Republican drive to end social programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Avatar4321]

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.

Promote and Provide have two different meanings. You should look them up.

You mean he should *gasp* educate himself???? But that would completely destroy his argument!

 

[Bass v 2.0]

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.

What do you interpet 'general welfare' to be? I take it mean the welfare of all people, not just the rich.

"General Welfare" didn't mean the same back then as it does now. And, it didn't mean the redistribution of wealth. We have had threads on this very subject, already

Welfare, as we know it today as government assistance is not redistribution of wealth.

 

[Avatar4321]

"promote the general Welfare".... As has already been pointed out for the terminally stupid... "Promote" not "Provide".

Might I, respectfully, suggest that those who do not understand the difference between those two words, get a fucking dictionary and learn it.

So when Republicans lobby to cut off funding for social welfare to help the poor, are they promoting the general welfare of the people? No, their actions contradict the Constitution.

Yes actually, they are.

See they are encouraging people to work instead of encouraging them not to work.

Individuals who work provide a benefit for society. Otherwise they make absolutely no money.

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” (Ben Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor (29 November 1766))

How does empowering politicians and screwing the people over promote general welfare?

 

[Oddball]

What do you interpet 'general welfare' to be? I take it mean the welfare of all people, not just the rich.

Whereas:

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

--Blackstone​

GENERAL, (jen'-er-al) a. Comprehending many species or individuals ; not special ; not particular.

--A Dictionary of the English Language: 1785
​

Right...GENERAL welfare.

Not specific programs targeted to specific favored constituencies or other politically -shall we say- "untouchable" groups of individuals, i.e. the poooooooooor and the chiiilllldrrreeeeennnnn, for the confiscation and redistribution scams of central authoritarian do-gooders.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

What do you interpet 'general welfare' to be? I take it mean the welfare of all people, not just the rich.

Whereas:

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

--Blackstone​

GENERAL, (jen'-er-al) a. Comprehending many species or individuals ; not special ; not particular.

--A Dictionary of the English Language: 1785
​

Right...GENERAL welfare.

Not specific programs targeted to specific favored constituencies or other politically -shall we say- "untouchable" groups of individuals, i.e. the poooooooooor and the chiiilllldrrreeeeennnnn, for the confiscation and redistribution scams of central authoritarian do-gooders.

Welfare checks are not redistribution of wealth because the poor are still poor, but when rich people gain wealth they hardly lose anything. Poor people don't own and control wealth.

 

[Meister]

Whereas:

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

--Blackstone​

GENERAL, (jen'-er-al) a. Comprehending many species or individuals ; not special ; not particular.

--A Dictionary of the English Language: 1785
​

Right...GENERAL welfare.

Not specific programs targeted to specific favored constituencies or other politically -shall we say- "untouchable" groups of individuals, i.e. the poooooooooor and the chiiilllldrrreeeeennnnn, for the confiscation and redistribution scams of central authoritarian do-gooders.

Welfare checks are not redistribution of wealth because the poor are still poor, but when rich people gain wealth they hardly lose anything. Poor people don't own and control wealth.

That would be your interpretation, others may think differently. If someone is getting something for nothing from our government....that IS welfare. Your definition of rich has not been established, along with your term "hardly". Anyone that pays towards welfare is losing something. You can't try and diminish welfare with your weak interpretation.

 

[Oddball]

Whereas:

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

--Blackstone​

GENERAL, (jen'-er-al) a. Comprehending many species or individuals ; not special ; not particular.

--A Dictionary of the English Language: 1785
​

Right...GENERAL welfare.

Not specific programs targeted to specific favored constituencies or other politically -shall we say- "untouchable" groups of individuals, i.e. the poooooooooor and the chiiilllldrrreeeeennnnn, for the confiscation and redistribution scams of central authoritarian do-gooders.

Welfare checks are not redistribution of wealth because the poor are still poor, but when rich people gain wealth they hardly lose anything. Poor people don't own and control wealth.

Using that backward-assed logic, you don't "need" your new flat screen teevee, so I'll just come over and rob you of it and leave you with an old B&W set I got at a garage sale.

After all, you'll still be able to watch football on Sunday, you rich pissant.

 

[The T]

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.

That isn't what it meant. Government was to be limited in their power. And that power is not to take from one class to give to another. That is Socialism. That isn't the system that was formed by the Founders.

You need to read more.

So you agree that its socialism when the Republicans support big business, tax cuts and the cutting of social programs to put more money in the pockets of the rich minority or does socialism work one way?

Nice to see that not only do you wear the Uniform of the United States (Which I thank you for as a veteran)...But you also wear another...and that is the uniform af a class-warfare-warrior which I think you should re-examine if the Constitution be what you have sworn to defend.

That uniform you should shed, and educate yourself.

Got it Ace?

 

[The T]

Right...GENERAL welfare.

Not specific programs targeted to specific favored constituencies or other politically -shall we say- "untouchable" groups of individuals, i.e. the poooooooooor and the chiiilllldrrreeeeennnnn, for the confiscation and redistribution scams of central authoritarian do-gooders.

Welfare checks are not redistribution of wealth because the poor are still poor, but when rich people gain wealth they hardly lose anything. Poor people don't own and control wealth.

