Welfare is Unconstitutional

[Clintonista]

You haven't shown a single thing where the federal government is specifically authorized to do social welfare.

It cannot be helped you chose not to read the case laws I cited. If you are going to ignore facts because they explode your beliefs then we are done here. You are a person who cannot admit to being wrong so I will not waste any more of my time.

You need to learn one VERY important thing about this forum. Most, or at the least several, Conservatives and Trump supporters read posted links or watch videos that are provided as evidence to an argument.

Perhaps you can show me where the words food stamps, healthcare, government housing, etc. are in the Constitution. Can you?

Can you show me where Internet, pedophilia, automobiles, stock market, and Wall Street is in the Constitution? Because we have laws involving all those things and I don't see you crying they are unconstitutional.

Start a thread about it. Until then, stay on topic you dumb coon.

Wow. You really have no idea. This is really something.

 

[Conservative65]

I cited SEVERAL case laws for you. You have not cited a single case to support your claim.

Checkmate.

You haven't shown a single thing where the federal government is specifically authorized to do social welfare.

It cannot be helped you chose not to read the case laws I cited. If you are going to ignore facts because they explode your beliefs then we are done here. You are a person who cannot admit to being wrong so I will not waste any more of my time.

You need to learn one VERY important thing about this forum. Most, or at the least several, Conservatives and Trump supporters read posted links or watch videos that are provided as evidence to an argument.

Perhaps you can show me where the words food stamps, healthcare, government housing, etc. are in the Constitution. Can you?

Why are you expressing such an enormous ignorance of our Constitution? Did you not understand the point about drivers licenses and the FAA?

You are too stupid to know how stupid you are being right now.

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

Can you provide the terms I requested and their location in the Constitution.

You're as stupid as the average 85 IQ black in the country. Crawl out of your savagery and learn something.

 

[Conservative65]

It cannot be helped you chose not to read the case laws I cited. If you are going to ignore facts because they explode your beliefs then we are done here. You are a person who cannot admit to being wrong so I will not waste any more of my time.

You need to learn one VERY important thing about this forum. Most, or at the least several, Conservatives and Trump supporters read posted links or watch videos that are provided as evidence to an argument.

Perhaps you can show me where the words food stamps, healthcare, government housing, etc. are in the Constitution. Can you?

Can you show me where Internet, pedophilia, automobiles, stock market, and Wall Street is in the Constitution? Because we have laws involving all those things and I don't see you crying they are unconstitutional.

Start a thread about it. Until then, stay on topic you dumb coon.

Wow. You really have no idea. This is really something.

I have an idea that you're a dumbass.

 

[AntonToo]

Federal programs have stretched from north to south, east to west and everywhere in between and NONE of it is constitutional.

Where the fuck were you in the last 100 years? Because all of this got very thoroughly hashed out, so time to wake up and smell the well established Constitutional precedent:

Feds effectively have a broad constitutional power to tax and spend with only minor limitations.

 

[Lewdog]

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)

The supreme court also said internment of american citizens was constitutional..
I dont let a group of unelected activists tell me what the Constitution says. I can read for myself. I can also read intent. That is also available for everyone to read.

Non Sequitur. You started this thread, so you should know it is about Welfare not internment camps.

It was a justification for my opinion.

No it isn't. Welfare and an internment camp are not related in any way, shape, or form.

my opinion of the activists in the supreme court. Goddamn. You wouldnt know context if it skull fucked you for six hours

Yeah...see here is the funny thing about the statement you just made. Earlier you said you didn't really mention Madison and his opinion, you just posted a quote from Hamilton. Well guess what boss, if you post a quote from someone in which another individual and his opinion are within that quote, you are also mentioning that person and their opinion. Otherwise your quote holds no context and is basically useless and invalid.

Now here you are trying to justify that the Supreme Court's decision on the Constitutionality of Social programs through the idea of General Welfare is invalid because the Supreme Court ruled internment camps were Constitutional. That's a Non Sequitur. It has nothing to do with your opinion, unless you want to admit your opinion is useless.

You do realize that the Supreme Court in a lot of these decisions is made by different judges right? Chief Justice John Marshall is no longer on the Supreme Court... That's why past Supreme Court decisions can be brought back up, like how many are hoping to get enough Conservative appointees to the Supreme Court to revisit and over turn Roe v. Wade. Now with that being said, the Supreme Court's decision on General Welfare was made a VERY long time ago, and it has not been overturned... and that is with several Justices passing through the Court that are VERY highly educated, and here you sit trying to argue that your opinion is more valid than their's.

