Welfare is Unconstitutional

[LoneLaugher]

Such greed and stupidity I see here daily. Such sad, ugly souls.

 

[jc456]

How many sane, adult and able bodied Americans refuse to work an available job and instead live off of public funds?

How much do these people cost us?

If you cannot answer those two questions, you have no reason to be outraged.

I believe it was mike rowe who stated there are five milion tech jobs available for anyone qualified.

 

[jc456]

You keep arguing this but you have nothing to back your argument. All you have been doing for weeks now is parroting Trump supporter rhetoric like someone panhandling for reputation points. It's pretty sad. Are you jealous of Tom Horn, Steve McRacist, and others?

Read the constitution dumbfuck. That's all the proof you need. Omg

Calling someone a "dumbfuck" puts you into the same set as bripat and others too dumb to write a rebuttal, sadly you and those who lack the education to write an expository essay on what you've been told to believe, leaves you no other recourse than to call others morons, stupid or dumbfucks.

well you were asked a question to which you never answered. I'd say that qualified you for a dumbfk, Now where in general is an individual mentioned?

Are you a liar, or simply echoing the other liar?

"general, affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread."
Google

"welfare, the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group"
welfare definition - Google Search

so I'm still looking for where it states individual. where? still haven't answered that question. still makes you a dumbfk.

so old wry catch can't answer the main question about individual. what a loser.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Federal programs have stretched from north to south, east to west and everywhere in between and NONE of it is constitutional. Phones, daycare, gas money, food stamps, checks, subsidized rent..
None of this is an enumerated power of the Federal Govt. There also hasnt been an amendment to address this.
BTW, for you "general welfare" rapists, "general" isnt a single person. Or even local or regional.

Why do you echo the usual propaganda all of the time and not post here ^^^ an expository essay on why you think (lol, as if you ever do) that Article I, sec. 8, clause 1 (the clause below) does not include defense against Polio, Ebola, Malaria and even cancer and heart disease, and provide provide food, clothing and shelter to citizens unable to take care of themselves or their children?

[The Congress shall have the 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;]

Explain what the words in the clause mean!

define general welfare

please delete that post. I dont want to hear his dishonesty again :/

Denial isn't a rebuttal, and calling my post dishonest is absurd. Unless you think (lol, as if you can) that allowing a pandemic like Ebola to be a problem for each state and not something the Federal Government ought to bother with.

Whats dishonest is your raping of words for agenda.
Why do you keep mentioning disease? Are you freaking retarded? The one thing that would be "general" and you use it against me

Sorry, I forget to write to the lowest common denominator. Just for you, the word DEFENCE means more than a military attack: See:

U.S. Military and Vaccine History | History of Vaccines

 

[Lewdog]

How many sane, adult and able bodied Americans refuse to work an available job and instead live off of public funds?

How much do these people cost us?

If you cannot answer those two questions, you have no reason to be outraged.

I honestly don't know very many people that would rather live below poverty, barely getting by and unable to have nice things or go on vacations, who wouldn't rather be working to get those things.

 

[Lewdog]

Not sure why people keep arguing this "general" part. Just because you aren't getting food stamps today doesn't mean you might not need them tomorrow.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The general welfare has many components. A contribution to the general welfare need only affect one of those components.
Take federal disaster relief, for example.

If liberals want their precious welfare programs to remain in place and they want disaster relief you would think they would be in favor of increasing wealth and paying down the national debt. You would think they would be in favor of targeted corporate tax cuts. You would think they would want to help businesses small and large to increase their profits and grow their workforce for the increase in tax dollars. You can't keep pulling money out of an empty vault. The vault must be replenished at some point.

What an idea!!! And all of those tax cuts will trickle down to benefit all of our citizens!

---SARCASM ALERT---

 

[Wry Catcher]

Again, you sitting in your room does not make it so. You know what it will take.

make what so? Social security actually meets the criteria of "general." Individual welfare, doesnt.
Although i do wish we didnt have Social Security. I would much rather invest a higher percentage than i do now.

The general welfare has many components. A contribution to the general welfare need only affect one of those components.
Take federal disaster relief, for example.

Federal Disaster Relief was deemed unconstitutional by the 4th Congress as it didnt meet the clauses requirements. Ever hear of the big Savannah GA fire?
A few years before, they ruled that loans to corporations were unconstitutional as well.

So all the federal disaster relief since, including FEMA, is an hallucination? WTF?

