California embodies left-wing misery

[danielpalos]

The actual text of the Constitution outweighs the description of WHY the Constitution was created, found in the preamble.

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.

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.

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.

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.

go ahead and look up the word and post it for us. i am not the one resorting to diversion or any other fallacies.

welfare, what does it mean to you and what does a dictionary say it means?

No, not welfare in the general sense or what it might mean to you today. "General welfare", as written in the Constitution. We posted several quotes from the people who wrote it explaining what it meant and what it didn't mean.

Our federal Constitution applies and has to be applied today. The powers are general enough to handle it.

Of course. The actual meaning still applies. The federal government does not have unlimited power. Even Joe Biden understands that. Too bad you don't.

That is Your red herring. I understand the difference between the general welfare and the general badfare.

 

[hadit]

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?

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.

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.

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.

Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.

Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.

What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.

Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.

Only the right wing never gets it. Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.

The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.

All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.

You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.

You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.

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.

They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.

Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.

It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

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 doesn't matter what they said it means then. Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.

It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.

Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.

We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.

It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

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.

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.

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.

Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.

Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.

What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.

Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.

Only the right wing never gets it. Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.

The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.

Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.

New cities in more optimum locations!

 

[hadit]

The actual text of the Constitution outweighs the description of WHY the Constitution was created, found in the preamble.

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.

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.

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.

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.

go ahead and look up the word and post it for us. i am not the one resorting to diversion or any other fallacies.

welfare, what does it mean to you and what does a dictionary say it means?

No, not welfare in the general sense or what it might mean to you today. "General welfare", as written in the Constitution. We posted several quotes from the people who wrote it explaining what it meant and what it didn't mean.

Our federal Constitution applies and has to be applied today. The powers are general enough to handle it.

Of course. The actual meaning still applies. The federal government does not have unlimited power. Even Joe Biden understands that. Too bad you don't.

That is Your red herring. I understand the difference between the general welfare and the general badfare.

Irrelevant. The power of the federal government is limited, even if you make up words that don't exist.

 

[hadit]

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?

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.

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.

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.

Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.

Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.

What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.

Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.

Only the right wing never gets it. Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.

The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.

Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.

New cities in more optimum locations!

Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.

 

[hadit]

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.

Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.

All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.

You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.

You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.

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.

They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.

Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.

It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

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 doesn't matter what they said it means then. Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.

It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.

Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.

We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.

It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.

Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

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.

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.

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.

Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.

Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.

What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.

Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.

Only the right wing never gets it. Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.

The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.

Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.

New cities in more optimum locations!

Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.

We can also use a federal research university system.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.

All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.

You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.

You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.

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.

They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.

Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.

It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

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 doesn't matter what they said it means then. Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.

It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.

Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.

We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.

It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.

Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.

My position is a self-evident truth based on modern times.

 

[Dick Foster]

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?

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.

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.

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.

Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.

Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.

What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.

Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.

Only the right wing never gets it. Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.

The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.

Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.

New cities in more optimum locations!

Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.

Actually the federal government has did indeed built several cities during WWII the construction of Hoover dam etc.

 

[hadit]

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?

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.

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.

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.

Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.

Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.

What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.

Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.

Only the right wing never gets it. Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.

The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.

Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.

New cities in more optimum locations!

Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.

Actually the federal government has did indeed built several cities during WWII the construction of Hoover dam etc.

1. Wartime allows the government more leeway to do things.
2. The federal government has done many things it is not explicitly authorized to do. See Abraham Lincoln.

 

[hadit]

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.

Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.

All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.

You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.

You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.

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.

They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.

Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.

It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

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 doesn't matter what they said it means then. Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.

It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.

Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.

We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.

It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.

Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.

My position is a self-evident truth based on modern times.

IOW you can't support your assertion that "general welfare" meant what you wish it did when it was written.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

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.

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.

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.

Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.

Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.

What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.

Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.

Only the right wing never gets it. Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.

The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.

Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.

New cities in more optimum locations!

Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.

Actually the federal government has did indeed built several cities during WWII the construction of Hoover dam etc.

1. Wartime allows the government more leeway to do things.
2. The federal government has done many things it is not explicitly authorized to do. See Abraham Lincoln.

Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited as implied by the right wing.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.

All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.

You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.

You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.

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.

They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.

Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.

It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

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 doesn't matter what they said it means then. Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.

It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.

Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.

We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.

It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.

Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.

My position is a self-evident truth based on modern times.

IOW you can't support your assertion that "general welfare" meant what you wish it did when it was written.

The terms used have not been re-defined by the passage of time.

The common defense was never intended to be a common offense or common warfare clause.

 

[hadit]

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.

Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.

All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.

You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.

You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.

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.

They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.

Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.

It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

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 doesn't matter what they said it means then. Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.

It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.

Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.

We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.

It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.

Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.

My position is a self-evident truth based on modern times.

IOW you can't support your assertion that "general welfare" meant what you wish it did when it was written.

The terms used have not been re-defined by the passage of time.

The common defense was never intended to be a common offense or common warfare clause.

Then you should have no problem finding things written by the people who put the "general welfare" term into the Constitution that make it clear the federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants in the name of the "general welfare". Can you do that?

 

[hadit]

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?

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.

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.

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.

Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.

Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.

What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.

Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.

Only the right wing never gets it. Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.

The power of the federal government is limited, even for the "general welfare". Admit it.

Of course it must limited to what is necessary and proper.

New cities in more optimum locations!

Nope, the federal government cannot build cities. That is a state function and authority.

Actually the federal government has did indeed built several cities during WWII the construction of Hoover dam etc.

1. Wartime allows the government more leeway to do things.
2. The federal government has done many things it is not explicitly authorized to do. See Abraham Lincoln.

Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited as implied by the right wing.

Can you find evidence that the writers of the Constitution intended it to be unlimited? That's been your challenge this whole time, and thus far you have failed miserably to do so.

 

[P@triot]

gossip, hearsay, and soothsay is all you have not any valid (legal) arguments.

How is that relevant? You do the same thing every time.

Well he is a Chinese disinformation troll. They are paid by the post and are referred to as the 50 Cent Army (due to what they are paid per post). He's not interested in facts. He's interested in posting as much propaganda as possible.

Y'all have nothing but fallacy, trolls masquerading as hypocrites.

Well I exposed you, didn't I?

 

[Nostra]

Why are you fellas wasting your time on this troll?

 

[hadit]

Why are you fellas wasting your time on this troll?

It's fun watching him do exactly what we predict.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.

All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.

You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.

You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.

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.

They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.

Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.

It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

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 doesn't matter what they said it means then. Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.

It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.

Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.

We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.

It is not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare; the general welfare must be available from what is left.

Post quotes from the writers of the Constitution that support your position.

My position is a self-evident truth based on modern times.

IOW you can't support your assertion that "general welfare" meant what you wish it did when it was written.

The terms used have not been re-defined by the passage of time.

The common defense was never intended to be a common offense or common warfare clause.

Then you should have no problem finding things written by the people who put the "general welfare" term into the Constitution that make it clear the federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants in the name of the "general welfare". Can you do that?

No one is claiming that. Promoting and providing for the general welfare means there is no provision for excuses. General solutions from the top down must be found.