The 'General Welfare' thread

[manifold]

Maybe. But O'Connor, a supposed conservative found in the Constitution that specifically 25 years of discrimination was in the Constitution. The conservatives have refused to overturn the Constitutional abomination that is Roe v. Wade. They might vote for it if they would not win, I doubt they would vote for it if they would. Republicans like to stand on principle then back down to win elections. People overwhelmingly support SS/Medicare not realizing it is one of the greatest evils ever perpetrated on them by government along with ObamaCare . Any program that provides everyone a government check gives politicians power over them.

But as long as SS stands, it's hard to argue that other wealth redistribution programs are unconstitutional.

No it's not.

Point taken.

As you've already demonstrated, it's not hard to argue anything you want, regardless of how assinine. The difficult part is buliding a compelling case which of course you've repeatedly failed to accomplish.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'd say he is correct, but it is silly to blame
FDR. The clause is in the constitution and basically amounts to a fail safe.

Blame the founders.

So you agree that Congress has similarly unlimited powers when it comes to providing for the common defense. Right?

No. I don't agree that at all. They are not allowed to violate someone's civil rights.

That goes without saying, as Congress doesn't have the power to provide for the general welfare when doing so violates someone's civil rights.
But you -do- then agree that Congress otherwise has similarly unlimited power to provide for the common defense. Right?

 

[BenNatuf]

Which semi-colon do you mean?

After the first one, taxes are not mentioned again...only duties, imposts, and excises are.

No mention there of taxes.

Then the subsequent statements would seem to refer to only duties, imposts and excises.

sometimes you have to keep reading

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Taxes were to be apportioned.

That in no way, shape, or form relates to what we are discussing.

Aportionment of taxes was covered in AR9. Did you expect them to cover everything ion one article?

 

[BenNatuf]

The fact that you ignore the deffinition of words to find meaning you want to be there does not change their deffinitions. Pointing out that to define "general welfare" the way you want to requires one to ignore or redefine "general" is not trolling and if you do choose meaning for words by which they are defined you are a moron. It is not me you disagree with... it's the fucking words. You should leave the logical reasonning to those who are capable of it, spiff,... you are not. Your disagreeing with me does not make you a moron, your inability to comprehend written words does.

I'm just following the lead of the SCOTUS. Apparently the court in 1937 was also incapable of comprehending written words according to you.

Again, if that's not trolling, it sure as shit isn't a compelling argument skippy.

Then i'm sure you'd agree that corporations have 1st amendment rights and the government does have the power to gather intelligence in the US without warrants and is free to hold prisoners at Gitmo indeffinately even if they are aquitted. Of course they are right about those things... but I have a feeling you won't be "following there lead".

I'm also guessing that you don't know this argument of yours is a classic appeal to authority. Courts have been wrong before, they will be wrong again. Their opinions are not neccesarily "right", what they are is current law whether right or not. And I don't see anyone arguing that any of these programs aren't current law, what I see is people arguing that if we apply the constitution according to what it says... they shouldn't be.

 

[Ravi]

So you agree that Congress has similarly unlimited powers when it comes to providing for the common defense. Right?

No. I don't agree that at all. They are not allowed to violate someone's civil rights.

That goes without saying, as Congress doesn't have the power to provide for the general welfare when doing so violates someone's civil rights.
But you -do- then agree that Congress otherwise has similarly unlimited power to provide for the common defense. Right?

IF their actions actually do end up providing for the common defense, yes.

 

[BenNatuf]

I'd say he is correct, but it is silly to blame
FDR. The clause is in the constitution and basically amounts to a fail safe.

Blame the founders.

So you agree that Congress has similarly unlimited powers when it comes to providing for the common defense. Right?

No. I don't agree that at all. They are not allowed to violate someone's civil rights.

You mean like by taking their property from them and giving it to some lazy ignorant bastard?

 

[manifold]

Courts have been wrong before, they will be wrong again. Their opinions are not neccesarily "right", what they are is current law whether right or not. And I don't see anyone arguing that any of these programs aren't current law, what I see is people arguing that if we apply the constitution according to what it says... they shouldn't be.

So what are you doing about it besides making your voice count at USMB?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. I don't agree that at all. They are not allowed to violate someone's civil rights.

That goes without saying, as Congress doesn't have the power to provide for the general welfare when doing so violates someone's civil rights.
But you -do- then agree that Congress otherwise has similarly unlimited power to provide for the common defense. Right?

IF their actions actually do end up providing for the common defense, yes.

But certainly, that similarly unlimited power would include raising armies, creating a navy, and providing for the arming and disciplining of the militia - right?

 

[Liberty]

would someone who disagrees actually address ALL THE POINTS to my reply on page 14 and not just cherry pick my own opinion and instead focus on the facts that are presented? Thanks.

