"that's not in the constitution!

[gekaap]

First, Read article 1 section 8.

Second, look at any amendment that authorizes anything.

After that, eliminate any program that does not fall within those grants of power.

we will have eliminated about 90% of the budget.

In other words, bye bye Air Force. Please, say it. You would disband the Air Force.

 

[Oddball]

First, Read article 1 section 8.

Second, look at any amendment that authorizes anything.

After that, eliminate any program that does not fall within those grants of power.

we will have eliminated about 90% of the budget.

In other words, bye bye Air Force. Please, say it. You would disband the Air Force.

That red herring remains a red herring....It doesn't mention cavalry or artillery specifically either.

 

[Flopper]

Gonna need a trawler to reel in all them red herrings.

What is probably needed is a Constitution Convention to modernize the constitution. There is too much interpretation. Out of the general welfare clause springs almost half of all government expenditures.

The General Welfare clause is, of itself, without effect. If you will look really closely, you'll find that clause ends with a semi-colon, that means, stay-tuned.....we're gonna tell you what we mean by "General Welfare" and "provide for the common defense" etc. If you would care to read James Madison's blistering rebuke of people who wish to read the clause as you do, and what he thinks of your ability to read the English language, you can find it in Federalist 41 read the last 4 paragraphs.

As for what the Constitution means, I'm going with the guy that wrote it. He probably understands it better than you.

I would guess that nothing followed because the founders simply didn't know how to define the general welfare for generations to come. We can't expect that they should see a need for Social Security or Medicare.

Let's face it. We are never going to turn the clock back to 1776 and abolish half the government. What is needed is a constitution that reflects current and future needs of the country, not life as is was over 200 years ago. We should keep the Bill of Rights and rewrite the rest.

 

[gekaap]

That red herring remains a red herring....It doesn't mention cavalry or artillery specifically either.

How is it a red herring? I'm not the one who said it, avatar is the one who put forth his criteria. All I've done is point out where his criteria lead.

 

[Oddball]

No, what you've done is invoked the smelly old red herring of claiming that modern weaponry (i.e. an air force) would be unconstitutional, as it isn't specifically mentioned as a method for providing the common defense.

Well, neither artillery nor cavalry are mentioned either, and both of those existed back at the time of the founding.

Myth:

 

[Avorysuds]

You do realize Clinton gave out huge tax credits as well yes?

Now, lets pretend we are under Clinton ear tax levels… Can you show how many Americas did or didn’t pay taxes plz? I went out and grabbed something up for you, how about you back up your claims. I’m gonna sit here and wonder in under Clinton 80-90% of Americans paid taxes lol.

Yes, I realize it. But you seemed to miss my point. Clinton and the GOP controlled Congress of the time managed to hammer out compromises and established policies that were helping our country's fiscal problems. I'm really not concerned right now with who gets the credit, the point is that the policies in place were working to our benefit, as opposed to the past decade of making things worse. So why not return to that set up, and go from there?

I'm sorry, are you saying that Clinton was going to solve the budget?

The fact that Clinton had 2 big ass bubbles during his terms didn't help?

The fact that he faked a surplus for the very reason as to crate moronic debates for years and years after he is gone in regards to his budget actually working or not?

In some ways sure, Clinton was not "as bad" as Bush or Obama but why the fuck are we talking about Clinton? His policies in a perfect world (no wars or natural disasters) would have only built the deficit at a slower pace than we did it under Bush and do it now under Obama.

Cutting the military and ending the wars does not fix the budget… Taxing the rich does not fix the budget. So please understand you HAVE to cut all the unconstitutional vote buying shit that was predicted by the fucking founding fathers (200 fucking years ago w t f) to bring down our country.

Big Government = corrupt Government… That’s what the Founding Fathers understood, why don’t you? A 800 billion dollar stimulus with like 4 TRILLION (I think it was 4) hidden FED stimulus hardly caused a fuking bump in the economy. Have fun paying it all back with inflation!

I do believe you guys are just scared that if "Smaller Government" were given a chance it would work and you would feel like a buch of noobz.

 

[gekaap]

You're really detached from reality. You're not interested in seeing anything get done. You're just here to throw a tantrum and cry. "WAAAHHHAITSUNCONSTITUTIONAAAAHHHLL!"

