So You Hate Socialism.......

[NLT]

The OP doesn't have fricken clue in her head that has not been put there by Daily Kos, Huffpo, MSNBC & the DNC. She is a perfect example of a leftard twat.

And you get every talking point from Fox and other Right Wing sources.

I actually read...unlike most leftards

 

[Boss]

We're a long way from having no private property.

Perhaps, however... there is another way to implement Socialism. Instead of confiscating the personal property, you simply regulate and tax everything produced from the ownership of the property. That way, the government can "own" it without actually owning it.

 

[Iceweasel]

None of what you listed is Socialism. Some of the things you listed were enumerated in our Constitution and have been a part of our system from the start.

So you think that because it is enumerated in our Constitution and has been part of our system from the start that it can't be called Socialism? If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

You just don't know what you are talking about. What you and most Republican/conservatives try to do is equate the current form of Socialism to the Socialism aligned with Marxism or communism. Nobody is trying to make the United States into a totally socialist country....but we do have socialistic programs that both Democrats and Republicans enjoy....so to deny that there are and that you don't like them is a stretch.

The right isn't the one plying word games. According to your theory all governments are fundamentally socialist. Some allow more or less capitalism to take place. That's just stupid.

 

[Boss]

Nobody is trying to make the United States into a totally socialist country....

YES YOU ARE! That is exactly what you want and what you are bent on making happen. You must be behind the times man... your comrades have come out of the closet! They openly admit this is what they want, this is their ultimate agenda and they will exploit the Executive Order to implement it. Your thread OP is singing the praises of Socialism!

You're just like a wife beater who goes around telling everyone what a great husband he is and that he doesn't believe in abusing women at all.... but hey... you gotta slap 'em around every now and then to make them behave!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Circumlocution ^^^ is not convincing, many will consider it an effort to baffle with too much bullshit.

The Truth of the Matter is very simple, we have both a private sector and a public sector and each provides services to our citizens. It is the Right Wing who use the term SOCIALISM (a perjorative in 21st Cent. political rhetoric) to convince the biddable that the Democratic Party seeks to transform our country into an undemocratic, authoritarian government such as exists in China, Russia and N. Korea, for example.

Such is totally untrue and serves to provide much political theater not worth the price of admission.

Well, I am sorry you think I'm using too many words. I try to dumb it down as much as possible... there have been volumes and volumes written on this subject and I've only touched on a small point or two. My reply was much less verbose than the OP.

No one is exaggerating anything on the right... this thread was posted by a left-winger lauding the greatness of Socialism. Bernie Sanders is a self-proclaimed Socialist. It's EXACTLY what the Democrat party wants to "fundamentally transform" America into... a Socialist Utopia. EXACTLY what was established in Cuba, Russia and N. Korea... where the "RULER" issues Executive Edicts bypassing the Congressional process to enact their Socialist agenda. The say that's what they want to do and are very open about it. That's not "the right" saying it... it's coming from their mouths.

We have a public sector where our founders established in the Constitution (Article 1 Sec. 8) the enumerated powers in which our government has certain powers considered to be of mass consensus. This is LIMITED power enumerated to a central government and the REMAINING power is left to the states and people. So the examples being presented as "Socialism" here are actually a part of our established system for the most part and always have been.

We need to agree to disagree. We have over two centuries of jurisprudence to support policies and programs never thought of by the founders and thus not authorized in Art. I, sec. 8. In fact Jefferson's letters in which he limited the meaning of the general Welfare have no force of law, and Art. I, sec 1 states (emphasis added):

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare"
​

I don't find the Libertarian Platform to be either principled or pragmatic and given that party's lack of success I'm not alone.

 

[Boss]

We need to agree to disagree. We have over two centuries of jurisprudence to support policies and programs never thought of by the founders and thus not authorized in Art. I, sec. 8. In fact Jefferson's letters in which he limited the meaning of the general Welfare have no force of law, and Art. I, sec 1 states (emphasis added):

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare"
I don't find the Libertarian Platform to be either principled or pragmatic and given that party's lack of success I'm not alone.

