Republican drive to end social programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[bigrebnc1775]

I know for a fact that one of the men received relief as an agent of the post office.

T didn't post that I did.

What is it that you fail to grasp wth the word pension?

Money owed.

Nope, he fails to grasp reading comprehension and history.

Well, that too

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Representative David Crockett lost the debate, dude. The House passed the bill granting welfare relief to the widow in the name of providing for the general welfare.

Bills from the Senate, of the following titles, viz.

* No. 31. An act for the relief of Noah Staley;
* No. 40. An act for the relief of John Hone and Sons, of New York;
* No. 37. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to compromise the claims of the United States against the late firm of Minturn and Champlin, and their securities;
* No. 38. An act for the relief of John Kimberlin;
* No. 45. An act for the relief of the widow and heirs of Felix St. Vrain;
* No. 32. An act for the relief of George Staley;

were severally read the third time, and passed.

Ordered, That the Clerk acquaint the Senate therewith.

Engrossed bills, of the following titles, viz.

* No. 176. An act for the relief of George Bowen;
* No. 178. An act for the relief of William K. Paulling;
* No. 179. An act for the relief of William Haslett;
* No. 180. An act for the relief of Joseph W. Wormstead, of Marblehead, master and owner of the schooner Sally, and the crew of said vessel;
* No. 184. An act to provide for the settlement of the claim of Mary O'Sullivan;
* No. 186. An act to refund to certain owners of the schooner Joseph and Mary the sum paid into the Treasury, by reason of the condemnation of said vessel;
* No. 187. An act for the relief of Samuel D. Walker;
* No. 188. An act for the relief of Alexander J. Robison;
* No. 189. An act for the benefit of the heirs at law of the representatives of William G. Christopher, deceased;
* No. 193. An act for the relief of William B. Doliber and others, owners and heirs of the crew of the schooner Mary and Hannah;
* No. 194. An act for the relief of the legal representatives of James Brown;
* No. 196. An act for the relief of Benedict Alford and Robert Brush;
* No. 197. An act for the relief of the heirs of Crocker Sampson, deceased;
* No. 199. An act for the relief of Henry Whitney;
* No. 358. An act for the relief of William O'Neale;

were severally read the third time, and passed;​

--Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1833-1834
FRIDAY, March 14, 1834.​

The article I cited didn't mention the widows name and since the Register of Debates (which covers Davy Crockett's first two terms in Congress from 1827-1831) and the Congressional Globe (which covers his last term in Congress from 1833-1835) do not provide verbatim transcripts of speeches made on the House floor. The only historical record that supports a similar story - the House considered a bill of relief for the family of deceased general Brown in April of 1828 and Davy Crockett is on record opposing that bill and offering personal support to the family. You can read the (very brief) summary of that in the Register of Debates here. Crockett's comments are summarized at the bottom right of the page.

Tennessee historian Ann Toplovich attributed this to an 1828 speech by Tennessee Congressman David Crockett under the influence of constituent Horatio Bunce.

So the dates do not coincide with what you presented.

Felix St. Vrain was a deceased Indian Agent. His widow petitioned Congress for relief in the form of 140 acres of land in Missouri. There was no federal statute establishing a program that entitled her to any land. Congress gave her relief in the form of 140 acres.

So? Crockett wasn't addressing the issue in regards to Felix St. Vrain. If you would notice the dates dumbshit, you would see that Crockett gave that speech in 1828, Vrain was still very much alive during that period.

But since you brought it up, lets see your source for the information you provided.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Representative David Crockett lost the debate, dude. The House passed the bill granting welfare relief to the widow in the name of providing for the general welfare.

Bills from the Senate, of the following titles, viz.

* No. 31. An act for the relief of Noah Staley;
* No. 40. An act for the relief of John Hone and Sons, of New York;
* No. 37. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to compromise the claims of the United States against the late firm of Minturn and Champlin, and their securities;
* No. 38. An act for the relief of John Kimberlin;
* No. 45. An act for the relief of the widow and heirs of Felix St. Vrain;
* No. 32. An act for the relief of George Staley;

were severally read the third time, and passed.

Ordered, That the Clerk acquaint the Senate therewith.

Engrossed bills, of the following titles, viz.

