Welfare is Unconstitutional

[Lewdog]

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.

Even the Supreme Court's official web page says it was written broadly. I posted it just for you... but of course you didn't read it. Go figure.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

And I answered your question and proved your logic behind your request is based on faulty logic. Now go find a more valid argument... and calling me a coon... that's just awesome. You've made my day.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Even the Supreme Court's official web page says it was written broadly. I posted it just for you... but of course you didn't read it. Go figure.

It was written specifically. Too many on the Court have interpreted broadly for their political purposes.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

And I answered your question and proved your logic behind your request is based on faulty logic. Now go find a more valid argument... and calling me a coon... that's just awesome. You've made my day.

I don't recall you showing the Articles, Clauses, and Sections were the terms I requested were. Where are they? Still can't show me?

 

[Lewdog]

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.

And I answered your question and proved your logic behind your request is based on faulty logic. Now go find a more valid argument... and calling me a coon... that's just awesome. You've made my day.

I don't recall you showing the Articles, Clauses, and Sections were the terms I requested were. Where are they? Still can't show me?

You've been told SEVERAL times now. The Constitution doesn't spell out EVERY thing that is included under it's umbrella. Did SNAP exist in 1776? Did HUD exist in 1776?

Please show me where automobiles, the internet, and the stock market is mentioned in the Constitution... or are all those laws unconstitutional as well?

Give it the fuck up, your logic is shit.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

And I answered your question and proved your logic behind your request is based on faulty logic. Now go find a more valid argument... and calling me a coon... that's just awesome. You've made my day.

I don't recall you showing the Articles, Clauses, and Sections were the terms I requested were. Where are they? Still can't show me?

Glad to know just how delusional you are... you think you know the Constitution better than the Supreme Court. Good luck with that.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Even the Supreme Court's official web page says it was written broadly. I posted it just for you... but of course you didn't read it. Go figure.

Again, i dont give a shit what the SC says. They are unelected activists.
If it was written so broadly, why did it take 120 days to write one piece of parchment? Why was there so much arguing? Why is there specific powers and everything else left is up to the states? An ever changing meaning basically defies democracy, doesnt it?
You realize that the phrase "living document" is less than 100 years old?
If the Constitution was written so broadly, why did the early congress shoot down things like corporate loans and local disaster relief? That shit is fine and daddy now.. Weird how that works, isnt it?

 

[AntonToo]

Again, i dont give a shit what the SC says.

Sucks for you, because they are the final word on this.

 

[TNHarley]

Again, i dont give a shit what the SC says.

Sucks for you, because they are the final word on this.

That is true. But that doesnt mean i have to fall in line and believe their activist bullshit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Neither are drivers licenses or the FAA. Your point?

Who issues your license?

REAL ID Act - Wikipedia

Checkmate.

Now can anyone satisfy my request?

So your license say United States instead of the State in which you reside? Did the federal government ISSUE that license?

The federal government regulates state drivers licenses. This not specifically authorized in the Constitution.

So again I ask what your point was. Can you provide case law of any kind which supports the claim welfare is unconstitutional?

I said issue, retard.

Can you provide where the Constitution specifically authorizes the federal government to fund food stamps, government housing, or any other social welfare program?

Ding dong ^^^ the echo is at the door.

Marbury v. Madison ring a bell?

Read Art III then explain why the COTUS is not a living document!

One hundred years ago The Congress passed the Selective Service Act which was signed by President Wilson. Where in Art I or Art II was the draft authorized?

 

[Lewdog]

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.

Even the Supreme Court's official web page says it was written broadly. I posted it just for you... but of course you didn't read it. Go figure.

Again, i dont give a shit what the SC says. They are unelected activists.
If it was written so broadly, why did it take 120 days to write one piece of parchment? Why was there so much arguing? Why is there specific powers and everything else left is up to the states? An ever changing meaning basically defies democracy, doesnt it?
You realize that the phrase "living document" is less than 100 years old?
If the Constitution was written so broadly, why did the early congress shoot down things like corporate loans and local disaster relief? That shit is fine and daddy now.. Weird how that works, isnt it?

You sound like Trump changing his tune on health care reform and his last statement that it is more complicated than he expected.

The fact you think 120 days is a long time to write such an important document... and that, 120 days is proof that it wasn't written broadly, is about as comical a remark as this thread can get.

 

[AntonToo]

Again, i dont give a shit what the SC says.

Sucks for you, because they are the final word on this.

That is true. But that doesnt mean i have to fall in line and believe their activist bullshit.

Like I said we've been through this for a loooong time now and the precedent is pretty much set in stone, so you may as well come to terms with it and stop wasting your time.

Supreme Court has deemed that General Welfare clause gives Feds expansive right to spend on whatever it is they think is good for this country (with some rules).

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Even the Supreme Court's official web page says it was written broadly. I posted it just for you... but of course you didn't read it. Go figure.

