How do we stop "the poor" from being so problematic?

[danielpalos]

The rights solution: Throw the bums onto the street....If they have enough money then they can get a education but if not = fuck you.

That is a sure bet that we will have a much larger lower class and little to no middle class.....All the right cares about is the 1-2% on the top...The right is evil.

No dimwit, the rights solution is for the federal government to stop sucking 25+% of the countries life blood to waste on inefficient and largely ineffective bullshit programs so the States can have the money available to take care of their own.

Why can we pay for a war on drugs, but not the general welfare?

It falls under the commerce clause.


.

Prohibition is not Commerce, well regulated.

 

[Flopper]

These are the general social Powers delegated to our federal 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;"

Sorry but the Constitution does not say provide for the general welfare at all.

How poor do the poor have to be before they stop eating bon bons and go to work?

Giving the poor money guarantees that they will have more and greater needs to be met next time. They will be more creatively poor next time.

"And" between "common defense" and "general welfare" compounds the two phrases so if the verb "provide" applies to "common defense" which it obviously does, then it must also apply to "general welfare". Therefore the meaning must be "proved for the common defense" and "provide for the general welfare" There is no other way to correctly interpret the sentence.

The framer's intent as a method of interpretation is nothing but the living constitution method of interpretation collapsed over a shorter time span. The framers of the constitution a few years after it went into effect began to see how it should have been written so it would be more applicable to the world at that time. It seems very likely that if Jefferson or Madison had lived two hundred years then there interpretation would be skewed by the world as it was at that time and we would be referring to their view of the constitution as a a living constitution.

 

[OKTexas]

Except general welfare and common defense weren't general powers, they were spending categories just like paying the existing debt. The were limited in the remainder of the paragraph to specific powers that were to be paid for.

Dear, these are the specific enumerations of those general social Powers:

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;
​

Where are you getting your right wing fantasy from?

I posted where the guy that wrote it says otherwise. So did the folks that debated it in the convention.

I doubt you have the capacity to actually read this, but give it a try.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: James Madison to Andrew Stevenson

We don't have a common offense clause nor a general warfare clause; why can we spend tax monies on alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, but not the general welfare?

There are a lot of powers granted toward the General Welfare:
To borrow money and pay the Nations debts
To regulate commerce between our Nation and Foreign Nations
To regulate commerce between the States
To regulate commerce with Indian Tribes
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization
To establish a uniform rule for bankruptcies
To coin money and regulate its value
To regulate the value of foreign coin
To fix the standards of weights and measures
To provide for the punishment of the counterfeiting of securities
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting money
To establish Post Offices
To establish Post roads
To Promote the sciences and useful arts by providing patents and copyrights.
To constitute courts inferior to the Supreme Court
To define and punish Piracies and felonies on the high seas
To punish offenses against the Law of Nations

If you notice they are all to benefit the Union as a whole, none are directed at individual States or the People which are States responsibilities.

James Madison the father of our Constitution explained it this way:

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. James Madison Federalist 45

That was the understanding of the people who initially ratified the Constitution, if you want it done differently, see Article 5.

I have noticed that the drug war provides for the general badfare, not the general welfare. We do not have a common offense clause nor a general warfare clause.

Really, it doesn't bother me a bit, I see you've ran out of any reasonable arguments.

 

[OKTexas]

The rights solution: Throw the bums onto the street....If they have enough money then they can get a education but if not = fuck you.

That is a sure bet that we will have a much larger lower class and little to no middle class.....All the right cares about is the 1-2% on the top...The right is evil.

No dimwit, the rights solution is for the federal government to stop sucking 25+% of the countries life blood to waste on inefficient and largely ineffective bullshit programs so the States can have the money available to take care of their own.

Why can we pay for a war on drugs, but not the general welfare?

It falls under the commerce clause.


.

Prohibition is not Commerce, well regulated.