* No. 176. An act for the relief of George Bowen;
* No. 178. An act for the relief of William K. Paulling;
* No. 179. An act for the relief of William Haslett;
* No. 180. An act for the relief of Joseph W. Wormstead, of Marblehead, master and owner of the schooner Sally, and the crew of said vessel;
* No. 184. An act to provide for the settlement of the claim of Mary O'Sullivan;
* No. 186. An act to refund to certain owners of the schooner Joseph and Mary the sum paid into the Treasury, by reason of the condemnation of said vessel;
* No. 187. An act for the relief of Samuel D. Walker;
* No. 188. An act for the relief of Alexander J. Robison;
* No. 189. An act for the benefit of the heirs at law of the representatives of William G. Christopher, deceased;
* No. 193. An act for the relief of William B. Doliber and others, owners and heirs of the crew of the schooner Mary and Hannah;
* No. 194. An act for the relief of the legal representatives of James Brown;
* No. 196. An act for the relief of Benedict Alford and Robert Brush;
* No. 197. An act for the relief of the heirs of Crocker Sampson, deceased;
* No. 199. An act for the relief of Henry Whitney;
* No. 358. An act for the relief of William O'Neale;

were severally read the third time, and passed;​

--Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1833-1834
FRIDAY, March 14, 1834.​

The article I cited didn't mention the widows name and since the Register of Debates (which covers Davy Crockett's first two terms in Congress from 1827-1831) and the Congressional Globe (which covers his last term in Congress from 1833-1835) do not provide verbatim transcripts of speeches made on the House floor. The only historical record that supports a similar story - the House considered a bill of relief for the family of deceased general Brown in April of 1828 and Davy Crockett is on record opposing that bill and offering personal support to the family. You can read the (very brief) summary of that in the Register of Debates here. Crockett's comments are summarized at the bottom right of the page.

Tennessee historian Ann Toplovich attributed this to an 1828 speech by Tennessee Congressman David Crockett under the influence of constituent Horatio Bunce.

So the dates do not coincide with what you presented.

Felix St. Vrain was a deceased Indian Agent. His widow petitioned Congress for relief in the form of 140 acres of land in Missouri. There was no federal statute establishing a program that entitled her to any land. Congress gave her relief in the form of 140 acres.

Micky this doesn't have anything to do with a welfare system. It's payment for services rendered. And women could not own any proprety such as land because land ownwers at the time could vote.

 

[DiamondDave]

STFU

Poll: Health care plan gains favor - USATODAY.com

STFU

3/24/2010

That's the date from your supposed retort

You're a fucking joke, troll

DIPSHIT, his source is biased, my sources isn't. STFU. Troll.

RCP is biased sourcing all the other polls...??? Hardly... you're a fucking joke... poser

 

[Charles_Main]

Your question was already answered John Wayne, now stop begging the question.

I will ask you one more time

If your argument is that it's the governments job to promote the general walfare, through healthcare coverage
My question to you is how can they insure domestic Tranquility when so many Americans oppose what the government is doing? It cannot be done.

Most Americans are for universal health care, stop bullshitting.

No most Americans are for people having access to health care. That is NOT THE same thing as being for Universal Health care.

70% of Americans are happy with their Current coverage :0)

 

[Charles_Main]

STFU

3/24/2010

That's the date from your supposed retort

You're a fucking joke, troll

DIPSHIT, his source is biased, my sources isn't. STFU. Troll.

RCP is biased sourcing all the other polls...??? Hardly... you're a fucking joke... poser

LOL gotta love these loons. RCP is biased? All RCP does is average about 50 Other polls from both sides of the fence.

It is probably the most accurate and unbiased poll source you can find.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The article I cited didn't mention the widows name and since the Register of Debates (which covers Davy Crockett's first two terms in Congress from 1827-1831) and the Congressional Globe (which covers his last term in Congress from 1833-1835) do not provide verbatim transcripts of speeches made on the House floor. The only historical record that supports a similar story - the House considered a bill of relief for the family of deceased general Brown in April of 1828 and Davy Crockett is on record opposing that bill and offering personal support to the family. You can read the (very brief) summary of that in the Register of Debates here. Crockett's comments are summarized at the bottom right of the page.

Tennessee historian Ann Toplovich attributed this to an 1828 speech by Tennessee Congressman David Crockett under the influence of constituent Horatio Bunce.

