The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

[ron4342]

Yeah, good ole "promote the general welfare", the go to loophole for power mongers since the Constitution was signed..

You have refused to answer my questions and have tried, unsuccessfully, to dismiss the phrase "promote the general welfare."
"Promote the general welfare" means EXACTLY what it says. It means the government is tasked with trying to make the lives of its citizens better. Wouldn't having jobs make their lives better? Wouldn't having jobs improve the economy for this country and isn't that a good thing, for EVERYONE!!!! Ignore it if you wish to continue to look ignorant but the founding fathers recognized that one of the functions of the government was to improve the lives of its citizens and not to turn their back on them in time of need. Perhaps it was the founder of the republican party who said it best. Wasn't it Lincoln who said that government should be "of the people, by the people, and for the people." What do you think "for the people means?"
Unfortunately "promote the general welfare" is just one part of the Constitution that conservative choose to ignore.

incorrect. To promote something does not mean give something. Also "welfare" means something different today than it did when the constitution was written... Not to mention the FF's simply don't agree with your dictatorial definition of their laws meant to restrain Government.

"incorrect. To promote something does not mean give something."
pro·mote
verb (used with object), pro·mot·ed, pro·mot·ing.
1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.

(It seems to me that this is EXACTLY WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE SPEAKING OF WHEN THEY USED THE WORD: PROMOTE.
Wouldn't helping people find jobs be helping them to "flourish" or "exist?")

2. to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc. (opposed to demote.

3. Education . to put ahead to the next higher stage or grade of a course or series of classes.

4. to aid in organizing (business undertakings).

5. to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), especially through advertising or other publicity.

Also "welfare" means something different today than it did when the constitution was written...

wel·fare

noun
1. the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.
(Here again, doesn't the definition above seem like something the FF's would want for the citizens of this country. Or do you believe the FF's wanted poverty, poor health, and a life misery for its citizens?)
2.welfare work.

3. financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren't for welfare.

4. ( initial capital letter ) Informal. a governmental agency that provides funds and aid to people in need, especially those unable to work.
Not to mention the FF's simply don't agree with your dictatorial definition of their laws meant to restrain Government.
How do you know this. Were you privy to what the FF's were thinking? No! All we have is the document they forged which is their expression of the duties and responsibilities for the government. A person, you for example, cannot just dismiss their words and say they really meant something else unless you can provide valid definitions. You should be wise enough to know this.
What you are trying to do is to avoid acknowledging that when the government takes steps to help the people they are acting ACCORDING to the Constitution and the wishes of the founding fathers just as the FF's specified. Go and find the definitions of promote and welfare that existed in 1779 to make your case. Those words have been in existance a long time and I doubt that the definitions have changed a great deal down through the years.

 

[Avorysuds]

Using the powers itemized by the constitution were to promote the general welfare. That did not mean that the federal government has the unlimited power to do anything it sees fit in the name of promoting the general welfare.

Correct, and no where in the constitution does it allow the federal Government to create things like Obamacare, MC/MC/SS or food stamps. And now we suffer massive deficits, increased people living in poverty and a division in this country literally divided by those that pay taxes and those that collect "welfare."

So let us know when to tune in and see you protesting on Capitol Hill.

I protest in that I don't vote Republican or Democrat.

 

[Avorysuds]

You have refused to answer my questions and have tried, unsuccessfully, to dismiss the phrase "promote the general welfare."
"Promote the general welfare" means EXACTLY what it says. It means the government is tasked with trying to make the lives of its citizens better. Wouldn't having jobs make their lives better? Wouldn't having jobs improve the economy for this country and isn't that a good thing, for EVERYONE!!!! Ignore it if you wish to continue to look ignorant but the founding fathers recognized that one of the functions of the government was to improve the lives of its citizens and not to turn their back on them in time of need. Perhaps it was the founder of the republican party who said it best. Wasn't it Lincoln who said that government should be "of the people, by the people, and for the people." What do you think "for the people means?"
Unfortunately "promote the general welfare" is just one part of the Constitution that conservative choose to ignore.

incorrect. To promote something does not mean give something. Also "welfare" means something different today than it did when the constitution was written... Not to mention the FF's simply don't agree with your dictatorial definition of their laws meant to restrain Government.

"incorrect. To promote something does not mean give something."
pro·mote
verb (used with object), pro·mot·ed, pro·mot·ing.
1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.