It doesn't say "well regulated", it says "To regulate". It also doesn't prohibit all drugs, just some drugs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

These are the general social Powers delegated to our federal 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;"

Sorry but the Constitution does not say provide for the general welfare at all.

How poor do the poor have to be before they stop eating bon bons and go to work?

Giving the poor money guarantees that they will have more and greater needs to be met next time. They will be more creatively poor next time.

"And" between "common defense" and "general welfare" compounds the two phrases so if the verb "provide" applies to "common defense" which it obviously does, then it must also apply to "general welfare". Therefore the meaning must be "proved for the common defense" and "provide for the general welfare" There is no other way to correctly interpret the sentence.

The framer's intent as a method of interpretation is nothing but the living constitution method of interpretation collapsed over a shorter time span. The framers of the constitution a few years after it went into effect began to see how it should have been written so it would be more applicable to the world at that time. It seems very likely that if Jefferson or Madison had lived two hundred years then there interpretation would be skewed by the world as it was at that time and we would be referring to their view of the constitution as a a living constitution.

They knew fully well times would change. That's why there is an amendment process.

If the US Constitution was intended to be a living document, then why have a Constitution in the first place?

 

[danielpalos]

Dear, these are the specific enumerations of those general social Powers:

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;
​

Where are you getting your right wing fantasy from?

I posted where the guy that wrote it says otherwise. So did the folks that debated it in the convention.

I doubt you have the capacity to actually read this, but give it a try.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: James Madison to Andrew Stevenson

We don't have a common offense clause nor a general warfare clause; why can we spend tax monies on alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, but not the general welfare?

There are a lot of powers granted toward the General Welfare:
To borrow money and pay the Nations debts
To regulate commerce between our Nation and Foreign Nations
To regulate commerce between the States
To regulate commerce with Indian Tribes
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization
To establish a uniform rule for bankruptcies
To coin money and regulate its value
To regulate the value of foreign coin
To fix the standards of weights and measures
To provide for the punishment of the counterfeiting of securities
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting money
To establish Post Offices
To establish Post roads
To Promote the sciences and useful arts by providing patents and copyrights.
To constitute courts inferior to the Supreme Court
To define and punish Piracies and felonies on the high seas
To punish offenses against the Law of Nations

If you notice they are all to benefit the Union as a whole, none are directed at individual States or the People which are States responsibilities.

James Madison the father of our Constitution explained it this way:

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. James Madison Federalist 45

That was the understanding of the people who initially ratified the Constitution, if you want it done differently, see Article 5.

I have noticed that the drug war provides for the general badfare, not the general welfare. We do not have a common offense clause nor a general warfare clause.

Really, it doesn't bother me a bit, I see you've ran out of any reasonable arguments.

There is no power to provide for the general badfare.

 

[danielpalos]

The rights solution: Throw the bums onto the street....If they have enough money then they can get a education but if not = fuck you.

That is a sure bet that we will have a much larger lower class and little to no middle class.....All the right cares about is the 1-2% on the top...The right is evil.

No dimwit, the rights solution is for the federal government to stop sucking 25+% of the countries life blood to waste on inefficient and largely ineffective bullshit programs so the States can have the money available to take care of their own.

Why can we pay for a war on drugs, but not the general welfare?

It falls under the commerce clause.


.

Prohibition is not Commerce, well regulated.

It doesn't say "well regulated", it says "To regulate". It also doesn't prohibit all drugs, just some drugs.

did you forget your, gun lover catechism? to regulate means, to "make regular".

 

[OKTexas]

No dimwit, the rights solution is for the federal government to stop sucking 25+% of the countries life blood to waste on inefficient and largely ineffective bullshit programs so the States can have the money available to take care of their own.

Why can we pay for a war on drugs, but not the general welfare?

It falls under the commerce clause.


.

Prohibition is not Commerce, well regulated.

It doesn't say "well regulated", it says "To regulate". It also doesn't prohibit all drugs, just some drugs.

did you forget your, gun lover catechism? to regulate means, to "make regular".