Again, i dont give a shit what the SC says. They are unelected activists.
If it was written so broadly, why did it take 120 days to write one piece of parchment? Why was there so much arguing? Why is there specific powers and everything else left is up to the states? An ever changing meaning basically defies democracy, doesnt it?
You realize that the phrase "living document" is less than 100 years old?
If the Constitution was written so broadly, why did the early congress shoot down things like corporate loans and local disaster relief? That shit is fine and daddy now.. Weird how that works, isnt it?

You sound like Trump changing his tune on health care reform and his last statement that it is more complicated than he expected.

The fact you think 120 days is a long time to write such an important document... and that, 120 days is proof that it wasn't written broadly, is about as comical a remark as this thread can get.

you need to get help over your obsession. You have mentioned his name multiple times in this thread. Pretty pathetic.
That one of many examples. Not surprising you only pick out what you want.
I have read works from federal judges that say when they have cases involving the constitution, they must rely on text and intent.
Why is it no one else feels that way?

 

[TNHarley]

Again, i dont give a shit what the SC says.

Sucks for you, because they are the final word on this.

That is true. But that doesnt mean i have to fall in line and believe their activist bullshit.

Like I said we've been through this for a loooong time now and the precedent is pretty much set in stone, so you may as well come to terms with it and stop wasting your time.

Supreme Court has deemed that General Welfare clause gives Feds expansive right to spend on whatever it is they think is good for this country (with some rules).

Come to terms.. No
Thats one of the problems with this country today. Everyone is lazy and are a bunch of pacifists.

 

[AntonToo]

Again, i dont give a shit what the SC says.

Sucks for you, because they are the final word on this.

That is true. But that doesnt mean i have to fall in line and believe their activist bullshit.

Like I said we've been through this for a loooong time now and the precedent is pretty much set in stone, so you may as well come to terms with it and stop wasting your time.

Supreme Court has deemed that General Welfare clause gives Feds expansive right to spend on whatever it is they think is good for this country (with some rules).

Come to terms.. No
Thats one of the problems with this country today. Everyone is lazy and are a bunch of pacifists.

Ok don't and enjoy a lifetime of disappointment.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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???????

You were referring to judicial review that came from it? That is unconstitutional. It isnt in the Constitution. It took me a minute to remember what was so important about that. lol

Do you know what a paradox is?

Who but the USSC has the authority to declare a law or policy unconstitutional? How do you think the USSC would vote on the issue of Judicial Review and its legality, if they did find it unconstitutional there very decision would be moot.

Why don't you show me in the Constitution where the Supreme Court has that delegated authority. Show me the words "The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review".

I'm sorry, I can't talk down to you well enough for you to comprehend reality.

 

[TNHarley]

again, a broad rule of law undermines democracy. Every new leader/congress could do whatever in the fuck they want.

 

[TNHarley]

Again, i dont give a shit what the SC says.

Sucks for you, because they are the final word on this.

That is true. But that doesnt mean i have to fall in line and believe their activist bullshit.

Like I said we've been through this for a loooong time now and the precedent is pretty much set in stone, so you may as well come to terms with it and stop wasting your time.

Supreme Court has deemed that General Welfare clause gives Feds expansive right to spend on whatever it is they think is good for this country (with some rules).

Come to terms.. No
Thats one of the problems with this country today. Everyone is lazy and are a bunch of pacifists.

Ok don't and enjoy a lifetime of disappointment.

Better than waiting in line for my next marching order

 

[Lewdog]

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.

Even the Supreme Court's official web page says it was written broadly. I posted it just for you... but of course you didn't read it. Go figure.

Again, i dont give a shit what the SC says. They are unelected activists.
If it was written so broadly, why did it take 120 days to write one piece of parchment? Why was there so much arguing? Why is there specific powers and everything else left is up to the states? An ever changing meaning basically defies democracy, doesnt it?
You realize that the phrase "living document" is less than 100 years old?
If the Constitution was written so broadly, why did the early congress shoot down things like corporate loans and local disaster relief? That shit is fine and daddy now.. Weird how that works, isnt it?

You sound like Trump changing his tune on health care reform and his last statement that it is more complicated than he expected.

The fact you think 120 days is a long time to write such an important document... and that, 120 days is proof that it wasn't written broadly, is about as comical a remark as this thread can get.

you need to get help over your obsession. You have mentioned his name multiple times in this thread. Pretty pathetic.
That one of many examples. Not surprising you only pick out what you want.
I have read works from federal judges that say when they have cases involving the constitution, they must rely on text and intent.
Why is it no one else feels that way?

Get over my obsession? It's relevant to the discussion.

 

[koshergrl]

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???????

You were referring to judicial review that came from it? That is unconstitutional. It isnt in the Constitution. It took me a minute to remember what was so important about that. lol

Do you know what a paradox is?

Who but the USSC has the authority to declare a law or policy unconstitutional? How do you think the USSC would vote on the issue of Judicial Review and its legality, if they did find it unconstitutional there very decision would be moot.

Why don't you show me in the Constitution where the Supreme Court has that delegated authority. Show me the words "The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review".

I'm sorry, I can't talk down to you well enough for you to comprehend reality.

I am sure you have no idea how lame you come across...which makes this hilarious.