You gotta learn that all this stuff is NOT unconstitutional. You can't keep ignoring how these programs have had their constitutionality tested and upheld by the courts. Get into the reality and stop living in a dream land. Nothing you can say will ever have any use or merit in these discussions until you do.

 

[Vanquish]

You do realize Clinton gave out huge tax credits as well yes?

Now, lets pretend we are under Clinton ear tax levels… Can you show how many Americas did or didn’t pay taxes plz? I went out and grabbed something up for you, how about you back up your claims. I’m gonna sit here and wonder in under Clinton 80-90% of Americans paid taxes lol.

Yes, I realize it. But you seemed to miss my point. Clinton and the GOP controlled Congress of the time managed to hammer out compromises and established policies that were helping our country's fiscal problems. I'm really not concerned right now with who gets the credit, the point is that the policies in place were working to our benefit, as opposed to the past decade of making things worse. So why not return to that set up, and go from there?

I'm sorry, are you saying that Clinton was going to solve the budget?

The fact that Clinton had 2 big ass bubbles during his terms didn't help?

The fact that he faked a surplus for the very reason as to crate moronic debates for years and years after he is gone in regards to his budget actually working or not?

In some ways sure, Clinton was not "as bad" as Bush or Obama but why the fuck are we talking about Clinton? His policies in a perfect world (no wars or natural disasters) would have only built the deficit at a slower pace than we did it under Bush and do it now under Obama.

Cutting the military and ending the wars does not fix the budget… Taxing the rich does not fix the budget. So please understand you HAVE to cut all the unconstitutional vote buying shit that was predicted by the fucking founding fathers (200 fucking years ago w t f) to bring down our country.

Big Government = corrupt Government… That’s what the Founding Fathers understood, why don’t you? A 800 billion dollar stimulus with like 4 TRILLION (I think it was 4) hidden FED stimulus hardly caused a fuking bump in the economy. Have fun paying it all back with inflation!

I do believe you guys are just scared that if "Smaller Government" were given a chance it would work and you would feel like a buch of noobz.

This comment is just retarded.

I'm not scared of smaller government. I welcome it. I don't want to hand Uncle Sam one dollar that I can be spending on all the fun stuff that I enjoy in life.

Here's my problem with what you said. "Cutting the military and ending the wars does not fix the budget… Taxing the rich does not fix the budget."

Wars are money spent...they go on the budget. On one hand they aren't predictable...but on the other hand they actually are...once you get into them. Meaning dollars aren't spent with out a metric fuck ton of planning. Wars GO ON THE BUDGET!

We don't have the money for all this world police / military interventionist / nation building crap! I voted for Barack to STOP that kind of shit...and here he goes doing it again. Boom! That's the sound of a vote lost.

Taxing the rich doesn't fix the budget? While I think it's reckless to tax people into oblivion and keep spending money and taxing people to fix it - you're wrong. Taxing anyone fixes the budget by increasing the money coming in, which hopefully, is less than the amount of money being spent.

Your grasp on simple logic is worrisome.

 

[Immanuel]

You're really detached from reality. You're not interested in seeing anything get done. You're just here to throw a tantrum and cry. "WAAAHHHAITSUNCONSTITUTIONAAAAHHHLL!"

You gotta learn that all this stuff is NOT unconstitutional. You can't keep ignoring how these programs have had their constitutionality tested and upheld by the courts. Get into the reality and stop living in a dream land. Nothing you can say will ever have any use or merit in these discussions until you do.

There becomes a point where you are correct, but as in the case with President Obama's (actually, I should call it Nancy Pelosi's) Health Care Reform bill from last year, there is grounds to argue that the bill itself is unconstitutional and there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so. Ultimately, the courts will decide that issue. Unfortunately, by the time they get around to it, our country will be so mired in its web that it will be too frigging late.

There comes a time when arguing about the constitutionality of a program goes from arguing legal points to whining. At this moment, the argument against HCR has not reached that point.

Immie

 

[gekaap]

There becomes a point where you are correct, but as in the case with President Obama's (actually, I should call it Nancy Pelosi's) Health Care Reform bill from last year, there is grounds to argue that the bill itself is unconstitutional and there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so. Ultimately, the courts will decide that issue. Unfortunately, by the time they get around to it, our country will be so mired in its web that it will be too frigging late.

There comes a time when arguing about the constitutionality of a program goes from arguing legal points to whining. At this moment, the argument against HCR has not reached that point.