(It seems to me that this is EXACTLY WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE SPEAKING OF WHEN THEY USED THE WORD: PROMOTE.
Wouldn't helping people find jobs be helping them to "flourish" or "exist?")

2. to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc. (opposed to demote.

3. Education . to put ahead to the next higher stage or grade of a course or series of classes.

4. to aid in organizing (business undertakings).

5. to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), especially through advertising or other publicity.

Also "welfare" means something different today than it did when the constitution was written...

wel·fare

noun
1. the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.
(Here again, doesn't the definition above seem like something the FF's would want for the citizens of this country. Or do you believe the FF's wanted poverty, poor health, and a life misery for its citizens?)
2.welfare work.

3. financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren't for welfare.

4. ( initial capital letter ) Informal. a governmental agency that provides funds and aid to people in need, especially those unable to work.
Not to mention the FF's simply don't agree with your dictatorial definition of their laws meant to restrain Government.
How do you know this. Were you privy to what the FF's were thinking? No! All we have is the document they forged which is their expression of the duties and responsibilities for the government. A person, you for example, cannot just dismiss their words and say they really meant something else unless you can provide valid definitions. You should be wise enough to know this.
What you are trying to do is to avoid acknowledging that when the government takes steps to help the people they are acting ACCORDING to the Constitution and the wishes of the founding fathers just as the FF's specified. Go and find the definitions of promote and welfare that existed in 1779 to make your case. Those words have been in existance a long time and I doubt that the definitions have changed a great deal down through the years.

Incorrect again. Read the federalist papers and you will quickly realize that your odd interpretation is in fact the opposite of what they wanted. In fact they discuss that under your interpretation there would be no need for the constitution as you could do anything.

 

[dblack]

You have refused to answer my questions and have tried, unsuccessfully, to dismiss the phrase "promote the general welfare."
"Promote the general welfare" means EXACTLY what it says. It means the government is tasked with trying to make the lives of its citizens better. Wouldn't having jobs make their lives better? Wouldn't having jobs improve the economy for this country and isn't that a good thing, for EVERYONE!!!! Ignore it if you wish to continue to look ignorant but the founding fathers recognized that one of the functions of the government was to improve the lives of its citizens and not to turn their back on them in time of need. Perhaps it was the founder of the republican party who said it best. Wasn't it Lincoln who said that government should be "of the people, by the people, and for the people." What do you think "for the people means?"
Unfortunately "promote the general welfare" is just one part of the Constitution that conservative choose to ignore.

incorrect. To promote something does not mean give something. Also "welfare" means something different today than it did when the constitution was written... Not to mention the FF's simply don't agree with your dictatorial definition of their laws meant to restrain Government.

"incorrect. To promote something does not mean give something."
pro·mote
verb (used with object), pro·mot·ed, pro·mot·ing.
1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.

(It seems to me that this is EXACTLY WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE SPEAKING OF WHEN THEY USED THE WORD: PROMOTE.
Wouldn't helping people find jobs be helping them to "flourish" or "exist?")

2. to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc. (opposed to demote.

3. Education . to put ahead to the next higher stage or grade of a course or series of classes.

4. to aid in organizing (business undertakings).

5. to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), especially through advertising or other publicity.

Also "welfare" means something different today than it did when the constitution was written...

wel·fare

noun
1. the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.
(Here again, doesn't the definition above seem like something the FF's would want for the citizens of this country. Or do you believe the FF's wanted poverty, poor health, and a life misery for its citizens?)
2.welfare work.

3. financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren't for welfare.

4. ( initial capital letter ) Informal. a governmental agency that provides funds and aid to people in need, especially those unable to work.
Not to mention the FF's simply don't agree with your dictatorial definition of their laws meant to restrain Government.
How do you know this. Were you privy to what the FF's were thinking? No! All we have is the document they forged which is their expression of the duties and responsibilities for the government. A person, you for example, cannot just dismiss their words and say they really meant something else unless you can provide valid definitions. You should be wise enough to know this.
What you are trying to do is to avoid acknowledging that when the government takes steps to help the people they are acting ACCORDING to the Constitution and the wishes of the founding fathers just as the FF's specified. Go and find the definitions of promote and welfare that existed in 1779 to make your case. Those words have been in existance a long time and I doubt that the definitions have changed a great deal down through the years.