You must be one of those brain dead dopers, you seem to lack the ability to understand anything beyond your next fix. We're done.

 

[danielpalos]

Why can we pay for a war on drugs, but not the general welfare?

It falls under the commerce clause.


.

Prohibition is not Commerce, well regulated.

It doesn't say "well regulated", it says "To regulate". It also doesn't prohibit all drugs, just some drugs.

did you forget your, gun lover catechism? to regulate means, to "make regular".

You must be one of those brain dead dopers, you seem to lack the ability to understand anything beyond your next fix. We're done.

to regulate means, to "make regular".

 

[OKTexas]

It falls under the commerce clause.


.

Prohibition is not Commerce, well regulated.

It doesn't say "well regulated", it says "To regulate". It also doesn't prohibit all drugs, just some drugs.

did you forget your, gun lover catechism? to regulate means, to "make regular".

You must be one of those brain dead dopers, you seem to lack the ability to understand anything beyond your next fix. We're done.

to regulate means, to "make regular".

No shit, cpt obvious. BYE

 

[danielpalos]

Prohibition is not Commerce, well regulated.

It doesn't say "well regulated", it says "To regulate". It also doesn't prohibit all drugs, just some drugs.

did you forget your, gun lover catechism? to regulate means, to "make regular".

You must be one of those brain dead dopers, you seem to lack the ability to understand anything beyond your next fix. We're done.

to regulate means, to "make regular".

No shit, cpt obvious. BYE

Now apply it to our Commerce Clause, Lieutenant Les Obvious.

 

[Flopper]

These are the general social Powers delegated to our federal 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;"

Sorry but the Constitution does not say provide for the general welfare at all.

How poor do the poor have to be before they stop eating bon bons and go to work?

Giving the poor money guarantees that they will have more and greater needs to be met next time. They will be more creatively poor next time.

"And" between "common defense" and "general welfare" compounds the two phrases so if the verb "provide" applies to "common defense" which it obviously does, then it must also apply to "general welfare". Therefore the meaning must be "proved for the common defense" and "provide for the general welfare" There is no other way to correctly interpret the sentence.

The framer's intent as a method of interpretation is nothing but the living constitution method of interpretation collapsed over a shorter time span. The framers of the constitution a few years after it went into effect began to see how it should have been written so it would be more applicable to the world at that time. It seems very likely that if Jefferson or Madison had lived two hundred years then there interpretation would be skewed by the world as it was at that time and we would be referring to their view of the constitution as a a living constitution.

They knew fully well times would change. That's why there is an amendment process.

If the US Constitution was intended to be a living document, then why have a Constitution in the first place?

A good question. A constitution is a higher form of law or a set of principals on which laws are based. Governments can be formed without constitutions. There are a number of countries that have no constitution. To name a few, there's Great Britain, Israel, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Poland, Canada...

A constitution should not be looked at as if were the 10 commandments written in stone. To be successful, it must be both stable and flexible. We in the United States are accustomed to a single-document of relatively rigid constitution. It is rigid in that it can be formally changed only by amendment or replacement entirely. Flexibility is achieved through decisions made by the legislature, by the chief executive, and by the courts, all of which do introduce flexibility.

The US constitution consist of principals and what the founders believe at the time as important rules for running a government. As constitutions go, it's rather small, only about 4500 words. The constitution of India is over 145,000 and the constitution of Monaco is only 3500 words. This highlights a key philosophical difference in constitutions, some are only basic principals and other filled with every rule that the founders believe would be needed, and still other are hybrid between the two.
What is a constitution and what is its purpose?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A good question. A constitution is a higher form of law or a set of principals on which laws are based.

No, it's actually not a good question when the answer is so simple. The founders never meant it to be a living document.

 

[Flopper]

A good question. A constitution is a higher form of law or a set of principals on which laws are based.

No, it's actually not a good question when the answer is so simple. The founders never meant it to be a living document.