Immie

While I, personally, don't believe the HC bill will turn out to be upheld as unconstitutional, I do agree that it's ultimately an undetermined question. I'm not really trying to say anything here about anyone's arguments against the HC bill. But in this thread what we've seen is an attack on the constitutionality of pretty much everything the government does. Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, the DOE, the EPA, all of this has been called unconstitutional. The arguments are that anything not explicitly mentioned in the constitution is an unconstitutional entity. And it is those arguments that I see as whining.

 

[Immanuel]

There becomes a point where you are correct, but as in the case with President Obama's (actually, I should call it Nancy Pelosi's) Health Care Reform bill from last year, there is grounds to argue that the bill itself is unconstitutional and there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so. Ultimately, the courts will decide that issue. Unfortunately, by the time they get around to it, our country will be so mired in its web that it will be too frigging late.

There comes a time when arguing about the constitutionality of a program goes from arguing legal points to whining. At this moment, the argument against HCR has not reached that point.

Immie

While I, personally, don't believe the HC bill will turn out to be upheld as unconstitutional, I do agree that it's ultimately an undetermined question. I'm not really trying to say anything here about anyone's arguments against the HC bill. But in this thread what we've seen is an attack on the constitutionality of pretty much everything the government does. Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, the DOE, the EPA, all of this has been called unconstitutional. The arguments are that anything not explicitly mentioned in the constitution is an unconstitutional entity. And it is those arguments that I see as whining.

True, that is where this thread went, but the OP kind of corralled it to begin with don't you think?

Not that that always works, but in this case for any post on topic it was going to be one of those kinds of posts or a rebuttal to such post.

Immie

 

[Vanquish]

At this point in the thread can we at least all agree to the simple fact that just because a federal agency isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it's unconstitutional?

Despite the underwhelming power and overwhelming simplicity of that statement...I'd really like people to agree they understand that concept.

 

[Oddball]

I a federal agency doesn't fall under the auspices of the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, the erroneous "interpretation" of the general welfare clause notwithstanding, it's safe to say it's unconstitutional.

 

[gekaap]

At this point in the thread can we at least all agree to the simple fact that just because a federal agency isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it's unconstitutional?

Despite the underwhelming power and overwhelming simplicity of that statement...I'd really like people to agree they understand that concept.

Unfortunately, on this board, there will never be agreement to such a statement, because there will always be that contingent who will simply stick their fingers in their ears and say "LALALACANTHEREYOU" when confronted with any evidence that does not affirm their disdain for our constitution as written and our government as it exists.

 

[Oddball]

You mean evidence as in the Federalist Papers, which clearly delineate what falls under the scope of what was intended by "general welfare" and what wasn't?

 

[gekaap]

You mean evidence as in the Federalist Papers, which clearly delineate what falls under the scope of what was intended by "general welfare" and what wasn't?

Oh yes, let's talk about one person, long dead, and his views. Let's completely ignore all the case law.

 

[jillian]

last i checked, the federalist papers were never enacted into law.

 

[RDD_1210]

You mean evidence as in the Federalist Papers, which clearly delineate what falls under the scope of what was intended by "general welfare" and what wasn't?

And Clearly you refuse to acknoweldge that Hamilton had a much different opinion then Madison. BOTH wrote the Federalist papers that you love to refer to.

 

[Immanuel]

At this point in the thread can we at least all agree to the simple fact that just because a federal agency isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it's unconstitutional?

Despite the underwhelming power and overwhelming simplicity of that statement...I'd really like people to agree they understand that concept.

You want us all to agree to something?

Vanquish, you have more faith than I do.

Immie

 

[Wry Catcher]

You mean evidence as in the Federalist Papers, which clearly delineate what falls under the scope of what was intended by "general welfare" and what wasn't?

Notwithstanding Professor Odd-dude, the following link expresses an opinon on the meaning of "General Welfare" as it appears in the Preamble and in Aritcle I:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

Odd-dude, being a professional pounder of nails and dilettante hypnotherapist suggests he knows "The Truth". He offers his opinions borrowed from one source which meets one test only - it must fit nicely into his ideology (Government Sucks). There is never any evidence he has considered other opinions, for to do so would create cogitive dissonance and weaken his weltsicht. His opinions are presented as immutable and one dare not question him for he has at his disposal a collection of logical fallacies ready to deflect and/or end debate.