Good luck with that.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

And it is also immaterial as the Constitution does not authorize federal welfare to individuals or families or groups nor does it prohibit it should the states, counties, local communities, etc. choose to provide it.

One of the distinct differences of point of view between modern American conservatives/libertarians and modern American liberals/progressives is that the first group wants the federal government to have no authority or responsibility in anything that is more Constitutional and/or appropriate for the states or local communities to do. The latter group wants the federal government to provide for everybody as well as be able to dictate how that states and local communities and sometimes individuals conduct their affairs.

 

[Lewdog]

You haven't shown a single thing where the federal government is specifically authorized to do social welfare.

It cannot be helped you chose not to read the case laws I cited. If you are going to ignore facts because they explode your beliefs then we are done here. You are a person who cannot admit to being wrong so I will not waste any more of my time.

You need to learn one VERY important thing about this forum. Most, or at the least several, Conservatives and Trump supporters read posted links or watch videos that are provided as evidence to an argument.

Perhaps you can show me where the words food stamps, healthcare, government housing, etc. are in the Constitution. Can you?

Can you show me where Internet, pedophilia, automobiles, stock market, and Wall Street is in the Constitution? Because we have laws involving all those things and I don't see you crying they are unconstitutional.

Start a thread about it. Until then, stay on topic you dumb coon.

Haha, so your argument just got busted, and what do you do, you call me a derogatory name for a Black person. You think I'm Black?

 

[Conservative65]

It cannot be helped you chose not to read the case laws I cited. If you are going to ignore facts because they explode your beliefs then we are done here. You are a person who cannot admit to being wrong so I will not waste any more of my time.

You need to learn one VERY important thing about this forum. Most, or at the least several, Conservatives and Trump supporters read posted links or watch videos that are provided as evidence to an argument.

Perhaps you can show me where the words food stamps, healthcare, government housing, etc. are in the Constitution. Can you?

Can you show me where Internet, pedophilia, automobiles, stock market, and Wall Street is in the Constitution? Because we have laws involving all those things and I don't see you crying they are unconstitutional.

Start a thread about it. Until then, stay on topic you dumb coon.

Haha, so your argument just got busted, and what do you do, you call me a derogatory name for a Black person. You think I'm Black?

It's you that were busted because you refused to discuss the topic at hand. You diverted because you'd lost.

Don't care what color you are. Whether you're a ****** or a NL, it's all the same.

 

[Rustic]

We are an overtaxed society... unfortunately we are past the point of no return.

 

[TNHarley]

The supreme court also said internment of american citizens was constitutional..
I dont let a group of unelected activists tell me what the Constitution says. I can read for myself. I can also read intent. That is also available for everyone to read.

Non Sequitur. You started this thread, so you should know it is about Welfare not internment camps.

It was a justification for my opinion.

No it isn't. Welfare and an internment camp are not related in any way, shape, or form.

my opinion of the activists in the supreme court. Goddamn. You wouldnt know context if it skull fucked you for six hours

Yeah...see here is the funny thing about the statement you just made. Earlier you said you didn't really mention Madison and his opinion, you just posted a quote from Hamilton. Well guess what boss, if you post a quote from someone in which another individual and his opinion are within that quote, you are also mentioning that person and their opinion. Otherwise your quote holds no context and is basically useless and invalid.

Now here you are trying to justify that the Supreme Court's decision on the Constitutionality of Social programs through the idea of General Welfare is invalid because the Supreme Court ruled internment camps were Constitutional. That's a Non Sequitur. It has nothing to do with your opinion, unless you want to admit your opinion is useless.

You do realize that the Supreme Court in a lot of these decisions is made by different judges right? Chief Justice John Marshall is no longer on the Supreme Court... That's why past Supreme Court decisions can be brought back up, like how many are hoping to get enough Conservative appointees to the Supreme Court to revisit and over turn Roe v. Wade. Now with that being said, the Supreme Court's decision on General Welfare was made a VERY long time ago, and it has not been overturned... and that is with several Justices passing through the Court that are VERY highly educated, and here you sit trying to argue that your opinion is more valid than their's.