Regardless of what they meant, that's how it turned out. As the years passed Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Hamilton and others began telling us what they believed about taxes, government spending, and other topics. There comments were made within the context of their experiences and the changes that were taking place in world and the country at that time. This was the beginning of the concept of a living constitution. Thomas Jefferson presented the idea of evolving Constitutional interpretations in 1816. Since then the congress, the executive branch and courts have been interpreting the constitution in such a way as to provide what the country needed at the time rather than providing what the constitution authorized.

There is little argument that the nation needs roads and highways that link the nation together. However, there is little in the constitution to support that type of project. In fact, Madison vetoed such a bill in 1817 because building roads was not part of the enumerated powers and thus not the responsibility of the federal government.

By 1924 it became clear that a single, unified system of highways in US was necessary which resulted in the Highway Act of 1925. Using federal funds to build roads was just as unconstitutional in 1925 as it was 1817. Congress justified the bill with the commerce clause which Madison had rejected. The Interstate highway system later was justified as providing for common defense. We have been making novel interpretations of the constitution and stretching it well beyond what the founders intended for last two hundred years. We will continue to do so because amending the constitution has become more and more difficult. The last amendment to the constitution took 203 years to ratify and all it did was change the the date that a congressmen's salary took effect.

 

[OKTexas]

A good question. A constitution is a higher form of law or a set of principals on which laws are based.

No, it's actually not a good question when the answer is so simple. The founders never meant it to be a living document.

Regardless of what they meant, that's how it turned out. As the years passed Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Hamilton and others began telling us what they believed about taxes, government spending, and other topics. There comments were made within the context of their experiences and the changes that were taking place in world and the country at that time. This was the beginning of the concept of a living constitution. Thomas Jefferson presented the idea of evolving Constitutional interpretations in 1816. Since then the congress, the executive branch and courts have been interpreting the constitution in such a way as to provide what the country needed at the time rather than providing what the constitution authorized.

There is little argument that the nation needs roads and highways that link the nation together. However, there is little in the constitution to support that type of project. In fact, Madison vetoed such a bill in 1817 because building roads was not part of the enumerated powers and thus not the responsibility of the federal government.

By 1924 it became clear that a single, unified system of highways in US was necessary which resulted in the Highway Act of 1925. Using federal funds to build roads was just as unconstitutional in 1925 as it was 1817. Congress justified the bill with the commerce clause which Madison had rejected. The Interstate highway system later was justified as providing for common defense. We have been making novel interpretations of the constitution and stretching it well beyond what the founders intended for last two hundred years. We will continue to do so because amending the constitution has become more and more difficult. The last amendment to the constitution took 203 years to ratify and all it did was change the the date that a congressmen's salary took effect.

Jefferson seemed pretty firm on the general welfare clause in the letters I posted form 1817 and 1825. See post #1012.

 

[EverCurious]

Might want to read the Federal Highway Act of 1956 before spouting off about why the Fed's funded the interstate.

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, popularly known as the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act (Public Law 84-627), was enacted on June 29, 1956, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the bill into law. With an original authorization of US$25 billion for the construction of 41,000 miles (66,000 km) of the Interstate Highway System supposedly over a 10-year period, it was the largest public works project in American history through that time. The addition of the term "defense" in the act's title was for two reasons: First, some of the original cost was diverted from defense funds. Secondly, most U.S. Air Force bases have a direct link to the system. The purpose was to provide access in order to defend them during an attack. All of these links were in the original plans, although some, such as Wright Patterson were not connected up in the 1950s, but only somewhat later. The money for the Interstate Highway and Defense Highways was handled in a Highway Trust Fund that paid for 90 percent of highway construction costs with the states required to pay the remaining 10 percent. It was expected that the money would be generated through new taxes on fuel, automobiles, trucks, and tires. As a matter of practice, the federal portion of the cost of the Interstate Highway System has been paid for by taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel.