The term "general welfare" was misconstrued a LONG time ago and re-interpreted in exactly the way many anti-federalists feared it would be. Madison argued in the Federalist Papers that it would be ludicrous to interpret "general welfare" in the way it is currently interpreted by the left in this country. He explained why in a few elegant paragraphs:

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

The Federalist #41
I understand that this is written in 18th century English and some lesser-educated persons might not get the gist of what he is saying here, but to summarize, he is saying that it's complete idiocy to think "general welfare" is some kind of blanket authority for government to determine what is "general welfare" and legislate accordingly. For if this is the case, why have ANY enumeration of powers?

"General welfare" was meant to specifically apply to the enumerated powers in the preceding portion of the sentences which the limited powers had just been listed... nothing more.

This is NOT Madison limiting the meaning of "general welfare" ...it's Madison explaining to the objectors why it can't possibly mean what they claim it meant. Which is exactly what it has been incorrectly and "absurdly" interpreted to mean.

 

[Wry Catcher]

None of what you listed is Socialism. Some of the things you listed were enumerated in our Constitution and have been a part of our system from the start.

So you think that because it is enumerated in our Constitution and has been part of our system from the start that it can't be called Socialism? If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

You just don't know what you are talking about. What you and most Republican/conservatives try to do is equate the current form of Socialism to the Socialism aligned with Marxism or communism. Nobody is trying to make the United States into a totally socialist country....but we do have socialistic programs that both Democrats and Republicans enjoy....so to deny that there are and that you don't like them is a stretch.

The right isn't the one plying word games. According to your theory all governments are fundamentally socialist. Some allow more or less capitalism to take place. That's just stupid.

The Right Wing plays word games, denying that is gross ignorance or dishonesty. Examples? Sure, the use of these words wrongly applied or used solely as a pejorative:

• Libtard
• Commie
• Socialist
• leftist
• Prog
• RINO

 

[ScienceRocks]

Anyone that supports civilization and working together to keep things working is a socialist. lol.

In reality it is all a balance. I'd attack a pure socialist that hated the private sector as hard if not harder.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We need to agree to disagree. We have over two centuries of jurisprudence to support policies and programs never thought of by the founders and thus not authorized in Art. I, sec. 8. In fact Jefferson's letters in which he limited the meaning of the general Welfare have no force of law, and Art. I, sec 1 states (emphasis added):

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare"
I don't find the Libertarian Platform to be either principled or pragmatic and given that party's lack of success I'm not alone.

The term "general welfare" was misconstrued a LONG time ago and re-interpreted in exactly the way many anti-federalists feared it would be. Madison argued in the Federalist Papers that it would be ludicrous to interpret "general welfare" in the way it is currently interpreted by the left in this country. He explained why in a few elegant paragraphs:

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

The Federalist #41
I understand that this is written in 18th century English and some lesser-educated persons might not get the gist of what he is saying here, but to summarize, he is saying that it's complete idiocy to think "general welfare" is some kind of blanket authority for government to determine what is "general welfare" and legislate accordingly. For if this is the case, why have ANY enumeration of powers?

"General welfare" was meant to specifically apply to the enumerated powers in the preceding portion of the sentences which the limited powers had just been listed... nothing more.

This is NOT Madison limiting the meaning of "general welfare" ...it's Madison explaining to the objectors why it can't possibly mean what they claim it meant. Which is exactly what it has been incorrectly and "absurdly" interpreted to mean.

My undergrad degree was a double, PoliSci and USHist. I've read the Federalist papers as well as the letters of many of the founders, and I've taken ConLaw, and other law classes as a grad student.

It's sadly funny that the conservative bloc supports a literal (Textism) interpretation of COTUS and yet only on those issues witch support their agendas:

"It is the law that matters, not the intention of the lawgiver"

 

[Boss]

Anyone that supports civilization and working together to keep things working is a socialist. lol.

In reality it is all a balance. I'd attack a pure socialist that hated the profit sector as hard if not harder.