Good luck with that.

language is not, as Madison contended, a shorthand way of limiting the power to tax and spend in furtherance of the powers elsewhere enumerated in Article I, Section 8; but it does contain its own limitation, namely, that spending under the clause be for the “general” (that is, national) welfare and not for purely local or regional benefit.
He was disagreeing madison until Hamilton said this : but it does contain its own limitation, namely, that spending under the clause be for the “general” (that is, national) welfare and not for purely local or regional benefit.

 

[Lewdog]

You need to learn one VERY important thing about this forum. Most, or at the least several, Conservatives and Trump supporters read posted links or watch videos that are provided as evidence to an argument.

Perhaps you can show me where the words food stamps, healthcare, government housing, etc. are in the Constitution. Can you?

Can you show me where Internet, pedophilia, automobiles, stock market, and Wall Street is in the Constitution? Because we have laws involving all those things and I don't see you crying they are unconstitutional.

Start a thread about it. Until then, stay on topic you dumb coon.

Haha, so your argument just got busted, and what do you do, you call me a derogatory name for a Black person. You think I'm Black?

It's you that were busted because you refused to discuss the topic at hand. You diverted because you'd lost.

Don't care what color you are. Whether you're a ****** or a NL, it's all the same.

It is relevant to the topic because it busted your logic to pieces. You can't say something isn't Constitutional because it isn't specifically spelled out in the Constitution. You can't cherry pick certain items and then think that proves you are right. The Constitution was written broadly so that it could be reviewed by the Supreme Court in the future when situations arise that were never even know to exist yet when the constitution was written.

By your logic there should be no rules about speed limits for cars because it isn't written in the Constitution. There should be no rules against pedophilia pics on the internet because the Constituion doesn't mention the internet. There should be no laws against pirating cable television because television isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

My statement proves the failure in your logic.

 

[TNHarley]

Perhaps you can show me where the words food stamps, healthcare, government housing, etc. are in the Constitution. Can you?

Can you show me where Internet, pedophilia, automobiles, stock market, and Wall Street is in the Constitution? Because we have laws involving all those things and I don't see you crying they are unconstitutional.

Start a thread about it. Until then, stay on topic you dumb coon.

Haha, so your argument just got busted, and what do you do, you call me a derogatory name for a Black person. You think I'm Black?

It's you that were busted because you refused to discuss the topic at hand. You diverted because you'd lost.

Don't care what color you are. Whether you're a ****** or a NL, it's all the same.

It is relevant to the topic because it busted your logic to pieces. You can't say something isn't Constitutional because it isn't specifically spelled out in the Constitution. You can't cherry pick certain items and then think that proves you are right. The Constitution was written broadly so that it could be reviewed by the Supreme Court in the future when situations arise that were never even know to exist yet when the constitution was written.

By your logic there should be no rules about speed limits for cars because it isn't written in the Constitution. There should be no rules against pedophilia pics on the internet because the Constituion doesn't mention the internet. There should be no laws against pirating cable television because television isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

My statement proves the failure in your logic.

 

[Conservative65]

Perhaps you can show me where the words food stamps, healthcare, government housing, etc. are in the Constitution. Can you?

Can you show me where Internet, pedophilia, automobiles, stock market, and Wall Street is in the Constitution? Because we have laws involving all those things and I don't see you crying they are unconstitutional.

Start a thread about it. Until then, stay on topic you dumb coon.

Haha, so your argument just got busted, and what do you do, you call me a derogatory name for a Black person. You think I'm Black?

It's you that were busted because you refused to discuss the topic at hand. You diverted because you'd lost.

Don't care what color you are. Whether you're a ****** or a NL, it's all the same.

It is relevant to the topic because it busted your logic to pieces. You can't say something isn't Constitutional because it isn't specifically spelled out in the Constitution. You can't cherry pick certain items and then think that proves you are right. The Constitution was written broadly so that it could be reviewed by the Supreme Court in the future when situations arise that were never even know to exist yet when the constitution was written.

By your logic there should be no rules about speed limits for cars because it isn't written in the Constitution. There should be no rules against pedophilia pics on the internet because the Constituion doesn't mention the internet. There should be no laws against pirating cable television because television isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

My statement proves the failure in your logic.

It wasn't relevant because the topic was welfare.

I didn't say there shouldn't be rules about such things. I said that the level of government which has the authority to do so should be the ones to make them.

You diverted when you couldn't provide what I asked for. Run, coward, run.

