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.
good luck with that
how would the appropriations process WORK if your amendment passed?
how would government contracts ever be filled?
Thank you. I keep hoping that if enough people will keep beating that drum, the concept will finally get through some thick skulls.
No funds would be appropriated that did not provide for the common defense, did not promote the general welfare--meaning everybody equally and not a favored few--
unfortunately for YOUR point of view, SCOTUS gets to clarify what the general welfare clause means, and not you.
sorry 'bout that.![]()
good luck with thatThat isn't what I elect them to do. I'm campaigning for a Constitutional amendment that will make it illegal for them to do it.
how would the appropriations process WORK if your amendment passed?
how would government contracts ever be filled?
Let us not forget that reality is not evenly distributed.
That is--some districts need more funding while others do not.
Thank you. I keep hoping that if enough people will keep beating that drum, the concept will finally get through some thick skulls.
No funds would be appropriated that did not provide for the common defense, did not promote the general welfare--meaning everybody equally and not a favored few--
unfortunately for YOUR point of view, SCOTUS gets to clarify what the general welfare clause means, and not you.
sorry 'bout that.![]()
Nope. Congress has full right and authority to clarify that at any time as it is not now specified in the Constitution. And should the courts challenge Congress's inerpretation, the Congress has full right and authority to introduce any amendment to the Constitution that it chooses to introduce, and if there are the requisite number of votes there, then the people will decide the matter.
The Supreme Court can point out if one clause of the Constitution contradicts another, but the Supreme Court cannot rule anything in the Constitution unconstitutional.
i don't even have to imagine the number of responses this thread would have if it was about republican loot....
seriously, i expected more honesty from some of the libs on this board...
unfortunately for YOUR point of view, SCOTUS gets to clarify what the general welfare clause means, and not you.
sorry 'bout that.![]()
Nope. Congress has full right and authority to clarify that at any time as it is not now specified in the Constitution. And should the courts challenge Congress's inerpretation, the Congress has full right and authority to introduce any amendment to the Constitution that it chooses to introduce, and if there are the requisite number of votes there, then the people will decide the matter.
The Supreme Court can point out if one clause of the Constitution contradicts another, but the Supreme Court cannot rule anything in the Constitution unconstitutional.
good luck with THAT!![]()