So the dates do not coincide with what you presented.

Felix St. Vrain was a deceased Indian Agent. His widow petitioned Congress for relief in the form of 140 acres of land in Missouri. There was no federal statute establishing a program that entitled her to any land. Congress gave her relief in the form of 140 acres.

So? Crockett wasn't addressing the issue in regards to Felix St. Vrain. If you would notice the dates dumbshit, you would see that Crockett gave that speech in 1828, Vrain was still very much alive during that period.

But since you brought it up, lets see your source for the information you provided.

The Crockett speach is bogus, dude.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The article I cited didn't mention the widows name and since the Register of Debates (which covers Davy Crockett's first two terms in Congress from 1827-1831) and the Congressional Globe (which covers his last term in Congress from 1833-1835) do not provide verbatim transcripts of speeches made on the House floor. The only historical record that supports a similar story - the House considered a bill of relief for the family of deceased general Brown in April of 1828 and Davy Crockett is on record opposing that bill and offering personal support to the family. You can read the (very brief) summary of that in the Register of Debates here. Crockett's comments are summarized at the bottom right of the page.

Tennessee historian Ann Toplovich attributed this to an 1828 speech by Tennessee Congressman David Crockett under the influence of constituent Horatio Bunce.

So the dates do not coincide with what you presented.

Felix St. Vrain was a deceased Indian Agent. His widow petitioned Congress for relief in the form of 140 acres of land in Missouri. There was no federal statute establishing a program that entitled her to any land. Congress gave her relief in the form of 140 acres.

Micky this doesn't have anything to do with a welfare system.

She was granted the land for her personal welfare, dude.

It's payment for services rendered.

Wrong. She rendered no services.

And women could not own any proprety such as land

Congress passed a law granting the widow of Felix St. Vrain six hundred and forth acres to be selected by her and ordered that she be issued a title certificate for the land.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Felix St. Vrain was a deceased Indian Agent. His widow petitioned Congress for relief in the form of 140 acres of land in Missouri. There was no federal statute establishing a program that entitled her to any land. Congress gave her relief in the form of 140 acres.

Micky this doesn't have anything to do with a welfare system.

She was granted the land for her personal welfare, dude.

It's payment for services rendered.

Wrong. She rendered no services.

And women could not own any proprety such as land

Congress passed a law granting the widow of Felix St. Vrain six hundred and forth acres to be selected by her and ordered that she be issued a title certificate for the land.

Back pay for services rebdered is not a social program DUDE.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Felix St. Vrain was a deceased Indian Agent. His widow petitioned Congress for relief in the form of 140 acres of land in Missouri. There was no federal statute establishing a program that entitled her to any land. Congress gave her relief in the form of 140 acres.

So? Crockett wasn't addressing the issue in regards to Felix St. Vrain. If you would notice the dates dumbshit, you would see that Crockett gave that speech in 1828, Vrain was still very much alive during that period.

But since you brought it up, lets see your source for the information you provided.

The Crockett speach is bogus, dude.

Do you have a source stating other wise? DUDE

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The only historical record that supports a similar story - the House considered a bill of relief for the family of deceased general Brown in April of 1828 and Davy Crockett is on record opposing that bill and offering personal support to the family.

The bill for the relief of Mrs. Brown, received from the Senate, passed the House on April 22, 1928, on a vote of 97 to 74, and was returned to the Senate. Crockett voted against the bill, but his side lost.

Crockett did offer to pay the widow some money.

The only speech regarding the bill was made by Representative Clark from New York in favor of the bill.

Here's the closing of Mr. Clark's speech.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

So? Crockett wasn't addressing the issue in regards to Felix St. Vrain. If you would notice the dates dumbshit, you would see that Crockett gave that speech in 1828, Vrain was still very much alive during that period.

But since you brought it up, lets see your source for the information you provided.

The Crockett speach is bogus, dude.

Do you have a source stating other wise? DUDE

The speech reeks of bogosity, dude

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The only historical record that supports a similar story - the House considered a bill of relief for the family of deceased general Brown in April of 1828 and Davy Crockett is on record opposing that bill and offering personal support to the family.

The bill for the relief of Mrs. Brown, received from the Senate, passed the House on April 22, 1928, on a vote of 97 to 74, and was returned to the Senate. Crockett voted against the bill, but his side lost. The speech of the day was made by Representative Clark from New York in favor of the bill.