Eisenhower's support of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 can be directly attributed to his experiences in 1919 as a participant in the U.S. Army's first Transcontinental Motor Convoy across the United States on the historic Lincoln Highway, which was the first road across America. The highly publicized 1919 convoy was intended, in part, to dramatize the need for better main highways and continued federal aid. The convoy left the Ellipse south of the White House in Washington, D.C., on July 7, 1919, and headed for Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. From there, it followed the Lincoln Highway to San Francisco. Bridges cracked and were rebuilt, vehicles became stuck in mud and equipment broke, but the convoy was greeted warmly by communities across the country. The convoy reached San Francisco on September 6, 1919. The convoy was memorable enough for a young Army officer, 28-year-old Lieutenant Colonel Dwight David Eisenhower, to include a chapter about the trip, titled "Through Darkest America With Truck and Tank," in his book At Ease: Stories I Tell to Friends (Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1967). "The trip had been difficult, tiring and fun," he said. That experience on the Lincoln Highway, plus his observations of the German autobahn network during World War II, convinced him to support construction of the Interstate System when he became president. "The old convoy had started me thinking about good, two-lane highways, but Germany had made me see the wisdom of broader ribbons across the land." His "Grand Plan" for highways, announced in 1954, led to the 1956 legislative breakthrough that created the Highway Trust Fund to accelerate construction of the Interstate System.

Eisenhower advocated for the highways for the purpose of national defense. In the event of a ground invasion by a foreign power, the U.S. Army would need good highways to be able to transport troops across the country efficiently. Following completion of the highways the cross-country journey that took the convoy two months in 1919 was cut down to five days.



Additional information - Highway Trust Fund Highway Trust Fund - Wikipedia note how the politicians have been hiding from you that this fund is falling apart - aka why the roads are going to shit, aka infrastructure that no one [*cough*Obama*cough*Bush*cough*) will address because they want votes, so they keep sluffing it off on the next administration... Another one of the things I hope President Trump will actually try to fix. Being an Alaskan our entire highway system was built for the military, I know the importance of it's maintenance for our boys ability to protect the nation. (I've been unable to get home many times because of accidents, avalanches, and even extreme weather events because there is only one highway up here.) It is imperative that our military be able to shift forces from one side of the nation to the other in the event of invasion or attack. Without the highway system we end up with things like the Japanese taking over the Attu and Kiska Islands - sure minor because it was generically uninhabited Alaska, but imagine if some enemy military force landed somewhere in the lower 48 and our highways couldn't support the weight of a tank to route them? This is why federal funding of highways was important enough for Alaska to break her State Constitution (re marijuana) because we're a military state and we know how critical those highways are to our boys (and more so up here.) We are a military state first and foremost, choices we made, choices and sacrifices yet again on the behalf of our vets (who were, and to a point still are, the major force behind legalization up here.)

 

[Snouter]

Mandatory sterilization for anyone under 50 who exists because of taxpayer support and for all felons.

 

[danielpalos]

Might want to read the Federal Highway Act of 1956 before spouting off about why the Fed's funded the interstate.

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, popularly known as the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act (Public Law 84-627), was enacted on June 29, 1956, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the bill into law. With an original authorization of US$25 billion for the construction of 41,000 miles (66,000 km) of the Interstate Highway System supposedly over a 10-year period, it was the largest public works project in American history through that time. The addition of the term "defense" in the act's title was for two reasons: First, some of the original cost was diverted from defense funds. Secondly, most U.S. Air Force bases have a direct link to the system. The purpose was to provide access in order to defend them during an attack. All of these links were in the original plans, although some, such as Wright Patterson were not connected up in the 1950s, but only somewhat later. The money for the Interstate Highway and Defense Highways was handled in a Highway Trust Fund that paid for 90 percent of highway construction costs with the states required to pay the remaining 10 percent. It was expected that the money would be generated through new taxes on fuel, automobiles, trucks, and tires. As a matter of practice, the federal portion of the cost of the Interstate Highway System has been paid for by taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel.