Not a hallucination but unconstitutional.
It might seem like the right thing to do, but it goes against the COTUS. Isnt much of a way around that. As in the case with welfare, the clause isnt confined to an individual or certain area. It must be the entire Nation.
The COTUS protected us from a big govt. You know, the main reason we declared independence?

Do you support the repeal of Marbury v. Madison? It is not in the COTUS, and has been the law of the land for two centuries. I think you're daft!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Federal programs have stretched from north to south, east to west and everywhere in between and NONE of it is constitutional. Phones, daycare, gas money, food stamps, checks, subsidized rent..
None of this is an enumerated power of the Federal Govt. There also hasnt been an amendment to address this.
BTW, for you "general welfare" rapists, "general" isnt a single person. Or even local or regional.

are you a Constitutional lawyer ...? of course not...you are an ignorant podunk wing nut repeating crazy ass talking points from Alex Jones

The Constitution is a "talking point?" Lol ok

We get it. You're in that tiny minority that thinks that the everything except defense is unconstitutional.

The Idiot fringe = that tiny minority

 

[TNHarley]

make what so? Social security actually meets the criteria of "general." Individual welfare, doesnt.
Although i do wish we didnt have Social Security. I would much rather invest a higher percentage than i do now.

The general welfare has many components. A contribution to the general welfare need only affect one of those components.
Take federal disaster relief, for example.

Federal Disaster Relief was deemed unconstitutional by the 4th Congress as it didnt meet the clauses requirements. Ever hear of the big Savannah GA fire?
A few years before, they ruled that loans to corporations were unconstitutional as well.

So all the federal disaster relief since, including FEMA, is an hallucination? WTF?

Not a hallucination but unconstitutional.
It might seem like the right thing to do, but it goes against the COTUS. Isnt much of a way around that. As in the case with welfare, the clause isnt confined to an individual or certain area. It must be the entire Nation.
The COTUS protected us from a big govt. You know, the main reason we declared independence?

Do you support the repeal of Marbury v. Madison? It is not in the COTUS, and has been the law of the land for two centuries. I think you're daft!

Lol you will have to explain the relevance better than that.MvsM was the first case to shoot down something as unconstitutional.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The general welfare has many components. A contribution to the general welfare need only affect one of those components.
Take federal disaster relief, for example.

If liberals want their precious welfare programs to remain in place and they want disaster relief you would think they would be in favor of increasing wealth and paying down the national debt. You would think they would be in favor of targeted corporate tax cuts. You would think they would want to help businesses small and large to increase their profits and grow their workforce for the increase in tax dollars. You can't keep pulling money out of an empty vault. The vault must be replenished at some point.

Red states, conservative states, take far more federal welfare than blue states do. Your memes are out of date by 40 years.

That has nothing to do with my post. 20 trillion dollars in debt. That must be addressed in order to keep the government tit open for suckling. Don't you understand that?

The 20 T debt is a product of two wars, The Great Recession and Tax Cuts. We now have a POTUS who claims the impossible, engages in Brinkmanship with a lunatic both of whom have nuclear weapons. How much blood and treasure do you think is at risk? 20 T will be chump change if adults don't take charge in The District and we take a hit by a nuke in a major US metro area.

Today Trump is meeting on the issue of the opiate crisis - it's past time for Pence and the Congress to invoke the 25th Amendment!

 

[TNHarley]

The general welfare has many components. A contribution to the general welfare need only affect one of those components.
Take federal disaster relief, for example.

If liberals want their precious welfare programs to remain in place and they want disaster relief you would think they would be in favor of increasing wealth and paying down the national debt. You would think they would be in favor of targeted corporate tax cuts. You would think they would want to help businesses small and large to increase their profits and grow their workforce for the increase in tax dollars. You can't keep pulling money out of an empty vault. The vault must be replenished at some point.

Red states, conservative states, take far more federal welfare than blue states do. Your memes are out of date by 40 years.

That has nothing to do with my post. 20 trillion dollars in debt. That must be addressed in order to keep the government tit open for suckling. Don't you understand that?

The 20 T debt is a product of two wars, The Great Recession and Tax Cuts. We now have a POTUS who claims the impossible, engages in Brinkmanship with a lunatic both of whom have nuclear weapons. How much blood and treasure do you think is at risk? 20 T will be chump change if adults don't take charge in The District and we take a hit by a nuke in a major US metro area.