Hehe... yeah, this shit again.

But hey, maybe you're right. Maybe the founders really meant the general welfare clause of the taxation power to be a general grant of power that undermined the entire concept of limited government. Based on my reading, I doubt they were that stupid - but it IS possible. If that's what you're insisting, however, then I'll say flat out that I have no intention of abiding by such idiocy, original intent or not.

 

[dblack]

Really? The President is responsible for keeping us employed? Never saw that in the Constitution.

That's probably because you have never read or tried to understand the Constitution. Here is the Preamble of the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What do you suppose that phrase "... promote the general Welfare .... " means? Wouldn't helping people obtain jobs be promoting the general welfare?

Dunce.
If that were the case then the federal gov't would have unlimited power to "promote the general welfare." They could mandate eating eggplant every day if they wanted. That would eviscerate the idea of limited gov't. If what you wrote was true why does the Constitution lay out what powers Congress has? t would be unnecessary. It could just have said Congress has the power to promote the general welfare and left it at that. But it didnt.
The Preamble is not the functioning legal part of the document. It is a statement of intent.
Geez no wonder Obama got elected twice with nudniks like this running around.

Alas, some of our fellow voters actually see it that way - just ask the eggplant lobby! For them, government is just another way to get one over on your neighbor.

 

[ron4342]

Really? The President is responsible for keeping us employed? Never saw that in the Constitution.

That's probably because you have never read or tried to understand the Constitution. Here is the Preamble of the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What do you suppose that phrase "... promote the general Welfare .... " means? Wouldn't helping people obtain jobs be promoting the general welfare?

Dunce.
If that were the case then the federal gov't would have unlimited power to "promote the general welfare." They could mandate eating eggplant every day if they wanted. That would eviscerate the idea of limited gov't. If what you wrote was true why does the Constitution lay out what powers Congress has? t would be unnecessary. It could just have said Congress has the power to promote the general welfare and left it at that. But it didnt.
The Preamble is not the functioning legal part of the document. It is a statement of intent.
Geez no wonder Obama got elected twice with nudniks like this running around.

Typical!!! What you are trying to do is to pick and choose the parts of the Constitution you want to accept. The Preamble is a valid part of the Constitution which sets out the reason for the government to exist! You cannot dismiss it because you disagree with a part of it. It is just like saying I am a Christian but I only believe 7 of the 10 commandments.
AND YES, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS THE GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE UNLIMITED POWER TO "PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE." All you need is one party, Democrat or republican, to control the presidency, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court and it is a done deal. And yes, they could order people to eat eggplant. (I love it by the way: Dipped in a beaten egg wash and coated with a combination of bread crumbs and parmesan cheese and then baked in the oven it is delicious.)
The Preamble is a statement of the purpose of the Constitution and the general duties of the government. The rest of the Constitution goes into detail in explaining how those duties are to be handled.
Now obviously the FF's could not go into detail on promoting the general welfare. They could not say establish an EPA, an FAA, a Interstate Highway System, etc. They could not see into the future. By not going into detail the Preamble can be flexible on such things as what promotes the general welfare. Nixon promoted the general welfare by establishing the EPA. Eisenhower did it by the freeway system. And on, and on, and on. Each president can to promote the general welfare according to the challenges of the time and it would have been impossible for the FF's to look into the future and forsee what needed to be done.
Now, I have not called you any names or insulted you in any way. If you wish me to drag this debate down into the shit just continue as you are doing. I assure you I can be as gross and insulting as anyone on this board.

 

[TooTall]

Who cares? Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.

I'm just curious. Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?

so now its changed, the exec. has zip to do with employment...got it.


you get the silver.....

So you credit Bill Clinton with the 4% UE he left for GW Bush?

I credit the dotcom boom for Clinton's 5.2% average low unemployment rate as well as a responsible Congress that almost balanced the budget.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's probably because you have never read or tried to understand the Constitution. Here is the Preamble of the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What do you suppose that phrase "... promote the general Welfare .... " means? Wouldn't helping people obtain jobs be promoting the general welfare?

Dunce.
If that were the case then the federal gov't would have unlimited power to "promote the general welfare." They could mandate eating eggplant every day if they wanted. That would eviscerate the idea of limited gov't. If what you wrote was true why does the Constitution lay out what powers Congress has? t would be unnecessary. It could just have said Congress has the power to promote the general welfare and left it at that. But it didnt.
The Preamble is not the functioning legal part of the document. It is a statement of intent.
Geez no wonder Obama got elected twice with nudniks like this running around.