 

[Lewdog]

Non Sequitur. You started this thread, so you should know it is about Welfare not internment camps.

It was a justification for my opinion.

No it isn't. Welfare and an internment camp are not related in any way, shape, or form.

my opinion of the activists in the supreme court. Goddamn. You wouldnt know context if it skull fucked you for six hours

Yeah...see here is the funny thing about the statement you just made. Earlier you said you didn't really mention Madison and his opinion, you just posted a quote from Hamilton. Well guess what boss, if you post a quote from someone in which another individual and his opinion are within that quote, you are also mentioning that person and their opinion. Otherwise your quote holds no context and is basically useless and invalid.

Now here you are trying to justify that the Supreme Court's decision on the Constitutionality of Social programs through the idea of General Welfare is invalid because the Supreme Court ruled internment camps were Constitutional. That's a Non Sequitur. It has nothing to do with your opinion, unless you want to admit your opinion is useless.

You do realize that the Supreme Court in a lot of these decisions is made by different judges right? Chief Justice John Marshall is no longer on the Supreme Court... That's why past Supreme Court decisions can be brought back up, like how many are hoping to get enough Conservative appointees to the Supreme Court to revisit and over turn Roe v. Wade. Now with that being said, the Supreme Court's decision on General Welfare was made a VERY long time ago, and it has not been overturned... and that is with several Justices passing through the Court that are VERY highly educated, and here you sit trying to argue that your opinion is more valid than their's.

Good luck with that.

language is not, as Madison contended, a shorthand way of limiting the power to tax and spend in furtherance of the powers elsewhere enumerated in Article I, Section 8; but it does contain its own limitation, namely, that spending under the clause be for the “general” (that is, national) welfare and not for purely local or regional benefit.
He was disagreeing madison until Hamilton said this : but it does contain its own limitation, namely, that spending under the clause be for the “general” (that is, national) welfare and not for purely local or regional benefit.

And Madison's opinion got shot down. The Supreme Court did their jobs as the interpretors of the Constitution and whether new laws are considered Constitutional. Since their ruling, no Supreme Court has changed their ruling...

 

[Lewdog]

Can you show me where Internet, pedophilia, automobiles, stock market, and Wall Street is in the Constitution? Because we have laws involving all those things and I don't see you crying they are unconstitutional.

Start a thread about it. Until then, stay on topic you dumb coon.

Haha, so your argument just got busted, and what do you do, you call me a derogatory name for a Black person. You think I'm Black?

It's you that were busted because you refused to discuss the topic at hand. You diverted because you'd lost.

Don't care what color you are. Whether you're a ****** or a NL, it's all the same.

It is relevant to the topic because it busted your logic to pieces. You can't say something isn't Constitutional because it isn't specifically spelled out in the Constitution. You can't cherry pick certain items and then think that proves you are right. The Constitution was written broadly so that it could be reviewed by the Supreme Court in the future when situations arise that were never even know to exist yet when the constitution was written.

By your logic there should be no rules about speed limits for cars because it isn't written in the Constitution. There should be no rules against pedophilia pics on the internet because the Constituion doesn't mention the internet. There should be no laws against pirating cable television because television isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

My statement proves the failure in your logic.

It wasn't relevant because the topic was welfare.

I didn't say there shouldn't be rules about such things. I said that the level of government which has the authority to do so should be the ones to make them.

You diverted when you couldn't provide what I asked for. Run, coward, run.

It doesn't matter what the topic is. You keep saying welfare is not Constitutional because it doesn't say anything about social welfare programs in the Constitution. There are A LOT of things not spelled out directly in the Constitution and you aren't arguing they are unconstitutional. Are you fucking brain dead or what?

 

[Conservative65]

It was a justification for my opinion.

No it isn't. Welfare and an internment camp are not related in any way, shape, or form.

my opinion of the activists in the supreme court. Goddamn. You wouldnt know context if it skull fucked you for six hours

Yeah...see here is the funny thing about the statement you just made. Earlier you said you didn't really mention Madison and his opinion, you just posted a quote from Hamilton. Well guess what boss, if you post a quote from someone in which another individual and his opinion are within that quote, you are also mentioning that person and their opinion. Otherwise your quote holds no context and is basically useless and invalid.