Eisenhower's support of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 can be directly attributed to his experiences in 1919 as a participant in the U.S. Army's first Transcontinental Motor Convoy across the United States on the historic Lincoln Highway, which was the first road across America. The highly publicized 1919 convoy was intended, in part, to dramatize the need for better main highways and continued federal aid. The convoy left the Ellipse south of the White House in Washington, D.C., on July 7, 1919, and headed for Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. From there, it followed the Lincoln Highway to San Francisco. Bridges cracked and were rebuilt, vehicles became stuck in mud and equipment broke, but the convoy was greeted warmly by communities across the country. The convoy reached San Francisco on September 6, 1919. The convoy was memorable enough for a young Army officer, 28-year-old Lieutenant Colonel Dwight David Eisenhower, to include a chapter about the trip, titled "Through Darkest America With Truck and Tank," in his book At Ease: Stories I Tell to Friends (Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1967). "The trip had been difficult, tiring and fun," he said. That experience on the Lincoln Highway, plus his observations of the German autobahn network during World War II, convinced him to support construction of the Interstate System when he became president. "The old convoy had started me thinking about good, two-lane highways, but Germany had made me see the wisdom of broader ribbons across the land." His "Grand Plan" for highways, announced in 1954, led to the 1956 legislative breakthrough that created the Highway Trust Fund to accelerate construction of the Interstate System.

Eisenhower advocated for the highways for the purpose of national defense. In the event of a ground invasion by a foreign power, the U.S. Army would need good highways to be able to transport troops across the country efficiently. Following completion of the highways the cross-country journey that took the convoy two months in 1919 was cut down to five days.



Additional information - Highway Trust Fund Highway Trust Fund - Wikipedia note how the politicians have been hiding from you that this fund is falling apart - aka why the roads are going to shit, aka infrastructure that no one [*cough*Obama*cough*Bush*cough*) will address because they want votes, so they keep sluffing it off on the next administration... Another one of the things I hope President Trump will actually try to fix. Being an Alaskan our entire highway system was built for the military, I know the importance of it's maintenance for our boys ability to protect the nation. (I've been unable to get home many times because of accidents, avalanches, and even extreme weather events because there is only one highway up here.) It is imperative that our military be able to shift forces from one side of the nation to the other in the event of invasion or attack. Without the highway system we end up with things like the Japanese taking over the Attu and Kiska Islands - sure minor because it was generically uninhabited Alaska, but imagine if some enemy military force landed somewhere in the lower 48 and our highways couldn't support the weight of a tank to route them? This is why federal funding of highways was important enough for Alaska to break her State Constitution (re marijuana) because we're a military state and we know how critical those highways are to our boys (and more so up here.) We are a military state first and foremost, choices we made, choices and sacrifices yet again on the behalf of our vets (who were, and to a point still are, the major force behind legalization up here.)

Here you go: First, some of the original cost was diverted from defense funds. Secondly, most U.S. Air Force bases have a direct link to the system.

Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, should go under defense spending.

 

[EverCurious]

And so does paying hundreds of thousands of soldiers, as well as UN forces/support, and aid to foreign countries as well if I'm not mistaken. So? Doesn't change /why/ interstate highways became funded in the US - for the military, commerce was a side effect that helped get it through "bi-partisan" so to speak. It worked out alright, and if I'm not mistaken, even you lefty fruit loops want them in good shape.

 

[danielpalos]

And so does paying hundreds of thousands of soldiers, as well as UN forces/support, and aid to foreign countries as well if I'm not mistaken. So? Doesn't change /why/ interstate highways became funded in the US - for the military, commerce was a side effect that helped get it through "bi-partisan" so to speak. It worked out alright, and if I'm not mistaken, even you lefty fruit loops want them in good shape.

First, some of the original cost was diverted from defense funds.

Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, should go under defense spending.