Typical!!! What you are trying to do is to pick and choose the parts of the Constitution you want to accept. The Preamble is a valid part of the Constitution which sets out the reason for the government to exist! You cannot dismiss it because you disagree with a part of it. It is just like saying I am a Christian but I only believe 7 of the 10 commandments.
AND YES, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS THE GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE UNLIMITED POWER TO "PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE." All you need is one party, Democrat or republican, to control the presidency, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court and it is a done deal. And yes, they could order people to eat eggplant. (I love it by the way: Dipped in a beaten egg wash and coated with a combination of bread crumbs and parmesan cheese and then baked in the oven it is delicious.)
The Preamble is a statement of the purpose of the Constitution and the general duties of the government. The rest of the Constitution goes into detail in explaining how those duties are to be handled.
Now obviously the FF's could not go into detail on promoting the general welfare. They could not say establish an EPA, an FAA, a Interstate Highway System, etc. They could not see into the future. By not going into detail the Preamble can be flexible on such things as what promotes the general welfare. Nixon promoted the general welfare by establishing the EPA. Eisenhower did it by the freeway system. And on, and on, and on. Each president can to promote the general welfare according to the challenges of the time and it would have been impossible for the FF's to look into the future and forsee what needed to be done.
Now, I have not called you any names or insulted you in any way. If you wish me to drag this debate down into the shit just continue as you are doing. I assure you I can be as gross and insulting as anyone on this board.

So if one party controls the strings of government then they have unlimited power to achieve "the general welfare"??
Really? You must have failed any civics course you ever took. Oh, wait. They dont teach that in schools anymore. No wonder.

 

[dblack]

AND YES, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS THE GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE UNLIMITED POWER TO "PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE." All you need is one party, Democrat or republican, to control the presidency, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court and it is a done deal. And yes, they could order people to eat eggplant....

I appreciate your candor about the implications of your views, if nothing else.

 

[rightwinger]

Dunce.
If that were the case then the federal gov't would have unlimited power to "promote the general welfare." They could mandate eating eggplant every day if they wanted. That would eviscerate the idea of limited gov't. If what you wrote was true why does the Constitution lay out what powers Congress has? t would be unnecessary. It could just have said Congress has the power to promote the general welfare and left it at that. But it didnt.
The Preamble is not the functioning legal part of the document. It is a statement of intent.
Geez no wonder Obama got elected twice with nudniks like this running around.

Typical!!! What you are trying to do is to pick and choose the parts of the Constitution you want to accept. The Preamble is a valid part of the Constitution which sets out the reason for the government to exist! You cannot dismiss it because you disagree with a part of it. It is just like saying I am a Christian but I only believe 7 of the 10 commandments.
AND YES, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS THE GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE UNLIMITED POWER TO "PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE." All you need is one party, Democrat or republican, to control the presidency, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court and it is a done deal. And yes, they could order people to eat eggplant. (I love it by the way: Dipped in a beaten egg wash and coated with a combination of bread crumbs and parmesan cheese and then baked in the oven it is delicious.)
The Preamble is a statement of the purpose of the Constitution and the general duties of the government. The rest of the Constitution goes into detail in explaining how those duties are to be handled.
Now obviously the FF's could not go into detail on promoting the general welfare. They could not say establish an EPA, an FAA, a Interstate Highway System, etc. They could not see into the future. By not going into detail the Preamble can be flexible on such things as what promotes the general welfare. Nixon promoted the general welfare by establishing the EPA. Eisenhower did it by the freeway system. And on, and on, and on. Each president can to promote the general welfare according to the challenges of the time and it would have been impossible for the FF's to look into the future and forsee what needed to be done.
Now, I have not called you any names or insulted you in any way. If you wish me to drag this debate down into the shit just continue as you are doing. I assure you I can be as gross and insulting as anyone on this board.

So if one party controls the strings of government then they have unlimited power to achieve "the general welfare"??
Really? You must have failed any civics course you ever took. Oh, wait. They dont teach that in schools anymore. No wonder.

So let me get this straight..

If We the People elect one party to majorities in the House, Senate and White House, and what they do passes Constitutional muster

They don't get to provide for the general welfare?