No, it's really NOT a balance. We have a unique system. Our founders enumerated particular functions of a limited government. They realized there were certain things of mass consensus that couldn't be handled effectively through free market capitalist enterprise and they set those as the parameters of a limited government. The remainder was supposed to be left alone... left to the FREE people to decide and mitigate on their own, without government encroachment, using principles of free market capitalism and competition and free enterprise.

I support civilization and working together. I have no problem with the people in my state collectively deciding, either at the ballot box or through elected representatives, how to spend our tax dollars. But at the federal level, I believe in a strict limited government as outlined in the Constitution. We continue to watch progressive Socialists push us closer and closer to hard Socialism through taxation and regulation at the federal level... as people like you cheer them on, like it's some kind of a GOOD thing!

Do you fucking not realize what is happening? They are stripping you from your freedom! Every regulation... every new tax... it's all taking freedom from you and replacing it with more government control over your life. It's exactly what we came to this country to escape. It's precisely why we established the brilliant system of limited government.

No... YOU have your head up the ass of NASA and because these tyrant Socialists promise to throw you some of my tax dollars, you're slobbering all over them! You're a moron supporting other morons.

 

[Boss]

We need to agree to disagree. We have over two centuries of jurisprudence to support policies and programs never thought of by the founders and thus not authorized in Art. I, sec. 8. In fact Jefferson's letters in which he limited the meaning of the general Welfare have no force of law, and Art. I, sec 1 states (emphasis added):

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare"
I don't find the Libertarian Platform to be either principled or pragmatic and given that party's lack of success I'm not alone.

The term "general welfare" was misconstrued a LONG time ago and re-interpreted in exactly the way many anti-federalists feared it would be. Madison argued in the Federalist Papers that it would be ludicrous to interpret "general welfare" in the way it is currently interpreted by the left in this country. He explained why in a few elegant paragraphs:

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

The Federalist #41
I understand that this is written in 18th century English and some lesser-educated persons might not get the gist of what he is saying here, but to summarize, he is saying that it's complete idiocy to think "general welfare" is some kind of blanket authority for government to determine what is "general welfare" and legislate accordingly. For if this is the case, why have ANY enumeration of powers?

"General welfare" was meant to specifically apply to the enumerated powers in the preceding portion of the sentences which the limited powers had just been listed... nothing more.

This is NOT Madison limiting the meaning of "general welfare" ...it's Madison explaining to the objectors why it can't possibly mean what they claim it meant. Which is exactly what it has been incorrectly and "absurdly" interpreted to mean.

My undergrad degree was a double, PoliSci and USHist. I've read the Federalist papers as well as the letters of many of the founders, and I've taken ConLaw, and other law classes as a grad student.

It's sadly funny that the conservative bloc supports a literal (Textism) interpretation of COTUS and yet only on those issues witch support their agendas:

"It is the law that matters, not the intention of the lawgiver"

I don't give a damn what kind of degrees you have! Obviously, some highly-educated people on Supreme Courts over the years have completely botched the meaning and interpretation of the General Welfare clause. I just gave you the argument presented by Madison (not Jefferson) on the intent and meaning of the clause in his argument to the anti-federalists who feared it meant exactly what it has been erroneously interpreted to mean. He is telling you why it is "absurd" to believe it means what has been interpreted.

What the fuck... Textism? Yes... the TEXT of what the people who wrote the Constitution SAID! DUH! What the fuck are we supposed to go by if not their words? Your imaginary fantasies about what you think they meant but said the total opposite of? The things they called "ABSURD" in their writing on the subject? It's hard for me to accept they thought something was "absurd" yet that's what they meant... to be absurd!

And what is a matter of settled law doesn't mean anything in this debate either. We're not arguing about what courts have ruled.... that's a matter of public record! It's like arguing about whether abortion is right or wrong and someone pointing to Roe v. Wade, as if we don't know that exists! It's like someone from 1860 arguing against slavery and having someone point to the Dred Scott ruling... hey, because the court ruled, it MUST be RIGHT! Nonsense! The courts are OFTEN WRONG!