Here's the closing of Mr. Clark's speech.

Dude as I said back pay forservices rendered is not a social program.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

So? Crockett wasn't addressing the issue in regards to Felix St. Vrain. If you would notice the dates dumbshit, you would see that Crockett gave that speech in 1828, Vrain was still very much alive during that period.

But since you brought it up, lets see your source for the information you provided.

The Crockett speach is bogus, dude.

Do you have a source stating other wise? DUDE

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Register of Debates, House of Representatives, 20th Congress, 1st Session
Pages 2087 & 2088

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Crockett speach is bogus, dude.

Do you have a source stating other wise? DUDE

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Register of Debates, House of Representatives, 20th Congress, 1st Session
Pages 2087 & 2088

No DUDE do you have a source that makes the Crockett speech bogus?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Do you have a source stating other wise? DUDE

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Register of Debates, House of Representatives, 20th Congress, 1st Session
Pages 2087 & 2088

do you have a source that makes the Crockett speech bogus?

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Register of Debates, House of Representatives, 20th Congress, 1st Session
Pages 2087 & 2088

 

[AmericanFirst]

The Preamble

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.


Now I like for the Republicans and Tea bastards to prove that social welfare programs are unconstitutional and to justify voting and lobbying eliminate them. One good example in Social Security although there are others.

Typical, that doesn't mean the gov't should use our tax dollars to support people financially or any other way. Typical leftwing idiocy taking something andd twisting it to serve their twisted agenda. Idiots.

 

[saveliberty]

According to the record Crocket voted in the negative on this bill.

The bill from the Senate, [No. 111] entitled "An act for the relief of Mrs. Brown, widow of the late Major General Brown," was read the third time:

And on the question, "Shall the bill pass?"

It passed in the affirmative,
Yeas ... 97,
Nays ... 74.

<a href="/ammem/amlaw/lwhj.html">House Journal</a> --WEDNESDAY, April 2, 1828.

pp. 469-470

On the day prior (April 1st)

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House on the bill from the Senate, [No. 111] entitled "An act for the relief of Mrs. Brown, widow of the late Major General Brown;" and, after some time spent therein, the Speaker resumed the chair, and Mr. M'Lean reported the same, without amendment.

The question was then put, Shall the bill be read a third time?

And passed in the affirmative,
Yeas ... 88,
Nays ... 77.

Mr. Crocket was a nay.

p.466

<a href="/ammem/amlaw/lwhj.html">House Journal</a> --TUESDAY, April 1, 1828.

The exact wording of Senate bill 111: A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

You need to back up one page from here to see Mr. Clark was the speaker on page 2087.

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

page 2086 confirms Mr. Crocket's presence, but no speech by him. The only comment made was that Mr. Crocket offered to pay the sum himself. The amount was half pay of General Brown for five years as I read elsewhere.

 

[AmericanFirst]

No, ending these programs would be constitutional... if we elected to do so

As is having them also constitutional according to our current interpretation of our laws.

The world belongs to the LIVING, not to the dead.

The flounder fathers wrote a document that did NOT ties our hands with specific laws.

They understood, like those of you who imagine that there is a right "literal" interpretation of the Constitution do not, that one cannot bind the FUTURE generations to the vision of the current generation.

Most of us would not be able to VOTE, if we'd stuck to the constitution that our floundering fathers originally wrote.

Now who here wants to come out in favor of only allowing a very small percentage of the population to vote?

Who here wants to come out in favor of once again allowing slavery?

THAT would be a literal interpretation of the constitution that our floundering fathers passed.

Now I know some of you would be in favor of those changes to our society

I also know most of you who would like thise things, don't have the balls to openly admit it.

Idiot! You are talking jibberish. Get your ass out of your mouth. Also, idiot, it is Founding fathers. If you do not like it here leave please. Originally the constitution supported slavery. Even George Washington owned slaves, and he wanted to free them as did alot of the founding fathers, but pressure and economics prevented that at the time. It was the DEMOCRATS that supported slavery during and prior to the war. If you want to blame a party for slavery, look at your own, the dimwits.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

the gov't should use our tax dollars to support people financially or any other way.

So, how do you explain the fact that the U. S. has a system of social security?