 

[BobPlumb]

AND YES, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS THE GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE UNLIMITED POWER TO "PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE." All you need is one party, Democrat or republican, to control the presidency, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court and it is a done deal. And yes, they could order people to eat eggplant....

I appreciate your candor about the implications of your views, if nothing else.

As a matter af practicality, Ron is right. However, I don't beleive that's how the founders intended it to be.

Obamacare is the law, upheld by the Supreme Court. Those in power have the ability to spit in the face of our founding fathers that wrote the constitution. This includes the republicans when they are in power also.

 

[dblack]

Typical!!! What you are trying to do is to pick and choose the parts of the Constitution you want to accept. The Preamble is a valid part of the Constitution which sets out the reason for the government to exist! You cannot dismiss it because you disagree with a part of it. It is just like saying I am a Christian but I only believe 7 of the 10 commandments.
AND YES, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS THE GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE UNLIMITED POWER TO "PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE." All you need is one party, Democrat or republican, to control the presidency, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court and it is a done deal. And yes, they could order people to eat eggplant. (I love it by the way: Dipped in a beaten egg wash and coated with a combination of bread crumbs and parmesan cheese and then baked in the oven it is delicious.)
The Preamble is a statement of the purpose of the Constitution and the general duties of the government. The rest of the Constitution goes into detail in explaining how those duties are to be handled.
Now obviously the FF's could not go into detail on promoting the general welfare. They could not say establish an EPA, an FAA, a Interstate Highway System, etc. They could not see into the future. By not going into detail the Preamble can be flexible on such things as what promotes the general welfare. Nixon promoted the general welfare by establishing the EPA. Eisenhower did it by the freeway system. And on, and on, and on. Each president can to promote the general welfare according to the challenges of the time and it would have been impossible for the FF's to look into the future and forsee what needed to be done.
Now, I have not called you any names or insulted you in any way. If you wish me to drag this debate down into the shit just continue as you are doing. I assure you I can be as gross and insulting as anyone on this board.

So if one party controls the strings of government then they have unlimited power to achieve "the general welfare"??
Really? You must have failed any civics course you ever took. Oh, wait. They dont teach that in schools anymore. No wonder.

So let me get this straight..

If We the People elect one party to majorities in the House, Senate and White House, and what they do passes Constitutional muster

They don't get to provide for the general welfare?

You're talking in circles. The bolded portion is what's in question. Some people think the general welfare clause is a wildcard, an "anything goes" power that lets government dictate everything we do, as long as, you know, it's "for your own good".

 

[ron4342]

You have refused to answer my questions and have tried, unsuccessfully, to dismiss the phrase "promote the general welfare."
"Promote the general welfare" means EXACTLY what it says. It means the government is tasked with trying to make the lives of its citizens better. Wouldn't having jobs make their lives better? Wouldn't having jobs improve the economy for this country and isn't that a good thing, for EVERYONE!!!! Ignore it if you wish to continue to look ignorant but the founding fathers recognized that one of the functions of the government was to improve the lives of its citizens and not to turn their back on them in time of need. Perhaps it was the founder of the republican party who said it best. Wasn't it Lincoln who said that government should be "of the people, by the people, and for the people." What do you think "for the people means?"
Unfortunately "promote the general welfare" is just one part of the Constitution that conservative choose to ignore.

incorrect. To promote something does not mean give something. Also "welfare" means something different today than it did when the constitution was written... Not to mention the FF's simply don't agree with your dictatorial definition of their laws meant to restrain Government.

Using the powers itemized by the constitution were to promote the general welfare. That did not mean that the federal government has the unlimited power to do anything it sees fit in the name of promoting the general welfare.

Oh, but it does! Under the right conditions the government can do ANYTHING it wants to. All you need is one party to control the White House, both Houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court and it is a done deal. Under those conditions the government can make any law or rule it wishes. For example, if they wished to strictly adhere to the Constitution they could close the Interstate System, the FAA, the FDA, the National Park System, the FCC, the Dept of Education, NASA, NORAD, INS, and on and on and on. Not one of those programs or departments is listed in the Constitution. Not one!!!!! The government could take this country back to September 17, 1787 if they so wished.

 

[rightwinger]

So if one party controls the strings of government then they have unlimited power to achieve "the general welfare"??
Really? You must have failed any civics course you ever took. Oh, wait. They dont teach that in schools anymore. No wonder.