 

[Political Junky]

We need to agree to disagree. We have over two centuries of jurisprudence to support policies and programs never thought of by the founders and thus not authorized in Art. I, sec. 8. In fact Jefferson's letters in which he limited the meaning of the general Welfare have no force of law, and Art. I, sec 1 states (emphasis added):

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare"
I don't find the Libertarian Platform to be either principled or pragmatic and given that party's lack of success I'm not alone.

The term "general welfare" was misconstrued a LONG time ago and re-interpreted in exactly the way many anti-federalists feared it would be. Madison argued in the Federalist Papers that it would be ludicrous to interpret "general welfare" in the way it is currently interpreted by the left in this country. He explained why in a few elegant paragraphs:

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

The Federalist #41
I understand that this is written in 18th century English and some lesser-educated persons might not get the gist of what he is saying here, but to summarize, he is saying that it's complete idiocy to think "general welfare" is some kind of blanket authority for government to determine what is "general welfare" and legislate accordingly. For if this is the case, why have ANY enumeration of powers?

"General welfare" was meant to specifically apply to the enumerated powers in the preceding portion of the sentences which the limited powers had just been listed... nothing more.

This is NOT Madison limiting the meaning of "general welfare" ...it's Madison explaining to the objectors why it can't possibly mean what they claim it meant. Which is exactly what it has been incorrectly and "absurdly" interpreted to mean.

My undergrad degree was a double, PoliSci and USHist. I've read the Federalist papers as well as the letters of many of the founders, and I've taken ConLaw, and other law classes as a grad student.

It's sadly funny that the conservative bloc supports a literal (Textism) interpretation of COTUS and yet only on those issues witch support their agendas:

"It is the law that matters, not the intention of the lawgiver"

I don't give a damn what kind of degrees you have! Obviously, some highly-educated people on Supreme Courts over the years have completely botched the meaning and interpretation of the General Welfare clause. I just gave you the argument presented by Madison (not Jefferson) on the intent and meaning of the clause in his argument to the anti-federalists who feared it meant exactly what it has been erroneously interpreted to mean. He is telling you why it is "absurd" to believe it means what has been interpreted.

What the fuck... Textism? Yes... the TEXT of what the people who wrote the Constitution SAID! DUH! What the fuck are we supposed to go by if not their words? Your imaginary fantasies about what you think they meant but said the total opposite of? The things they called "ABSURD" in their writing on the subject? It's hard for me to accept they thought something was "absurd" yet that's what they meant... to be absurd!

And what is a matter of settled law doesn't mean anything in this debate either. We're not arguing about what courts have ruled.... that's a matter of public record! It's like arguing about whether abortion is right or wrong and someone pointing to Roe v. Wade, as if we don't know that exists! It's like someone from 1860 arguing against slavery and having someone point to the Dred Scott ruling... hey, because the court ruled, it MUST be RIGHT! Nonsense! The courts are OFTEN WRONG!

So Right Wing, putting down education.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We need to agree to disagree. We have over two centuries of jurisprudence to support policies and programs never thought of by the founders and thus not authorized in Art. I, sec. 8. In fact Jefferson's letters in which he limited the meaning of the general Welfare have no force of law, and Art. I, sec 1 states (emphasis added):

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare"
I don't find the Libertarian Platform to be either principled or pragmatic and given that party's lack of success I'm not alone.

The term "general welfare" was misconstrued a LONG time ago and re-interpreted in exactly the way many anti-federalists feared it would be. Madison argued in the Federalist Papers that it would be ludicrous to interpret "general welfare" in the way it is currently interpreted by the left in this country. He explained why in a few elegant paragraphs:

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

The Federalist #41
I understand that this is written in 18th century English and some lesser-educated persons might not get the gist of what he is saying here, but to summarize, he is saying that it's complete idiocy to think "general welfare" is some kind of blanket authority for government to determine what is "general welfare" and legislate accordingly. For if this is the case, why have ANY enumeration of powers?

"General welfare" was meant to specifically apply to the enumerated powers in the preceding portion of the sentences which the limited powers had just been listed... nothing more.