Now here you are trying to justify that the Supreme Court's decision on the Constitutionality of Social programs through the idea of General Welfare is invalid because the Supreme Court ruled internment camps were Constitutional. That's a Non Sequitur. It has nothing to do with your opinion, unless you want to admit your opinion is useless.

You do realize that the Supreme Court in a lot of these decisions is made by different judges right? Chief Justice John Marshall is no longer on the Supreme Court... That's why past Supreme Court decisions can be brought back up, like how many are hoping to get enough Conservative appointees to the Supreme Court to revisit and over turn Roe v. Wade. Now with that being said, the Supreme Court's decision on General Welfare was made a VERY long time ago, and it has not been overturned... and that is with several Justices passing through the Court that are VERY highly educated, and here you sit trying to argue that your opinion is more valid than their's.

Good luck with that.

language is not, as Madison contended, a shorthand way of limiting the power to tax and spend in furtherance of the powers elsewhere enumerated in Article I, Section 8; but it does contain its own limitation, namely, that spending under the clause be for the “general” (that is, national) welfare and not for purely local or regional benefit.
He was disagreeing madison until Hamilton said this : but it does contain its own limitation, namely, that spending under the clause be for the “general” (that is, national) welfare and not for purely local or regional benefit.

And Madison's opinion got shot down. The Supreme Court did their jobs as the interpretors of the Constitution and whether new laws are considered Constitutional. Since their ruling, no Supreme Court has changed their ruling...

Where in the Constitution does it grant them authority of judicial review?

 

[Conservative65]

Start a thread about it. Until then, stay on topic you dumb coon.

Haha, so your argument just got busted, and what do you do, you call me a derogatory name for a Black person. You think I'm Black?

It's you that were busted because you refused to discuss the topic at hand. You diverted because you'd lost.

Don't care what color you are. Whether you're a ****** or a NL, it's all the same.

It is relevant to the topic because it busted your logic to pieces. You can't say something isn't Constitutional because it isn't specifically spelled out in the Constitution. You can't cherry pick certain items and then think that proves you are right. The Constitution was written broadly so that it could be reviewed by the Supreme Court in the future when situations arise that were never even know to exist yet when the constitution was written.

By your logic there should be no rules about speed limits for cars because it isn't written in the Constitution. There should be no rules against pedophilia pics on the internet because the Constituion doesn't mention the internet. There should be no laws against pirating cable television because television isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

My statement proves the failure in your logic.

It wasn't relevant because the topic was welfare.

I didn't say there shouldn't be rules about such things. I said that the level of government which has the authority to do so should be the ones to make them.

You diverted when you couldn't provide what I asked for. Run, coward, run.

It doesn't matter what the topic is. You keep saying welfare is not Constitutional because it doesn't say anything about social welfare programs in the Constitution. There are A LOT of things not spelled out directly in the Constitution and you aren't arguing they are unconstitutional. Are you fucking brain dead or what?

Sure it does. The entire conversation was about welfare until you tried to change it.

Start a thread on those items. Until then, the topic was welfare. I can't help it if you can't focus. Perhaps you should have been taught better.

 

[Lewdog]

Haha, so your argument just got busted, and what do you do, you call me a derogatory name for a Black person. You think I'm Black?

It's you that were busted because you refused to discuss the topic at hand. You diverted because you'd lost.

Don't care what color you are. Whether you're a ****** or a NL, it's all the same.

It is relevant to the topic because it busted your logic to pieces. You can't say something isn't Constitutional because it isn't specifically spelled out in the Constitution. You can't cherry pick certain items and then think that proves you are right. The Constitution was written broadly so that it could be reviewed by the Supreme Court in the future when situations arise that were never even know to exist yet when the constitution was written.

By your logic there should be no rules about speed limits for cars because it isn't written in the Constitution. There should be no rules against pedophilia pics on the internet because the Constituion doesn't mention the internet. There should be no laws against pirating cable television because television isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

My statement proves the failure in your logic.

It wasn't relevant because the topic was welfare.

I didn't say there shouldn't be rules about such things. I said that the level of government which has the authority to do so should be the ones to make them.

You diverted when you couldn't provide what I asked for. Run, coward, run.

It doesn't matter what the topic is. You keep saying welfare is not Constitutional because it doesn't say anything about social welfare programs in the Constitution. There are A LOT of things not spelled out directly in the Constitution and you aren't arguing they are unconstitutional. Are you fucking brain dead or what?

Sure it does. The entire conversation was about welfare until you tried to change it.