So let me get this straight..

If We the People elect one party to majorities in the House, Senate and White House, and what they do passes Constitutional muster

They don't get to provide for the general welfare?

You're talking in circles. The bolded portion is what's in question. Some people think the general welfare clause is a wildcard, an "anything goes" power that lets government dictate everything we do, as long as, you know, it's "for your own good".

Article 1, Section 1 provides Congress the authority to pass laws.

Congress does what needs doing (unless you are talking about this congress)

 

[ron4342]

Dunce.
If that were the case then the federal gov't would have unlimited power to "promote the general welfare." They could mandate eating eggplant every day if they wanted. That would eviscerate the idea of limited gov't. If what you wrote was true why does the Constitution lay out what powers Congress has? t would be unnecessary. It could just have said Congress has the power to promote the general welfare and left it at that. But it didnt.
The Preamble is not the functioning legal part of the document. It is a statement of intent.
Geez no wonder Obama got elected twice with nudniks like this running around.

Typical!!! What you are trying to do is to pick and choose the parts of the Constitution you want to accept. The Preamble is a valid part of the Constitution which sets out the reason for the government to exist! You cannot dismiss it because you disagree with a part of it. It is just like saying I am a Christian but I only believe 7 of the 10 commandments.
AND YES, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS THE GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE UNLIMITED POWER TO "PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE." All you need is one party, Democrat or republican, to control the presidency, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court and it is a done deal. And yes, they could order people to eat eggplant. (I love it by the way: Dipped in a beaten egg wash and coated with a combination of bread crumbs and parmesan cheese and then baked in the oven it is delicious.)
The Preamble is a statement of the purpose of the Constitution and the general duties of the government. The rest of the Constitution goes into detail in explaining how those duties are to be handled.
Now obviously the FF's could not go into detail on promoting the general welfare. They could not say establish an EPA, an FAA, a Interstate Highway System, etc. They could not see into the future. By not going into detail the Preamble can be flexible on such things as what promotes the general welfare. Nixon promoted the general welfare by establishing the EPA. Eisenhower did it by the freeway system. And on, and on, and on. Each president can to promote the general welfare according to the challenges of the time and it would have been impossible for the FF's to look into the future and forsee what needed to be done.
Now, I have not called you any names or insulted you in any way. If you wish me to drag this debate down into the shit just continue as you are doing. I assure you I can be as gross and insulting as anyone on this board.

So if one party controls the strings of government then they have unlimited power to achieve "the general welfare"??
Really? You must have failed any civics course you ever took. Oh, wait. They dont teach that in schools anymore. No wonder.

With total control of the government, exactly WHO is going to stop them from making any law they wish?
(Unfortunately here in America we have an idiot who is still a birther.)

 

[dblack]

incorrect. To promote something does not mean give something. Also "welfare" means something different today than it did when the constitution was written... Not to mention the FF's simply don't agree with your dictatorial definition of their laws meant to restrain Government.

Using the powers itemized by the constitution were to promote the general welfare. That did not mean that the federal government has the unlimited power to do anything it sees fit in the name of promoting the general welfare.

Oh, but it does! Under the right conditions the government can do ANYTHING it wants to. All you need is one party to control the White House, both Houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court and it is a done deal. Under those conditions the government can make any law or rule it wishes. For example, if they wished to strictly adhere to the Constitution they could close the Interstate System, the FAA, the FDA, the National Park System, the FCC, the Dept of Education, NASA, NORAD, INS, and on and on and on. Not one of those programs or departments is listed in the Constitution. Not one!!!!! The government could take this country back to September 17, 1787 if they so wished.

And you wonder why people are opposed to your views? Do you realize how utterly fascist they are?

 

[ron4342]

So let me get this straight..

If We the People elect one party to majorities in the House, Senate and White House, and what they do passes Constitutional muster

They don't get to provide for the general welfare?

You're talking in circles. The bolded portion is what's in question. Some people think the general welfare clause is a wildcard, an "anything goes" power that lets government dictate everything we do, as long as, you know, it's "for your own good".

Article 1, Section 1 provides Congress the authority to pass laws.