Today Trump is meeting on the issue of the opiate crisis - it's past time for Pence and the Congress to invoke the 25th Amendment!

Did you just blame 20T of debt on one President? OMFG

 

[Clintonista]

Welfare is Unconstitutional

Please cite the case law which supports this. Thank you.

 

[Conservative65]

I am against corporate welfare as well.
I am against loans and bailouts of any sort. They are illegal. Plus, i dont think it is the citizens responsibility.
I also like how you completely ignore the OP and bring up other things. Why dont you comment on the constitutionality of individual welfare?

Why don't you leave the United States, you hate the government, hate its citizens and hold an ideology which lacks any bit of pragmatism? Go find some county which pleases you, I'm certain you won't be missed.

It's not very pragmatic to provide more to someone than they could earn with their sorry skills then think it's an incentive to start doing for yourself. That's what you believe.

That's not what I believe, bozo. If you didn't have so much competition from your side of the aisle I would consider you would be the most mentally challenged and incapable of thinking person on this message board. All of your posts seem to be an echo of the same old shit echoed by other biddable fools on the right.

If you didn't have so much competition, I'd say you're the biggest Obama NL on the board. You're up there but nowhere near the top, BOY.

What did you mean when you wrote "NL" in association with President Obama?

I bet you believe you're real clever - you're not - and would deny you're a racist.

You're disgusting, and that maybe your best side.

You Liberals claim to be so much smarter than everyone else. You tell me.

Unless you're going to call EVERYONE a racist that uses a particular term, including rappers, etc., your claims about me have no validity. Even then, they'd still have no validity.

You support someone based on the color of his skin and call me disgusting. Laughable.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The general welfare has many components. A contribution to the general welfare need only affect one of those components.
Take federal disaster relief, for example.

Federal Disaster Relief was deemed unconstitutional by the 4th Congress as it didnt meet the clauses requirements. Ever hear of the big Savannah GA fire?
A few years before, they ruled that loans to corporations were unconstitutional as well.

So all the federal disaster relief since, including FEMA, is an hallucination? WTF?

Not a hallucination but unconstitutional.
It might seem like the right thing to do, but it goes against the COTUS. Isnt much of a way around that. As in the case with welfare, the clause isnt confined to an individual or certain area. It must be the entire Nation.
The COTUS protected us from a big govt. You know, the main reason we declared independence?

Do you support the repeal of Marbury v. Madison? It is not in the COTUS, and has been the law of the land for two centuries. I think you're daft!

Lol you will have to explain the relevance better than that.MvsM was the first case to shoot down something as unconstitutional.

LOL

Where in Art. III is the authority to judge the actions of The Congress or other legislative and executive bodies as Unconstitutional???????

 

[Conservative65]

Welfare is Unconstitutional

Please cite the case law which supports this. Thank you.

I'll do you one better. It's not specifically authorized by the Constitution.

 

[TNHarley]

Welfare is Unconstitutional

Please cite the case law which supports this. Thank you.

Awww how cute. Lovely post. Thanks.

 

[TNHarley]

Welfare is Unconstitutional

Please cite the case law which supports this. Thank you.

I'll do you one better. It's not specifically authorized by the Constitution.

Was that hard? It wasnt for me. But some people have the hardest time understanding the basic principles of the Constitution..

 

[Conservative65]

Welfare is Unconstitutional

Please cite the case law which supports this. Thank you.

I'll do you one better. It's not specifically authorized by the Constitution.

Was that hard? It wasnt for me. But some people have the hardest time understanding the basic principles of the Constitution..

Those that have a hard time with it don't understand the concept of federalism. There are powers which are specifically delegated to the federal government. If they aren't, the Constitution is clear as to where those powers belong. If entities where those powers belong choose not to do something related to that topic, it doesn't default the a different level of government. Delegated powers mean you can. Reserved power means you can if you want to.

 

[Clintonista]

I asked for case law which supports the claim welfare is unconstitutional. I do not think the person who started this topic knows how to do this so I will teach him by providing case law which shows welfare is not unconstitutional. In fact some of these cases the Supreme Court ruled that withholding welfare is unconstitutional.

Helvering v. Davis 301 U.S. 619 (1937)

Mathews v. Eldridge 424 U.S. 319 (1976)

King v. Smith 392 U.S. 309 (1968)

Shapiro v. Thompson 394 U.S. 618 (1969)

Dandridge v. Williams 397 U.S. 471 (1970)