Start a thread on those items. Until then, the topic was welfare. I can't help it if you can't focus. Perhaps you should have been taught better.

You don't understand how an discussion works do you? When your argument is based on faulty logic, then a person can attack your logic. That's what happened.

MANY people in this thread have proven that your opinions aren't worth shit, and to be quite honest I'm tired of repeating myself. So now you two fucksticks can have a little circle jerk imagining you know the Constitution better than almost 200 years worth of Supreme Court Justices.

 

[TNHarley]

It's you that were busted because you refused to discuss the topic at hand. You diverted because you'd lost.

Don't care what color you are. Whether you're a ****** or a NL, it's all the same.

It is relevant to the topic because it busted your logic to pieces. You can't say something isn't Constitutional because it isn't specifically spelled out in the Constitution. You can't cherry pick certain items and then think that proves you are right. The Constitution was written broadly so that it could be reviewed by the Supreme Court in the future when situations arise that were never even know to exist yet when the constitution was written.

By your logic there should be no rules about speed limits for cars because it isn't written in the Constitution. There should be no rules against pedophilia pics on the internet because the Constituion doesn't mention the internet. There should be no laws against pirating cable television because television isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

My statement proves the failure in your logic.

It wasn't relevant because the topic was welfare.

I didn't say there shouldn't be rules about such things. I said that the level of government which has the authority to do so should be the ones to make them.

You diverted when you couldn't provide what I asked for. Run, coward, run.

It doesn't matter what the topic is. You keep saying welfare is not Constitutional because it doesn't say anything about social welfare programs in the Constitution. There are A LOT of things not spelled out directly in the Constitution and you aren't arguing they are unconstitutional. Are you fucking brain dead or what?

Sure it does. The entire conversation was about welfare until you tried to change it.

Start a thread on those items. Until then, the topic was welfare. I can't help it if you can't focus. Perhaps you should have been taught better.

You don't understand how an discussion works do you? When your argument is based on faulty logic, then a person can attack your logic. That's what happened.

MANY people in this thread have proven that your opinions aren't worth shit, and to be quite honest I'm tired of repeating myself. So now you two fucksticks can have a little circle jerk imagining you know the Constitution better than almost 200 years worth of Supreme Court Justices.

The constitution is interpreted broadly. It wasnt written broadly. Thats statist rhetoric.

 

[Conservative65]

It's you that were busted because you refused to discuss the topic at hand. You diverted because you'd lost.

Don't care what color you are. Whether you're a ****** or a NL, it's all the same.

It is relevant to the topic because it busted your logic to pieces. You can't say something isn't Constitutional because it isn't specifically spelled out in the Constitution. You can't cherry pick certain items and then think that proves you are right. The Constitution was written broadly so that it could be reviewed by the Supreme Court in the future when situations arise that were never even know to exist yet when the constitution was written.

By your logic there should be no rules about speed limits for cars because it isn't written in the Constitution. There should be no rules against pedophilia pics on the internet because the Constituion doesn't mention the internet. There should be no laws against pirating cable television because television isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

My statement proves the failure in your logic.

It wasn't relevant because the topic was welfare.

I didn't say there shouldn't be rules about such things. I said that the level of government which has the authority to do so should be the ones to make them.

You diverted when you couldn't provide what I asked for. Run, coward, run.

It doesn't matter what the topic is. You keep saying welfare is not Constitutional because it doesn't say anything about social welfare programs in the Constitution. There are A LOT of things not spelled out directly in the Constitution and you aren't arguing they are unconstitutional. Are you fucking brain dead or what?

Sure it does. The entire conversation was about welfare until you tried to change it.

Start a thread on those items. Until then, the topic was welfare. I can't help it if you can't focus. Perhaps you should have been taught better.

You don't understand how an discussion works do you? When your argument is based on faulty logic, then a person can attack your logic. That's what happened.

MANY people in this thread have proven that your opinions aren't worth shit, and to be quite honest I'm tired of repeating myself. So now you two fucksticks can have a little circle jerk imagining you know the Constitution better than almost 200 years worth of Supreme Court Justices.

My logic wasn't faulty. I asked you to provide where the social welfare terms I requested were in the Constitution and because you couldn't, you diverted. That's what happened.

By many, I suspect you mean those that agree with you. You idiots thought Obama's black skin color was a qualification and that was proven false on so many levels.