Using that backward-assed logic, you don't "need" your new flat screen teevee, so I'll just come over and rob you of it and leave you with an old B&W set I got at a garage sale.

After all, you'll still be able to watch football on Sunday, you rich pissant.

 

[The T]

Everyone would benefit by reading the Federalist Papers. On this topic, #45 seems appropriate.

The Federal government has become what even strong federalists feared, superior to the states. The states have become lackeys.

It's time the people insist on more local control, much easier to get rid of the loons.

Excellent!

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Sonny, you are going to have to step up your game if you are going to pretend to school me on the Constitution.
This no context snippit of a quote, says nothing other than that the preamble is a general statement of purpose. This little fact was covered already.

Nope, you're wrong.

Fisher Ames interpreted the preamble to vest Congress with "authority over all objects of national concern."

I don't agree with his interpretation. But, that was his interpretation.

Ames doesn't get to interpret the Constitution, he was a Congressman, not a Supreme Court Justice. He also was in favor of the Bill of Rights. Rights which vested a huge amount of freedoms withheld from government. Sort of shoots a big hole in your theory.

What theory?

 

[The T]

Actually I agree with this complaint.

Not that I think that local control is necessarily superior, but clearly the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has ursuped power from the States.

What kind of fucking control do you think states should have? History is always the best teacher and the states did a shitty job which is why federal intervention was necessary, look at that bullshit state law in Arizona on illegal immigrants that's basically a document for legal racial profiling of Hispanics.

So that justifies the FED circumventing the Ninth and Tenth Amendments?

Your education is inept and in dire need of repair. Seriously.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

"The General Welfare" does not mean welfare programs.

What does it mean?

Indeed this is part of the problem, isn't it?

Was it in the general welfare to give western land grants to settlers?

It doesn't say that can be done in the Constitution. It's a kind of welfare, too. Incidently that means everyone living in lands that were formerly owned by out government are welfare moochers. Do you westerners feel like moochers?

Should we have not done that because it isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution?

How about building the Panama canal?

Not mentioned in the Constitution, should we not have done that?

How about buying Alaska? Again, this isn't authorized in the Consitution, was that ALSO illegal?

I can do on if you'd like, but I think you're getting my point.

Where did the First U. S. Congress get the power to ask the President to assume authority over religion?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The General Welfare clause doesn't mean what the OP thinks it does.

But even if it did, it isn't a mandate. It's simply a grant of power. The Congress doesn't HAVE to take specific action under the general welfare clause, or the commerce clause, etc., it simply has the power to do so if it chooses.

So taking away welfare programs wouldn't be unconstitutional even under the OP's erroneous interpretation of the general welfare clause.

Granting Congress power to do something, grants it the power not to do it.

 

[saveliberty]

The idiots think Congress can change the Constitution all by themselves. The voters of this country will change it.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

That paragraph isnt a grant of authority to the federal government. It's an explanation of why they wrote up the Constitution. The Federal government is a government of limited powers. Anything not explicitly delegated to the Federal Government is retained to the states.

The powers of Congress are ambiguous. Reasonable men can put different constructions on ambiguous language.

Your interpretation is reasonable, but so is the one that prevailed.

Any social program, if deemed necessary is solely at the discretion of the State government, not the Federal Government.

Your interpretation is reasonable, but so is the one that prevailed.

This isn't exactly rocket science. Nor is it something you can just rip out of context because you want to ignore the prescribed limits of the Federal Government.

The issue is settled. Your team fought the good fight, but the other team prevailed.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Everyone would benefit by reading the Federalist Papers. On this topic, #45 seems appropriate.

The Federal government has become what even strong federalists feared, superior to the states. The states have become lackeys.

It's time the people insist on more local control, much easier to get rid of the loons.

Local control doesn't work, we mind as well go back to the days where states forbid interracial marriages and the days when local police chiefs and mayors could sic dogs and police with water hoses on peaceful people.

Local control doesn't work?

How exactly do you come to that conclusion?

You totalitarian oppressors never really care to elaborate on that do you? You just want power.

I seriously doubt the General and State Conventions that made the Constitution believed it should be interpreted according to the Federalist Papers.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

What do you interpet 'general welfare' to be? I take it mean the welfare of all people, not just the rich.

Whereas:

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

--Blackstone​

GENERAL, (jen'-er-al) a. Comprehending many species or individuals ; not special ; not particular.

--A Dictionary of the English Language: 1785
​

WELFARE, (wel'-fare) n.i. Happiness; success; prosperity.

--A Dictionary of the English Language: 1785​

It appears that:

General welfare = The happiness of many individuals.​

Which does not mean at the unhappiness of many others.

I don't see why not. It just means "many individuals."

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

"General Welfare" didn't mean the same back then as it does now.

Whereas:

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

--Blackstone


GENERAL, (jen'-er-al) a. Comprehending many species or individuals ; not special ; not particular.

--A Dictionary of the English Language: 1785


WELFARE, (wel'-fare) n.i. Happiness; success; prosperity.

--A Dictionary of the English Language: 1785​

It appears that:

General welfare = The happiness of many individuals​

 

[chikenwing]

No charity no problem, tell the Republicans to quit lobbying for charity taxcuts for the richest of rich

This is where folks like this one get it ALL wrong,they think its everyone else's money but the one that EARNED it.

A fundamental flaw.