Republican drive to end social programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Micky G. Jagger]

There are some things, very limited that are required duties of government.

A big strong nation needs a big strong government.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Benefiting one citizen over another is not one of them.

I know, that's why Congress doesn't make many laws that do that.

 

[Meister]

There are some things, very limited that are required duties of government.

A big strong nation needs a big strong government.

That is such a vague bumper sticker. But, that is probably the best you have, huh?

 

[Liberty]

There are some things, very limited that are required duties of government.

A big strong nation needs a big strong government.

For you, I hope there is an afterlife of some kind that allows you to look back on your life through a lens made of reality so you can realize how big of a dumbass you are.

 

[saveliberty]

Benefiting one citizen over another is not one of them.

I know, that's why Congress doesn't make many laws that do that.

Many? Interesting. Your justification?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Depends on how you define General Welfare doesn't it?

That could go a number of ways, but the 2 most likely to the discussion are:

1. Gov't is responsible for ALL social wellbeing.

2. Gov't is only responsible for creating an environment where people can prosper.

It's a vague statement, and I think that was done on purpose. "Promote the general welfare" to me means creating an environment wherin the people can be safe, and prosper. NOT one where the Gov't calls all the shots.

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

Elliot's Debates, Volume 1

12. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.

In Convention, August 1, 1788.

Resolved, That a declaration of rights, asserting and securing from encroachments the great principles of civil and religious liberty, and the unalienable rights of the people, together with amendments to the most ambiguous and exceptionable parts of the said Constitution of government, ought to be laid before Congress, and the convention of the states that shall or may be called for the purpose of amending the said Constitution, for their consideration, previous to the ratification of the Constitution aforesaid, on the part of the state of North Carolina.SAM. JOHNSON.

By order.J. Hunt, Secretary.​

<a href="/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html">Elliot's Debates</a> --12. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.
​

 

[Liberty]

I think mick just likes posting random shit and doesn't even explain how the random shit he posts relates to anything.

 

[Oddball]

He also likes posting snippets of quotes from historical figures in general, and the framers in particular, which are stripped of their surrounding context to the point that they appear to say 180° the opposite of what they really said.

He's a seriously dishonest and disingenuous little turd.

 

[Big Fitz]

ROFLMAO. That's all you got? Wow. Are you in junior high or grade school?

I have accumulated enormous wealth, whereas you are a little person and have probably accumulated very little wealth. Thus, I benefit much more than you, because I have much more that needs defending.

So you are agreeing that the lives of wealthy people are inherently worth more? Yes? No? If they are equally valuable, they benefit the same. Not a big fan of 'all men are created equal." are you. More of a fan of adding "but some are more equal than others?"

 

[Big Fitz]

There are some things, very limited that are required duties of government.

A big strong nation needs a big strong government.

A strong central government is required for a strong nation? Okay. Let's look at this theory in practice. How are the following "STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENTS" who utilize a command/control economy fairing?

The Soviet Union (Not Russia)
Vietnam
North Korea
Cuba
Venezuela

How are all of them faring today? Nope. I don't think we need to live 'up' to those prime examples of Strong Central Governments who control every aspect of life at the national level.

So there's your theory busted for all to see as utter naive crap.

I know, that's why Congress doesn't make many laws that do that.

You should go. You're gonna put your eye out, kid. That kind of stupidity is not a toy.

Social Security
Medicaire
Medicaid
Health and Human Services
Corporate subsidies
Welfare
Food Stamps
Earned Income Tax Credit
Homestead Credit
Cash for Clunkers
TARP
Eminent Domain for private business/citizens
GM/Chrysler Bailout
The "Bailout"
NASA
HUD Regulations
National Health Care
Government Union Pay
State and municipal pensions


Oh that's just what I can think of off the top of my head. There are hundreds if not thousands of others. Start looking at a pork bill. EVERY SINGLE ITEM OF PORK is using legislation to steal from the public to give to individuals. Why is Global warming pushed? Because scientists get paid millions to say there's a threat.

Tax something, you get less of it. Subsidize something, you get more of it. Like the second law of thermodynamics. You can't escape this fact of life.

You need to go back to Nickjr.com

 

[goldcatt]

Depends on how you define General Welfare doesn't it?

That could go a number of ways, but the 2 most likely to the discussion are:

1. Gov't is responsible for ALL social wellbeing.

2. Gov't is only responsible for creating an environment where people can prosper.

It's a vague statement, and I think that was done on purpose. "Promote the general welfare" to me means creating an environment wherin the people can be safe, and prosper. NOT one where the Gov't calls all the shots.

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

Elliot's Debates, Volume 1

12. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.

In Convention, August 1, 1788.

Resolved, That a declaration of rights, asserting and securing from encroachments the great principles of civil and religious liberty, and the unalienable rights of the people, together with amendments to the most ambiguous and exceptionable parts of the said Constitution of government, ought to be laid before Congress, and the convention of the states that shall or may be called for the purpose of amending the said Constitution, for their consideration, previous to the ratification of the Constitution aforesaid, on the part of the state of North Carolina.SAM. JOHNSON.