This is NOT Madison limiting the meaning of "general welfare" ...it's Madison explaining to the objectors why it can't possibly mean what they claim it meant. Which is exactly what it has been incorrectly and "absurdly" interpreted to mean.

My undergrad degree was a double, PoliSci and USHist. I've read the Federalist papers as well as the letters of many of the founders, and I've taken ConLaw, and other law classes as a grad student.

It's sadly funny that the conservative bloc supports a literal (Textism) interpretation of COTUS and yet only on those issues witch support their agendas:

"It is the law that matters, not the intention of the lawgiver"

I don't give a damn what kind of degrees you have! Obviously, some highly-educated people on Supreme Courts over the years have completely botched the meaning and interpretation of the General Welfare clause. I just gave you the argument presented by Madison (not Jefferson) on the intent and meaning of the clause in his argument to the anti-federalists who feared it meant exactly what it has been erroneously interpreted to mean. He is telling you why it is "absurd" to believe it means what has been interpreted.

What the fuck... Textism? Yes... the TEXT of what the people who wrote the Constitution SAID! DUH! What the fuck are we supposed to go by if not their words? Your imaginary fantasies about what you think they meant but said the total opposite of? The things they called "ABSURD" in their writing on the subject? It's hard for me to accept they thought something was "absurd" yet that's what they meant... to be absurd!

And what is a matter of settled law doesn't mean anything in this debate either. We're not arguing about what courts have ruled.... that's a matter of public record! It's like arguing about whether abortion is right or wrong and someone pointing to Roe v. Wade, as if we don't know that exists! It's like someone from 1860 arguing against slavery and having someone point to the Dred Scott ruling... hey, because the court ruled, it MUST be RIGHT! Nonsense! The courts are OFTEN WRONG!

It appears we cannot agree to disagree, when someone defaults to an ad hominem as did you I put them in an entirely new set. I won't respond in kind, but the set isn't one highly respected for honesty or intelligence. I suggest you read my post you attacked more carefully.

That said, I used Jefferson, not Madison because I recalled a letter Jefferson wrote describing the general Welfare, essentially agreeing with your position. Jefferson and Madison were both democratic republicans as most of us know, the party known as the first opposition party in the Union.

We agree, "The courts are OFTEN WRONG" You may need to look up Textualism and comport the phrase "common Defence" and "general Welfare" both modified by "provide for". Get back to me once you've read about Textualism and digested Art. I, Sec 8, clause 1.

Oh and stop the name calling, it is childish and not productive.

 

[Boss]

We need to agree to disagree. We have over two centuries of jurisprudence to support policies and programs never thought of by the founders and thus not authorized in Art. I, sec. 8. In fact Jefferson's letters in which he limited the meaning of the general Welfare have no force of law, and Art. I, sec 1 states (emphasis added):

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare"
I don't find the Libertarian Platform to be either principled or pragmatic and given that party's lack of success I'm not alone.

The term "general welfare" was misconstrued a LONG time ago and re-interpreted in exactly the way many anti-federalists feared it would be. Madison argued in the Federalist Papers that it would be ludicrous to interpret "general welfare" in the way it is currently interpreted by the left in this country. He explained why in a few elegant paragraphs:

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

The Federalist #41
I understand that this is written in 18th century English and some lesser-educated persons might not get the gist of what he is saying here, but to summarize, he is saying that it's complete idiocy to think "general welfare" is some kind of blanket authority for government to determine what is "general welfare" and legislate accordingly. For if this is the case, why have ANY enumeration of powers?

"General welfare" was meant to specifically apply to the enumerated powers in the preceding portion of the sentences which the limited powers had just been listed... nothing more.

This is NOT Madison limiting the meaning of "general welfare" ...it's Madison explaining to the objectors why it can't possibly mean what they claim it meant. Which is exactly what it has been incorrectly and "absurdly" interpreted to mean.

My undergrad degree was a double, PoliSci and USHist. I've read the Federalist papers as well as the letters of many of the founders, and I've taken ConLaw, and other law classes as a grad student.

