a national defense, with the President acting as our spokesperson to the world.
lol. i am the federalist, not You. i know my own doctrine."In order to" does not mean "law and order" or "in an orderly fashion." It means "so that" or "to make it possible."words are fundamental, right wingers. our federal doctrine is writing. Order is not anarchy or chaos.
You should not argue constitutional interpretation if you have such a limited of an understanding of proper English usage and meaning.
