The 'General Welfare' thread

[Liberty]

i pretty much ended this thread on page 14.

 

[M14 Shooter]

i pretty much ended this thread on page 14.

I have you beat by 11 pages.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/159116-the-general-welfare-thread-3.html#post3420214

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

Who said it was? You conveniently left off the "and give it to lazy ignorant bastards" part of the equasion... which is typical for you libs. Just ignore the parts of a statement that are inconvenient to your opinion. The congress does have the power to take my money... they do not have the power to give it to someone who didn't earn it. They are not afforded that authority.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

To whom? Themselves?

Where do you get this idiocy?

 

[Liberty]

I have just one simple question.

If you believe the general welfare statement is a blank check for the federal government to do anything, then WHY did Madison outline enumerated powers exactly?

 

[Ravi]

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?

Please rephrase this, I'm not totally understanding what you are asking.

 

[BenNatuf]

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."

Kind of how "the GENERAL welfare OF The United States" gets morphed into "SOME PEOPLES welfare IN the United States" if words have no meaning the government can do whatever the hell it wants. These people just don't understand that if you empower the government to do things it has no authority to do because you like them, you empower it also to do those things it has no authority to do that you don't like.

 

[Liberty]

"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." Madison Federalist 41

"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." Madison Federalist 41

"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." Madison Federalist 41

"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." Madison Federalist 41

"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." Madison Federalist 41

"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." Madison Federalist 41

"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." Madison Federalist 41

"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." Madison Federalist 41

 

[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.

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.

Who would that one person be? The president? He is not authorized to declare war...he does seem to have some questionable powers to declare undeclared war, however.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

When did the Presidents orders to the military come under Congressional supervision? I must have missed that clause.

 

[Ravi]

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

Income tax is not unconstitutional. Fail.

Who said it was? You coneniently left off the "and give it to lazy ignorant bastards" part of the equasion... which is typical for you libs. Just ignore the parts of a statement that are inconvenient to your opinion. The congress does have the power to take my money... they do not have the power to give it to someone who didn't earn it. They are not afforded that authority.

That is left to the states...the state determines who gets welfare. And just because you claim anyone that receives welfare is a lazy, ignorant bastard doesn't make it so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Please rephrase this, I'm not totally understanding what you are asking.

You agree that the 'provide for the common defense' clause gives Congress power to provide for the common defense, limited only in that it may not violate the rights of the people. These powers include raising armies, creating a navy, and prividing for the arming of the militia.

Why then, if that clause was intended, as you argue, to provide those powers, was it necessary to specifically include those powers later in Article I section 8?

 

[Ravi]

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.

To whom? Themselves?

Where do you get this idiocy?

No, stupid...to the American people.

 

[Liberty]

Ravi and Ben, you guys are arguing about NOTHING. the introduction to the enumerated powes is not intended to have any sort of legal binding, the author himself has said this in federalist 41.

 

[BenNatuf]

I have just one simple question.

If you believe the general welfare statement is a blank check for the federal government to do anything, then WHY did Madison outline enumerated powers exactly?

Must have just wanted to give some helpfull examples!

 

[Liberty]

I have just one simple question.

If you believe the general welfare statement is a blank check for the federal government to do anything, then WHY did Madison outline enumerated powers exactly?

Must have just wanted to give some helpfull examples!

....hahaha. if thats the case then explain how Madison said in federalist 41 that it is a simple introduction and nothing more? He wrote it himself, did he have split personality disorder? Please cite.

 

[Ravi]

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?

Please rephrase this, I'm not totally understanding what you are asking.

You agree that the 'provide for the common defense' clause gived Congress power to provide for the common defense, limited only in that it may not violate the rights of the people. These powers include raising armies, creating a navy, and prividing for the arming of the militia.

Why then, if that clause was intended, as you argue, to provide those powers, was it necessary to specifically include those powers later in Article I section 8?

Clarity?

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

Who would that one person be? The president? He is not authorized to declare war...he does seem to have some questionable powers to declare undeclared war, however.

He's the guy who gives the orders and decides for himself whether or not they provide for the common deffence. What undeclared wars are you talking about?

 

[BenNatuf]

Income tax is not unconstitutional. Fail.

Who said it was? You coneniently left off the "and give it to lazy ignorant bastards" part of the equasion... which is typical for you libs. Just ignore the parts of a statement that are inconvenient to your opinion. The congress does have the power to take my money... they do not have the power to give it to someone who didn't earn it. They are not afforded that authority.

That is left to the states...the state determines who gets welfare. And just because you claim anyone that receives welfare is a lazy, ignorant bastard doesn't make it so.

When did I say "anyone who recieves welfare" is a lazy ignorant bastard. certainly there are more than a few, and IMO it would likely be the majority of them since most who recieve it tend to NEVER lift themselves off of it (until of course they exhaust it). Then of course if they weren't lazy and ignorant most of them likely would never need it in the first place.

benjamin franklin was right. The best way to help a person out of poverty is to make sure he's not comfortable in it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

When did the Presidents orders to the military come under Congressional supervision? I must have missed that clause.

It's not -my- argument...