By order.J. Hunt, Secretary.​

<a href="/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html">Elliot's Debates</a> --12. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.
​

NC held out for a Bill of Rights, this statement had nothing to do with the General Welfare clause of the Preamble - which was submitted with the original Articles to the States for ratification.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Depends on how you define General Welfare doesn't it?

That could go a number of ways, but the 2 most likely to the discussion are:

1. Gov't is responsible for ALL social wellbeing.

2. Gov't is only responsible for creating an environment where people can prosper.

It's a vague statement, and I think that was done on purpose. "Promote the general welfare" to me means creating an environment wherin the people can be safe, and prosper. NOT one where the Gov't calls all the shots.

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

Elliot's Debates, Volume 1

12. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.

In Convention, August 1, 1788.

Resolved, That a declaration of rights, asserting and securing from encroachments the great principles of civil and religious liberty, and the unalienable rights of the people, together with amendments to the most ambiguous and exceptionable parts of the said Constitution of government, ought to be laid before Congress, and the convention of the states that shall or may be called for the purpose of amending the said Constitution, for their consideration, previous to the ratification of the Constitution aforesaid, on the part of the state of North Carolina.SAM. JOHNSON.

By order.J. Hunt, Secretary.​

<a href="/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html">Elliot's Debates</a> --12. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.
​

LETTER CONTAINING THE REASONS OF THE HON. ELBRIDGE GERRY, ESQ., FOR NOT SIGNING THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

Gentlemen: I have the honor to enclose, pursuant to my commission, the Constitution proposed by the Federal Convention.

To this system I gave my dissent, and shall submit my objections to the honorable legislature.

It was painful for me, on a subject of such national importance, to differ from the respectable members who signed the Constitution; but conceiving, as I did, that the liberties of America were not secured by the system, it was my duty to oppose it.

My principal objections to the plan are, that there is no adequate provision for a representation of the people; that they have no security for the right of election; that some of the powers of the legislature are ambiguous, and others indefinite and dangerous; that the executive is blended with, and will have an undue influence over, the legislature; that the judicial department will be oppressive; that treaties of the highest importance may be formed by the President, with the advice of two thirds of a quorum of the Senate; and that the system is without the security of a bill of rights. These are objections which are not local, but apply equally to all the states.​

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The word revenue was ambiguous.

--James Madison

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

A strong central government is required for a strong nation? Okay. Let's look at this theory in practice. How are the following "STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENTS" who utilize a command/control economy fairing?
The Soviet Union (Not Russia)
Vietnam
North Korea
Cuba
Venezuela

If the U. S. still had a small limited government, it would still be a small limited nation. We're a big powerful nation because we have a big powerful government.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

It [the Constitution] is ambiguous.

--Edmund Randolph; June 21, 1788.​

 

[Big Fitz]

A strong central government is required for a strong nation? Okay. Let's look at this theory in practice. How are the following "STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENTS" who utilize a command/control economy fairing?
The Soviet Union (Not Russia)
Vietnam
North Korea
Cuba
Venezuela

If the U. S. still had a small limited government, it would still be a small limited nation. We're a big powerful nation because we have a big powerful government.

Proof?

 

[Big Fitz]

"That depends on what the definition of 'is', is."

William Jefferson Clinton.

So the fuck what?

 

[saveliberty]

A strong central government is required for a strong nation? Okay. Let's look at this theory in practice. How are the following "STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENTS" who utilize a command/control economy fairing?
The Soviet Union (Not Russia)
Vietnam
North Korea
Cuba
Venezuela

If the U. S. still had a small limited government, it would still be a small limited nation. We're a big powerful nation because we have a big powerful government.

Actually the rapid westward expansion was the result of limited government involvement. Seizing opportunities to start a farm or business in the new frontier was what moved teh country forward. Government followed and as usual slowed things down. America rose to world status when they stepped in and ended WWI. That happened through our economic might and industrial production.

 

[Twofox]

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,

Depends on how you define General Welfare doesn't it?

That could go a number of ways, but the 2 most likely to the discussion are:

1. Gov't is responsible for ALL social wellbeing.

2. Gov't is only responsible for creating an environment where people can prosper.

It's a vague statement, and I think that was done on purpose. "Promote the general welfare" to me means creating an environment wherin the people can be safe, and prosper. NOT one where the Gov't calls all the shots.

This is where I got on this merry-go-round. I will simply say, that IF it was intended to be a power of the federal government, they would have enumerated it in an article, not the preamble.

Good point. I have to agree with that.

Accoring to "Mickey G. Jagger" S.C. fought for a bill of rights over this issue (If I understood your point?) Two things there: 1. That's a leap since they didn't state the "General welfare" clause. and 2. We have a bill of rights, which can be added to by constitutional amendment. So where is the push for an amendement from the left?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

What do we mean by the words arising under the Constitution? What, do they relate to? I conceive this to be very ambiguous. If my interpretation be right, the word arising will be carried so far that it will be made use of to aid and extend the federal jurisdiction.

--Edmund Randolph