Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And since when does the SCOTUS legislate such things?
It's not a matter of legislation.
But the SCOTUS has been the final arbiter of constitutionality since Marbury v Madison.
And can still be challanged via Congressional Action. They are NEVER the final say.
No, it doesn't.So your argument is that when the Founding Fathers signed what they thought was a document that strictly limited Federal Power and preserved individual freedoms and protected State rights, one of those enumerated powers was "oh, and the Federal Government can do whatever the hell it wants."
Very persuasive argument that is...
No, that's not my argument. That is what's known in the business as a strawman.
My argument is that the federal government's authority to provide for the 'general welfare' is bound by what 'we the people' determine is necessary and acceptable as long as it doesn't infringe upon individual liberty.
Take it in context,, it works if you don't have a Progressive tax system. with that you do infringe on people's liberty.
It's not a matter of legislation.
But the SCOTUS has been the final arbiter of constitutionality since Marbury v Madison.
And can still be challanged via Congressional Action. They are NEVER the final say.
Your misinformed, possibly willful, ignorance duly noted.
So basically, as long as the majority voted for it, it is not an individual liberty to do otherwise. What a load of crap and you'd never convince anyone who wrote the document that's what they meant.But for better or worse it really is just anything goes when it comes to taxing and spending as long as it has the support of 'we the people'. At least until the SCOTUS rules, even just once, that a particular general welfare program is unconstitutional. I suppose it could happen, but I wouldn't bet on it.
And since when does the SCOTUS legislate such things?
It's not a matter of legislation.
But the SCOTUS has been the final arbiter of constitutionality since Marbury v Madison.
Arguing how someone else 'should' interpret the general welfare clause based on how you think they 'should' practice their religion is beyond retarded and has no place in an honest discussion about constitutionality and what the federal government is empowered to do vis-a-vis providing for the general welfare.
Give up. You lost the argument.
He did? So in your opinion the general welfare clause is about how people should practice their religion? 
It's not a matter of legislation.
But the SCOTUS has been the final arbiter of constitutionality since Marbury v Madison.
And can still be challanged via Congressional Action. They are NEVER the final say.
Your misinformed, possibly willful, ignorance duly noted.
Read Jefferson's explanation again.
The general welfare clause would not allow the government to do something that violated someone's liberty. See the interment of Japanese Americans during WW2.
At least with the progressive tax system, there is an amendment authorizing income taxes, so the debate has to be made in that context.No, it doesn't.No, that's not my argument. That is what's known in the business as a strawman.
My argument is that the federal government's authority to provide for the 'general welfare' is bound by what 'we the people' determine is necessary and acceptable as long as it doesn't infringe upon individual liberty.
Take it in context,, it works if you don't have a Progressive tax system. with that you do infringe on people's liberty.
See the minimum wage, social security, Obamacare, the war on drugs, ...Read Jefferson's explanation again.
The general welfare clause would not allow the government to do something that violated someone's liberty. See the interment of Japanese Americans during WW2.
Arguing how someone else 'should' interpret the general welfare clause based on how you think they 'should' practice their religion is beyond retarded and has no place in an honest discussion about constitutionality and what the federal government is empowered to do vis-a-vis providing for the general welfare.
Give up. You lost the argument.
At least with the progressive tax system, there is an amendment authorizing income taxes, so the debate has to be made in that context.No, it doesn't.Take it in context,, it works if you don't have a Progressive tax system. with that you do infringe on people's liberty.
But welfare and other redistribution programs just cannot be justified under "General Welfare" because they are not not "general welfare." They are benefiting some citizens at the expense of others.
neg me all you like asshole. Nary a fuckin' DENT. I Chose to IGNORE your comment...but for whatever reason you seem HELLBENT on it when I already informed you it was stupid and i chose to negate it by not answering.Give up. You lost the argument.
In his defense, I negged him and he was going after the first post of mine he could find to troll. Obviously he didn't take the time to actually read it first, otherwise he would've realized he actually agreed with it and found a different one where that wasn't the case. Wouldn't have been too difficult either.
Read on and enjoy his backpedal fail.
neg me all you like asshole. Nary a fuckin' DENT. I Chose to IGNORE your comment...but for whatever reason you seem HELLBENT on it when I already informed you it was stupid and i chose to negate it by not answering.
In his defense, I negged him and he was going after the first post of mine he could find to troll. Obviously he didn't take the time to actually read it first, otherwise he would've realized he actually agreed with it and found a different one where that wasn't the case. Wouldn't have been too difficult either.
Read on and enjoy his backpedal fail.
You're a shallow and VAPID inconsequential idiot Mani.
*Deal With it*
He did...his actions were ruled unconstitutional.Read Jefferson's explanation again.
The general welfare clause would not allow the government to do something that violated someone's liberty. See the interment of Japanese Americans during WW2.
Good. DIG UP FDR and make him answer for it. *Recall Him*
Nor is CongressAnd since when does the SCOTUS legislate such things?
It's not a matter of legislation.
But the SCOTUS has been the final arbiter of constitutionality since Marbury v Madison.
And can still be challanged via Congressional Action. They are NEVER the final say.
Which benefits the general welfare. In that particular instance it benefits the country by not having poor, diseased, robbing, homeless people around every corner bringing down the property taxes and contributing nothing to the economy.At least with the progressive tax system, there is an amendment authorizing income taxes, so the debate has to be made in that context.No, it doesn't.Take it in context,, it works if you don't have a Progressive tax system. with that you do infringe on people's liberty.
But welfare and other redistribution programs just cannot be justified under "General Welfare" because they are not not "general welfare." They are benefiting some citizens at the expense of others.
And can still be challanged via Congressional Action. They are NEVER the final say.
Your misinformed, possibly willful, ignorance duly noted.
I'll Take "What is the Amendment Process for $1,000 Alex..."
*DOPE*.
neg me all you like asshole. Nary a fuckin' DENT. I Chose to IGNORE your comment...but for whatever reason you seem HELLBENT on it when I already informed you it was stupid and i chose to negate it by not answering.In his defense, I negged him and he was going after the first post of mine he could find to troll. Obviously he didn't take the time to actually read it first, otherwise he would've realized he actually agreed with it and found a different one where that wasn't the case. Wouldn't have been too difficult either.
Read on and enjoy his backpedal fail.
You're a shallow and VAPID inconsequential idiot Mani.
*Deal With it*
So do you, or do you not believe that religion has a place in a discussion about the general welfare clause?
Aside from the war on drugs, none of those violate anyone's liberty.See the minimum wage, social security, Obamacare, the war on drugs, ...Read Jefferson's explanation again.
The general welfare clause would not allow the government to do something that violated someone's liberty. See the interment of Japanese Americans during WW2.