It's sadly funny that the conservative bloc supports a literal (Textism) interpretation of COTUS and yet only on those issues witch support their agendas:

"It is the law that matters, not the intention of the lawgiver"

I don't give a damn what kind of degrees you have! Obviously, some highly-educated people on Supreme Courts over the years have completely botched the meaning and interpretation of the General Welfare clause. I just gave you the argument presented by Madison (not Jefferson) on the intent and meaning of the clause in his argument to the anti-federalists who feared it meant exactly what it has been erroneously interpreted to mean. He is telling you why it is "absurd" to believe it means what has been interpreted.

What the fuck... Textism? Yes... the TEXT of what the people who wrote the Constitution SAID! DUH! What the fuck are we supposed to go by if not their words? Your imaginary fantasies about what you think they meant but said the total opposite of? The things they called "ABSURD" in their writing on the subject? It's hard for me to accept they thought something was "absurd" yet that's what they meant... to be absurd!

And what is a matter of settled law doesn't mean anything in this debate either. We're not arguing about what courts have ruled.... that's a matter of public record! It's like arguing about whether abortion is right or wrong and someone pointing to Roe v. Wade, as if we don't know that exists! It's like someone from 1860 arguing against slavery and having someone point to the Dred Scott ruling... hey, because the court ruled, it MUST be RIGHT! Nonsense! The courts are OFTEN WRONG!

It appears we cannot agree to disagree, when someone defaults to an ad hominem as did you I put them in an entirely new set. I won't respond in kind, but the set isn't one highly respected for honesty or intelligence. I suggest you read my post you attacked more carefully.

That said, I used Jefferson, not Madison because I recalled a letter Jefferson wrote describing the general Welfare, essentially agreeing with your position. Jefferson and Madison were both democratic republicans as most of us know, the party known as the first opposition party in the Union.

We agree, "The courts are OFTEN WRONG" You may need to look up Textualism and comport the phrase "common Defence" and "general Welfare" both modified by "provide for". Get back to me once you've read about Textualism and digested Art. I, Sec 8, clause 1.

Oh and stop the name calling, it is childish and not productive.

There was no ad hominem about it. I have read Federalist 41 along with most all of the Federalist Papers and some of the Anti-Federalist Papers as well. These were the essential arguments which prevailed at the time. European socialism and royal rulers was NOT an option. No one advocated for a Socialist style government or would have tolerated such nonsense. Our very founding was to ESCAPE government tyranny, not embrace it as our Essential Nanny!

I don't need to look up Textualism. It's a formalist theory that, to me, is redundant in the sense of Constitutional intent in this area because so much is written about it. This one issue was one of the biggest and most hotly-contested issues of the new constitution. Just how FAR was government going to pursue our "general welfare" and did that mean they had unilateral autonomy over our decision making?

As you can see, "to provide for general welfare" can be interpreted to mean everything. If government has the power to tax everything we certainly have no true freedom.

 

[Mertex]

75 Ways Socialism Has Improved AmericaEveryone that uses the roads pays for them. Socialism would involve people using them that didn't pay.

That's not socialism so calling people idiots is hilarious. The roads were built buy private contractors, the state doesn't own the businesses.

Geez, are all conservatives really that dumb? Of course they were built by private contractors.....but the government paid for it, ignoramus. If the state owned the businesses, that would be called communism, and that isn't even what we are talking about. So try to stay relevant, okay?

Wrong. The government doesn't pay for roads. We do. We hire them to take care of things like infrastructure, police (I guess they are socialists too?) emergency, etc. They are out of control but it still isn't socialism. You need to learn English before you run your big keyboard.

Definition of SOCIALISM
Full Definition of socialism

1. 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
   
   
2. 2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private propertyb : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

FYI...."We the people are the government".....we elect people to do that for us....you don't write out a check directly to the company that is building the roads, so, yes, the government pays for it. Your use of semantics to skew reality is no surprise....most conservatives will lie through their teeth and twist words to make their lies seem factual.

 

[Mertex]

Geez, are all conservatives really that dumb? Of course they were built by private contractors.....but the government paid for it, ignoramus.

