Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are simply being disingenuous. They obviously did not express the general badfare nor the general malfare nor the general warfare. It does not inspire any confidence in your sincerity.And we're back to the question you are studiously trying to ignore. What did the writers of the Constitution mean by "general welfare"? Answer that and support your answer. We're not moving on until you do.However did you reach your conclusion? The preamble is our "mission statement" for our form of Government. Any ambiguities should be resolved pursuant to it. We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.The actual text of the Constitution outweighs the description of WHY the Constitution was created, found in the preamble.
Both promote and provide are terms used in reference to the welfare clause but not the defense clause.And what did they mean by the term, "general welfare"?Providing for the general welfare is an express power delegated to the general Government.What do you make of the tenth amendment, specifically the text, " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". Apparently, in your world it doesn't exist.
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.The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.That is your misconception. I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare. Any questions?Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
Automatic stabilization solutions now!Ah, California! Rapidly becoming the most unequal state in this former nation. The productive middle class taxed out. Jobs regulated out. Leaving the ultra-rich and the ultra-poor.
Wanna bet on which of those two classes will be next to take a hike?
I doubt he has ever read the Constitution. And if he has, he is too stupid to comprehend it.Incorrect. They are NOT examples, they are enumerated powers and the federal government is restricted to those powers. Everything else is reserved to the states and the people. Please quote the portion of the Constitution that specifies they are only examples.Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States. It really is that simple.Yes, we absolutely need to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility. Now, how does that relate to the federal government being restricted to specific enumerated powers and not having a blank check to do whatever it wants to do?this is what we are supposed to be doing:Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.Is that what they meant when they wrote it?Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution. We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
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.
You keep saying what they did not mean. I asked you what they meant and for you to support it. I tire of this, so will answer for you. Clearly you cannot do either of those, because we all know what they meant because we read the things they wrote about it. You are simply wrong, you have the most fallacies, and no one takes you seriously. Now, instead of just putting words together in nonsense sentences, you're making up words that also mean nothing. It's sad, really. Even a bot is more flexible.You are simply being disingenuous. They obviously did not express the general badfare nor the general malfare nor the general warfare. It does not inspire any confidence in your sincerity.And we're back to the question you are studiously trying to ignore. What did the writers of the Constitution mean by "general welfare"? Answer that and support your answer. We're not moving on until you do.However did you reach your conclusion? The preamble is our "mission statement" for our form of Government. Any ambiguities should be resolved pursuant to it. We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.The actual text of the Constitution outweighs the description of WHY the Constitution was created, found in the preamble.
And what did they mean by the term, "general welfare"?Both promote and provide are terms used in reference to the welfare clause but not the defense clause.And what did they mean by the term, "general welfare"?Providing for the general welfare is an express power delegated to the general Government.What do you make of the tenth amendment, specifically the text, " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". Apparently, in your world it doesn't exist.
Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.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.The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.That is your misconception. I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare. Any questions?Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
He's read nothing beyond a headline here or there and the parts taken out of context that some article he agrees with points at.I doubt he has ever read the Constitution. And if he has, he is too stupid to comprehend it.Incorrect. They are NOT examples, they are enumerated powers and the federal government is restricted to those powers. Everything else is reserved to the states and the people. Please quote the portion of the Constitution that specifies they are only examples.Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States. It really is that simple.Yes, we absolutely need to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility. Now, how does that relate to the federal government being restricted to specific enumerated powers and not having a blank check to do whatever it wants to do?this is what we are supposed to be doing:Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.Is that what they meant when they wrote it?Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution. We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.
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.
Keep pushing him and he will make up more words.Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare. Any questions?Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
You've officially lost it. Back up what you claim with contemporary writings or admit you have no clue.Y'all have nothing but Hoax not any valid arguments for rebuttal. Nothing but the affirmative action of the franchise; why are y'all such hypocrites when blacks do it?
Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.--The Federalist Number Forty-one
go ahead and look up the word and post it for us. i am not the one resorting to diversion or any other fallacies.You keep saying what they did not mean. I asked you what they meant and for you to support it. I tire of this, so will answer for you. Clearly you cannot do either of those, because we all know what they meant because we read the things they wrote about it. You are simply wrong, you have the most fallacies, and no one takes you seriously. Now, instead of just putting words together in nonsense sentences, you're making up words that also mean nothing. It's sad, really. Even a bot is more flexible.You are simply being disingenuous. They obviously did not express the general badfare nor the general malfare nor the general warfare. It does not inspire any confidence in your sincerity.And we're back to the question you are studiously trying to ignore. What did the writers of the Constitution mean by "general welfare"? Answer that and support your answer. We're not moving on until you do.However did you reach your conclusion? The preamble is our "mission statement" for our form of Government. Any ambiguities should be resolved pursuant to it. We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.The actual text of the Constitution outweighs the description of WHY the Constitution was created, found in the preamble.
And what did they mean by the term, "general welfare"?
Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.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.The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.That is your misconception. I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?
Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.
It doesn't matter what they said it means then. Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare. Any questions?Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.
Seriously, you really need a new schtick.
All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.