 

[BenNatuf]

But as long as SS stands, it's hard to argue that other wealth redistribution programs are unconstitutional.

No it's not.

Point taken.

As you've already demonstrated, it's not hard to argue anything you want, regardless of how assinine. The difficult part is buliding a compelling case which of course you've repeatedly failed to accomplish.

Except of course that I've already demonstrated that SS does benefit everyone without qualification (the GENERAL public) while food stamps, section 8, and AFDC take from almost everyone to give to very few (SPECIFICALLY QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS).

Yeah, if you ignore that FACT as studiously as you ignore the deffinition of words you could say I failed... you'd be wrong, but you could say that. Your defficient ability to logically reason is your problem.

 

[Ravi]

So you agree that Congress has similarly unlimited powers when it comes to providing for the common defense. Right?

No. I don't agree that at all. They are not allowed to violate someone's civil rights.

You mean like by taking their property from them and giving it to some lazy ignorant bastard?

Income tax is not unconstitutional. Fail.

 

[Ravi]

That goes without saying, as Congress doesn't have the power to provide for the general welfare when doing so violates someone's civil rights.
But you -do- then agree that Congress otherwise has similarly unlimited power to provide for the common defense. Right?

IF their actions actually do end up providing for the common defense, yes.

But certainly, that similarly unlimited power would include raising armies, creating a navy, and providing for the arming and disciplining of the militia - right?

Yep...again, the size would matter, though...and the actions of said military. They still need to demonstrate the need and the benefit.

 

[kaz]

No. I don't agree that at all. They are not allowed to violate someone's civil rights.

You mean like by taking their property from them and giving it to some lazy ignorant bastard?

Income tax is not unconstitutional. Fail.

I generally don't respond to your shallow points anymore because they are so shallow. Case in point here. Here you not only argued only half his point, but the part you ignored was the key part of "general welfare."

 

[Ravi]

You mean like by taking their property from them and giving it to some lazy ignorant bastard?

Income tax is not unconstitutional. Fail.

I generally don't respond to your shallow points anymore because they are so shallow. Case in point here. Here you not only argued only half his point, but the part you ignored was the key part of "general welfare."

I generally don't respond to trailer trash, so piss off, asswipe.

 

[kaz]

Income tax is not unconstitutional. Fail.

I generally don't respond to your shallow points anymore because they are so shallow. Case in point here. Here you not only argued only half his point, but the part you ignored was the key part of "general welfare."

I generally don't respond to trailer trash, so piss off, asswipe.

That's true, usually you just have sex with trailer trash...

 

[M14 Shooter]

IF their actions actually do end up providing for the common defense, yes.

But certainly, that similarly unlimited power would include raising armies, creating a navy, and providing for the arming and disciplining of the militia - right?

Yep...again, the size would matter, though...and the actions of said military. They still need to demonstrate the need and the benefit.

If, as you agree, the 'provide for the common defense' clause gives similarly ulimited power to provide for the common defese was intended by the Founders to give Congress the power to raise armies, create a navy, and provide for the arming and disciplining of the militia, why then did these people not only specifically allocate these powers to congress, but then also argue that the specification of these powers was necessary, else Congress would not have said powers?

 

[BenNatuf]

No. I don't agree that at all. They are not allowed to violate someone's civil rights.

That goes without saying, as Congress doesn't have the power to provide for the general welfare when doing so violates someone's civil rights.
But you -do- then agree that Congress otherwise has similarly unlimited power to provide for the common defense. Right?

IF their actions actually do end up providing for the common defense, yes.

Thats the silliest argument I've ever heard as there is only one person in the government empowered to determine if actions provide for the common defense and he's the one who orders the actions.

 

[BenNatuf]

Courts have been wrong before, they will be wrong again. Their opinions are not neccesarily "right", what they are is current law whether right or not. And I don't see anyone arguing that any of these programs aren't current law, what I see is people arguing that if we apply the constitution according to what it says... they shouldn't be.

So what are you doing about it besides making your voice count at USMB?

I write, I contact my congressmen and Senators, I contact my state legislature, I speak to other people... eveything I legally can do that might one day make a difference.

 

[kaz]

Thats the silliest argument I've ever heard

Oh, keep posting with Ravi and you'll hear a lot sillier

 

[M14 Shooter]

That goes without saying, as Congress doesn't have the power to provide for the general welfare when doing so violates someone's civil rights.
But you -do- then agree that Congress otherwise has similarly unlimited power to provide for the common defense. Right?

IF their actions actually do end up providing for the common defense, yes.

Thats the silliest argument I've ever heard as there is only one person in the government empowered to determine if actions provide for the common defense and he's the one who orders the actions.

Actually, no...
Under his argument, Congress, thru the elastic clause, decides what is necessary and proper.