No, the government didn't pay for it. The taxpayers pooled their resources and elected representatives who approved using those resources for that purpose. That is not Socialism. That's representative democracy. The government can't pay for anything, they have no magic money fairy.

The big problem with Socialism is it's based upon a lie. It is claimed to be "democratic control of means of production" but you can't have "democratic control" if the government controls it. In a Socialist system, you don't get a vote, the government decides for you. That's Socialist Democracy.

Geez, another genius......FYI....we the people are the government. Of course we elect people and they do it for us, but we don't write out checks directly to the various things the government pays for.......the government is the one that does that. Quit trying to use semantics to twist what I said.

Because everybody pays taxes, and our taxes are pooled to pay for the roads that everyone uses.....no matter what you want to call it, that is a form of socialism. End of Story.

 

[Mertex]

75 Ways Socialism Has Improved AmericaEveryone that uses the roads pays for them. Socialism would involve people using them that didn't pay.

That's not socialism so calling people idiots is hilarious. The roads were built buy private contractors, the state doesn't own the businesses.

Geez, are all conservatives really that dumb? Of course they were built by private contractors.....but the government paid for it, ignoramus. If the state owned the businesses, that would be called communism, and that isn't even what we are talking about. So try to stay relevant, okay?

Wrong. The government doesn't pay for roads. We do. We hire them to take care of things like infrastructure, police (I guess they are socialists too?) emergency, etc. They are out of control but it still isn't socialism. You need to learn English before you run your big keyboard.

Definition of SOCIALISM
Full Definition of socialism

1. 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
   
   
2. 2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private propertyb : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

We're a long way from having no private property.

Exactly.....but try to get them to understand it!

 

[Indeependent]

My objection with Madison is that he was an elitist snob who couldn't write one sentence without utilizing at least 4 negatives.
I lack trust in a man such as Madison for whom I need to drink 4 8oz cups of coffee in order to get the slightest inkling of what vague idea he is attempting to convey.

 

[Mertex]

None of what you listed is Socialism. Some of the things you listed were enumerated in our Constitution and have been a part of our system from the start.

So you think that because it is enumerated in our Constitution and has been part of our system from the start that it can't be called Socialism? If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

You just don't know what you are talking about. What you and most Republican/conservatives try to do is equate the current form of Socialism to the Socialism aligned with Marxism or communism. Nobody is trying to make the United States into a totally socialist country....but we do have socialistic programs that both Democrats and Republicans enjoy....so to deny that there are and that you don't like them is a stretch.

The right isn't the one plying word games. According to your theory all governments are fundamentally socialist.

That's bullshit....where did I ever say all governments are fundamentally socialist? Here is a list of the most socialist countries.....the US isn't part of the list, so quit lying and making up shit. Read about the countries that are and get educated, so you won't be posting such BS.

http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/


The fact remains that the US has programs that are socialistic, like I mentioned in the OP....whether you and the rest of the wrong-wing want to call it that or not. The fact that Americans still own private property (from your own definition post) should make you aware that we are not totally Socialist, not even close.

Some allow more or less capitalism to take place. That's just stupid.

Why is it stupid? Because you don't understand it?

Denmark

Denmark has a wide range of welfare benefits that they offer their citizens. As a result, they also have the highest taxes in the world. Equality is considered the most important value in Denmark. Small businesses thrive, with over 70 percent of companies having 50 employees or less.

China
Recently, the Chinese economy has become more geared towards capitalism, but is still officially socialist.

Canada

Like the Netherlands, Canada also has mostly a free market economy, but has a very extensive welfare system that includes free health and medical care. Canadians remain more open-minded and liberal than Americans, and Canada is ranked as one of the best top five countries to live in by the United Nations and the Human Development Index (HDI) rankings.

 

[Muhammed]

So we hear so many Americans claim they hate socialism and don't think Bernie Sanders would have a chance to win if he were selected as the Democratic candidate.

I don't feel that way at all. I think Sanders would win in a Reaganesqe style landslide victory in a General election.

That's why I hope Clinton wins the Democratic party nomination. At least it will split the Dem vote.