bush's new book getting him into trouble (admitting to waterboarding)

[Sallow]

wrong. Someone else defined general welfare; it wasn't me.

However, you were asked for a constitutional justification and quoted the preamble. In order for your claim to be correct, you must provide case law that cited the preamble.

someone else defined general welfare; it wasn't me

our courts get to decide the constitutionality of our laws...not you

you're really not paying attention. I suggest you stop quoting the preamble to justify laws.

fyi

section 8 - powers of congress

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;

to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the indian tribes;

 

[Intense]

Explain it to the judge

Can you cite any case law that was decided on the Preamble?

General Welfare is not collecting a check every week or being forced to purchase expensive health insurance or face fines or imprisonment.

This is your claim. It is up to you to prove they are unconstitutional in a court of law

That is the way things work in this country

That is true. Officially, when the Court decides Up means Up, it actually does Officially, until an Appeal is Won, and the ruling changed or overturned. That is not something to take pride in, necessarily. Can you guess why Sparky?

Someday We will find the Spine to correct Injustices spawned by Invention and imagination, through the Amendment Process. Then you will only have your self to impose this crap on. No Food Stamps and Relief, did not exist in the Founding Times, not as a function of the Federal Government. That is Fact.

Amendment is an Alternative to the Court. Either one serves Justice, or one doesn't. Injustice may rule the day, but time will heal all wounds. The first step is to recognize abuse where we find it. The second is to shed light on it so that others may see. The Court is granted It's authority by the Constitution. The Constitution is granted it's Authority by the Consent of 75% of the People or more. Abuse the Trust, lose the support, plain and simple.

 

[rightwinger]

Wrong. Someone else defined general welfare; it wasn't me.

However, you were asked for a Constitutional justification and quoted the preamble. In order for your claim to be correct, you must provide case law that cited the preamble.

Someone else defined general welfare; it wasn't me

Our courts get to decide the constitutionality of our laws...not you

You're really not paying attention. I suggest you stop quoting the preamble to justify laws.

whispers to dave...

Its not just in the preamble

 

[Sallow]

if your legal department says that it isn't torture and you authorize it ...

did you break the law .....

if you sent people to another country and they "tortured" people but you "didn't know" what they were doing .....

did you break the law ....

Both are pretty sticky wickets aren't they..

There is no real way that Bush or even Cheney would see any prison time.

But that's not the point. Enacting legislation to make sure these sort of actions never (or are highly unlikely) repeated..is..

agreed....in the four years dems controled congress did they write such legislation....nope....

as i keep saying...both parties are scum...

I wouldn't go that far..it's awful hard to start these sort of things against a sitting President while engaged in conflict. Really bad form.

 

[daveman]

someone else defined general welfare; it wasn't me

our courts get to decide the constitutionality of our laws...not you

you're really not paying attention. I suggest you stop quoting the preamble to justify laws.

fyi

section 8 - powers of congress

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;

to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the indian tribes;

Ahem.

 

[daveman]

Someone else defined general welfare; it wasn't me

Our courts get to decide the constitutionality of our laws...not you

You're really not paying attention. I suggest you stop quoting the preamble to justify laws.

whispers to dave...

Its not just in the preamble

Ahem.

 

[Intense]

From Federalist #41. Madison

It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.

That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.

Federalist Papers: FEDERALIST No. 41

4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility;

Wow!!!!! That really jumps out at you!!!!! It Trumps All of the Other Functions of The Federal Government!!!!! Let' Bankrupt the Nation some more!!!!! Print up some more Food Stamps!!!!! The Government does not have enough Totalitarian power????? It still doesn't have enough????? What else must it betray, to attain the power it seeks RW?????

Who are you kidding?????

 

[Sallow]

Wrong. Someone else defined general welfare; it wasn't me.

However, you were asked for a Constitutional justification and quoted the preamble. In order for your claim to be correct, you must provide case law that cited the preamble.

It's not only in the preamble..it's under the powers of Congress.

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.


Ooops.

Perhaps if I code it using posix:

#!/bin/ksh
#This script provides for the general welfare

WELFARE=$(health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being)
CITIZENS=$(cat /scripts/oper/config/us_citizens_list)

for c in ${CITIZENS}
do
/usr/local/bin/fping -t250 ${c} >/dev/null 2>&1
if (($? == 0));then
print "This ${c} appears to be in trouble!! Using WELFARE function"
$WELFARE ${c}
else
print "This ${c} appears to be fine..exiting.."
fi
exit 0
done


Dunno..

 

[rightwinger]

You're really not paying attention. I suggest you stop quoting the preamble to justify laws.

whispers to dave...

Its not just in the preamble

Ahem.

Ahem.....our court system has been defining the scope of General Welfare for 200 years. Rightwingers trying to redefine it on message boards has no legal standing

 

[JakeStarkey]

daveman has the right to his opinion, but not to define standing law. This issue has already been long settled.

 

[rightwinger]

daveman has the right to his opinion, but not to define standing law. This issue has already been long settled.

As a citizen, Daveman has the right to challenge any of these laws in a court of law. That is the place where these interpretations are legally made

 

[Intense]

daveman has the right to his opinion, but not to define standing law. This issue has already been long settled.

Until it is overturned or Repealed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is so true, Intense, so please explain to daveman and the others they have no impact on this matter other than flapping their lips.

 

[daveman]

It's not only in the preamble..it's under the powers of Congress.

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.


Ooops.

Perhaps if I code it using posix:

#!/bin/ksh
#This script provides for the general welfare

WELFARE=$(health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being)
CITIZENS=$(cat /scripts/oper/config/us_citizens_list)

for c in ${CITIZENS}
do
/usr/local/bin/fping -t250 ${c} >/dev/null 2>&1
if (($? == 0));then
print "This ${c} appears to be in trouble!! Using WELFARE function"
$WELFARE ${c}
else
print "This ${c} appears to be fine..exiting.."
fi
exit 0
done


Dunno..

Perhaps if you stop assuming that the use of the word welfare in the Constitution doesn't mean giving tax money to people who can work but won't in exchange for their dutifully pulling the D lever.

Dunno...

 

[daveman]

whispers to dave...

Its not just in the preamble

Ahem.

Ahem.....our court system has been defining the scope of General Welfare for 200 years. Rightwingers trying to redefine it on message boards has no legal standing

Yes, unfortunately, the Democratic Party's practice of vote-buying has been codified into law.

Because, hey, if you can't convince people to vote for you based on your ideals, buy 'em off. Right?

 

[daveman]

daveman has the right to his opinion, but not to define standing law. This issue has already been long settled.

It's funny, the way you claim to be a moderate Republican when all evidence says you're a moonbat.

 

[daveman]

That is so true, Intense, so please explain to daveman and the others they have no impact on this matter other than flapping their lips.

Well, if anyone's an expert on lip-flapping around here, it'd be Jake his ownself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your lips are flapping, daveman, and your comments are so useless.

 

[daveman]

Your lips are flapping, daveman, and your comments are so useless.

Then I suggest you put me on Ignore, since you have so much difficulty with conflicting views.

If you want an echo chamber, I suggest DemocraticUnderground. You'll find loads of like-minded people there.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Flap flap flap . . . flap flap ... did I say flap flap flap? You are so unoriginal.