Congress does what needs doing (unless you are talking about this congress)

I believe Congress can only pass laws under certain conditions.
When Congress passes a bill it is sent to the president to be signed into law. If the president chooses NOT to sign the bill the only way it can become law is if the Congress over rides the veto.

 

[The Rabbi]

Typical!!! What you are trying to do is to pick and choose the parts of the Constitution you want to accept. The Preamble is a valid part of the Constitution which sets out the reason for the government to exist! You cannot dismiss it because you disagree with a part of it. It is just like saying I am a Christian but I only believe 7 of the 10 commandments.
AND YES, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS THE GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE UNLIMITED POWER TO "PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE." All you need is one party, Democrat or republican, to control the presidency, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court and it is a done deal. And yes, they could order people to eat eggplant. (I love it by the way: Dipped in a beaten egg wash and coated with a combination of bread crumbs and parmesan cheese and then baked in the oven it is delicious.)
The Preamble is a statement of the purpose of the Constitution and the general duties of the government. The rest of the Constitution goes into detail in explaining how those duties are to be handled.
Now obviously the FF's could not go into detail on promoting the general welfare. They could not say establish an EPA, an FAA, a Interstate Highway System, etc. They could not see into the future. By not going into detail the Preamble can be flexible on such things as what promotes the general welfare. Nixon promoted the general welfare by establishing the EPA. Eisenhower did it by the freeway system. And on, and on, and on. Each president can to promote the general welfare according to the challenges of the time and it would have been impossible for the FF's to look into the future and forsee what needed to be done.
Now, I have not called you any names or insulted you in any way. If you wish me to drag this debate down into the shit just continue as you are doing. I assure you I can be as gross and insulting as anyone on this board.

So if one party controls the strings of government then they have unlimited power to achieve "the general welfare"??
Really? You must have failed any civics course you ever took. Oh, wait. They dont teach that in schools anymore. No wonder.

So let me get this straight..

If We the People elect one party to majorities in the House, Senate and White House, and what they do passes Constitutional muster

They don't get to provide for the general welfare?

Fallacy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Typical!!! What you are trying to do is to pick and choose the parts of the Constitution you want to accept. The Preamble is a valid part of the Constitution which sets out the reason for the government to exist! You cannot dismiss it because you disagree with a part of it. It is just like saying I am a Christian but I only believe 7 of the 10 commandments.
AND YES, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS THE GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE UNLIMITED POWER TO "PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE." All you need is one party, Democrat or republican, to control the presidency, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court and it is a done deal. And yes, they could order people to eat eggplant. (I love it by the way: Dipped in a beaten egg wash and coated with a combination of bread crumbs and parmesan cheese and then baked in the oven it is delicious.)
The Preamble is a statement of the purpose of the Constitution and the general duties of the government. The rest of the Constitution goes into detail in explaining how those duties are to be handled.
Now obviously the FF's could not go into detail on promoting the general welfare. They could not say establish an EPA, an FAA, a Interstate Highway System, etc. They could not see into the future. By not going into detail the Preamble can be flexible on such things as what promotes the general welfare. Nixon promoted the general welfare by establishing the EPA. Eisenhower did it by the freeway system. And on, and on, and on. Each president can to promote the general welfare according to the challenges of the time and it would have been impossible for the FF's to look into the future and forsee what needed to be done.
Now, I have not called you any names or insulted you in any way. If you wish me to drag this debate down into the shit just continue as you are doing. I assure you I can be as gross and insulting as anyone on this board.

So if one party controls the strings of government then they have unlimited power to achieve "the general welfare"??
Really? You must have failed any civics course you ever took. Oh, wait. They dont teach that in schools anymore. No wonder.

With total control of the government, exactly WHO is going to stop them from making any law they wish?
(Unfortunately here in America we have an idiot who is still a birther.)

OK, so your argument is might makes right.
You're dismissed, comrade.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're talking in circles. The bolded portion is what's in question. Some people think the general welfare clause is a wildcard, an "anything goes" power that lets government dictate everything we do, as long as, you know, it's "for your own good".

Article 1, Section 1 provides Congress the authority to pass laws.

Congress does what needs doing (unless you are talking about this congress)

I believe Congress can only pass laws under certain conditions.
When Congress passes a bill it is sent to the president to be signed into law. If the president chooses NOT to sign the bill the only way it can become law is if the Congress over rides the veto.

Your knowledge of the consitutional process is a piece with everything else.
Article I Section 7

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.