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.
its a fucking joke you drunk dipshit.stephanie?
She's either off or on another thread.
jeeze you're just ignorant.
Its sad i have to explain it to you. I am saying you are just as stupid as that twat, therefore your posts are basically the same. Aside from that you are dead on...
from Article I section 8 of the US Constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
I don't see any explicit limit placed on what CAN or CANNOT be considered providing for the general welfare of the United States. However, I've seen several people here lately argue that there is only ONE acceptable definition of 'general welfare' (conveniently their own) and it excludes anything that even slightly constitutes a redistribution of wealth.
I understand philosophical and ideological opposition to wealth redistribution. But I don't understand constitutional opposition.
How do you interpret the General Welfare clause?
I believe the GW clause refers to public works, etc. General welfare. It's not that complicated.
Then why wasn't that spelled out specifically?
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.
its a fucking joke you drunk dipshit.
Its sad i have to explain it to you. I am saying you are just as stupid as that twat, therefore your posts are basically the same. Aside from that you are dead on...
You are in no position to explain anything to anyone.
Got it ACE?
uh oh i ran into drunks ego. you remind me of the feds. Do as i say, not as i do
But...you DO have choices. And since you have choices, your liberty isn't infringed.So now you're going to be like Jesus and advocate being a homeless bum?Trouble is, and where you fail, is that no one is forced to be gainfully employed.Not if you don't luck into the wealth to do so. Of course, then you have capital gains tax- plus taxes on any real estate you might have. You're back where you startedYou can choose to make all your income off of investmentsAnd your partner's money is taxed instead......or you could be a housewife.
awwwwwww...poor, bitter Dicca.Oh, she could probably make some bank on her knees as well.
James Madison, on interpretting the US Constitution:
"The legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it received all the Authority which it possesses."
But...you DO have choices. And since you have choices, your liberty isn't infringed.So now you're going to be like Jesus and advocate being a homeless bum?Not if you don't luck into the wealth to do so. Of course, then you have capital gains tax- plus taxes on any real estate you might have. You're back where you startedTrouble is, and where you fail, is that no one is forced to be gainfully employed.And your partner's money is taxed instead......or you could be a housewife.
Back to the topic......if the GW clause was about providing welfare to individuals then why wasn't that done when our nation was founded?
I don't see how that proves anything. Just because the government didn't come out of the gates doing something doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.
And regardless, it has been done, for a long time now, and has yet to be deemed unconstitutional.
James Madison, on interpretting the US Constitution:
"The legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it received all the Authority which it possesses."
And I am willing to BET that *YOU* didn't understand a single syllable of it.
James Madison, on interpretting the US Constitution:
"The legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it received all the Authority which it possesses."
And I am willing to BET that *YOU* didn't understand a single syllable of it.
That'd be something like the 17th argument you've lost today alone.
from Article I section 8 of the US Constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
I don't see any explicit limit placed on what CAN or CANNOT be considered providing for the general welfare of the United States. However, I've seen several people here lately argue that there is only ONE acceptable definition of 'general welfare' (conveniently their own) and it excludes anything that even slightly constitutes a redistribution of wealth.
I understand philosophical and ideological opposition to wealth redistribution. But I don't understand constitutional opposition.
How do you interpret the General Welfare clause?
from Article I section 8 of the US Constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
I don't see any explicit limit placed on what CAN or CANNOT be considered providing for the general welfare of the United States. However, I've seen several people here lately argue that there is only ONE acceptable definition of 'general welfare' (conveniently their own) and it excludes anything that even slightly constitutes a redistribution of wealth.
I understand philosophical and ideological opposition to wealth redistribution. But I don't understand constitutional opposition.
How do you interpret the General Welfare clause?
Socialism?
*YOU* are in a position to denamnd *ZERO*That'd be something like the 17th argument you've lost today alone.
The 17th? Mani? You're babbling incoheriently again. You really need to cease. I refuse to babysit you and the other fucking Statists on this board when it comes to principle. it just isn't possible since NONE of you have any education on it.
lol....oh man shut up lib
If the liberals' interpretation of the GW clause is sound, then doesn't that clause in question give Congress the power to do anything necessary and proper regarding the Common defense?
I believe the GW clause refers to public works, etc. General welfare. It's not that complicated.
Then why wasn't that spelled out specifically?
It was spelled out specifically in the enumerated powers that followed. Should anyone such as yourself choose to conveniently ignore those powers, Madison (you know the guy that actually wrote the constitution) explained in federalist 41 how the clause was to be interpreted;
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.
