Welfare is Unconstitutional

[AntonToo]

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

Yea? Is that what you think will happen if you god forbid let this one go and accept that constitutionally Feds are not forbidden to tax and spend?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

In what branch and during what time did you serve in our military. I enlisted in 1967 in the Navy. I showed you mine, now you show me yours.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

trump? and you say other cases on the constitution arent relevant when justifying my opinion but trump is lol

 

[TNHarley]

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

Yea? Is that what you think will happen if you god forbid let this one go and accept that government is allowed to tax and spend?

Its not just this man. The govt walks all over us every fucking day.
I know the govt is allowed to tax and spend. But only certain things. The constitution was a power hold on the federal govt. Not a "broad document" that would let them do whatever they deemed fit and whatever time they feel necessary.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

trump? and you say other cases on the constitution arent relevant when justifying my opinion but trump is lol

Yes Trump is relevant because his supporters have a common characteristic, they don't read links or watch videos that are provided as evidence... and your lack of understanding how something can be complex but broad at the same time is the same kind of revelation that Trump was hit with when it comes to health care reform.

 

[AntonToo]

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

Yea? Is that what you think will happen if you god forbid let this one go and accept that government is allowed to tax and spend?

Its not just this man. The govt walks all over us every fucking day.
I know the govt is allowed to tax and spend. But only certain things. The constitution was a power hold on the federal govt. Not a "broad document" that would let them do whatever they deemed fit and whatever time they feel necessary.

Dude you are living in the greatest country on Earth - don't you think you are quibbling some?

I know you got some theories on how things ought to be, but be careful what you wish for when you start turning upside down what has undoubtedly worked out pretty well for us.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

In what branch and during what time did you serve in our military. I enlisted in 1967 in the Navy. I showed you mine, now you show me yours.

Lazy pacifist and enlisted Navy are not necessarily exclusive. You can be both.

 

[TNHarley]

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

Yea? Is that what you think will happen if you god forbid let this one go and accept that government is allowed to tax and spend?

Its not just this man. The govt walks all over us every fucking day.
I know the govt is allowed to tax and spend. But only certain things. The constitution was a power hold on the federal govt. Not a "broad document" that would let them do whatever they deemed fit and whatever time they feel necessary.

Dude you are living in the greatest country on Earth - don't you think you are quibbling some?

I know you got some theories on how things ought to be, but be careful what you wish for when you start wrecking what has undoubtedly has worked out pretty well for us.

Big govt hasnt worked out well for us. We are 20T in debt, have unconstitutional programs and agencies like crazy. I bet their isnt one person in the federal govt that could name every agency and program. Not one.
We wouldnt have been arming/training terrorists, we wouldnt have put crack in the streets, we wouldnt be hated by many countries of the world, we wouldnt be lied to because there wouldnt be anything to lie about.. oh my god, i could go on forever.. sad but true lol
There is no telling what we could be if we abided by the Constitution. We could still have all this shit, but at least they would be legal because they went through the amendment process. For all you know, every person in this country could have a median income of 50K bucks..

 

[TNHarley]

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.

trump? and you say other cases on the constitution arent relevant when justifying my opinion but trump is lol

Yes Trump is relevant because his supporters have a common characteristic, they don't read links or watch videos that are provided as evidence... and your lack of understanding how something can be complex but broad at the same time is the same kind of revelation that Trump was hit with when it comes to health care reform.

Trump is relevant about a discussion on welfare and the constitution, but other supreme court rulings arent. Awesome

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

In what branch and during what time did you serve in our military. I enlisted in 1967 in the Navy. I showed you mine, now you show me yours.

Lazy pacifist and enlisted Navy are not necessarily exclusive. You can be both.

You're showing your ignorance of history, we were in a shooting war by the time I entered Boot Camp, and three guys from my Jr. Hi Homeroom had already returned home in a flag draped coffin. As for my pacifism, I was the projectile man in a 5" gun.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

In what branch and during what time did you serve in our military. I enlisted in 1967 in the Navy. I showed you mine, now you show me yours.

Lazy pacifist and enlisted Navy are not necessarily exclusive. You can be both.

Being a pacifist doesn't mean someone is lazy. Guess you never heard of Desmond Doss.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

If they claim those words are there, I do.

 

[Timmy]

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

Yea? Is that what you think will happen if you god forbid let this one go and accept that government is allowed to tax and spend?

Its not just this man. The govt walks all over us every fucking day.
I know the govt is allowed to tax and spend. But only certain things. The constitution was a power hold on the federal govt. Not a "broad document" that would let them do whatever they deemed fit and whatever time they feel necessary.

You realize we send reps to D.C. who then vote on new laws . That's allowed under the con.

So when they vote to create the VA, thats constitutional .

You goobers want the us to be frozen in the late 1700s??

 

[Conservative65]

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

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

Until their final word is something you disagree with. That's when the double standard applies.

 

[TNHarley]

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

Yea? Is that what you think will happen if you god forbid let this one go and accept that government is allowed to tax and spend?

Its not just this man. The govt walks all over us every fucking day.
I know the govt is allowed to tax and spend. But only certain things. The constitution was a power hold on the federal govt. Not a "broad document" that would let them do whatever they deemed fit and whatever time they feel necessary.

You realize we send reps to D.C. who then vote on new laws . That's allowed under the con.

So when they vote to create the VA, thats constitutional .

You goobers want the us to be frozen in the late 1700s??

I want us to abide by the law. If people want to change something, all they have to do is make an amendment. ignoring law is bullshit. Even if it seems like the moral thing to do.
Of course I am only talking of our govt.

 

[Conservative65]

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

Yea? Is that what you think will happen if you god forbid let this one go and accept that government is allowed to tax and spend?

Its not just this man. The govt walks all over us every fucking day.
I know the govt is allowed to tax and spend. But only certain things. The constitution was a power hold on the federal govt. Not a "broad document" that would let them do whatever they deemed fit and whatever time they feel necessary.

You realize we send reps to D.C. who then vote on new laws . That's allowed under the con.

So when they vote to create the VA, thats constitutional .

You goobers want the us to be frozen in the late 1700s??

Are you saying that if elected officials chose to outlaw abortions you'd be good with that?

 

[Conservative65]

Ok don't and enjoy a lifetime of disappointment.

Better than waiting in line for my next marching order

Yea? Is that what you think will happen if you god forbid let this one go and accept that government is allowed to tax and spend?

Its not just this man. The govt walks all over us every fucking day.
I know the govt is allowed to tax and spend. But only certain things. The constitution was a power hold on the federal govt. Not a "broad document" that would let them do whatever they deemed fit and whatever time they feel necessary.

You realize we send reps to D.C. who then vote on new laws . That's allowed under the con.

So when they vote to create the VA, thats constitutional .

You goobers want the us to be frozen in the late 1700s??

I want us to abide by the law. If people want to change something, all they have to do is make an amendment. ignoring law is bullshit. Even if it seems like the moral thing to do.
Of course I am only talking of our govt.

The left knows they can't get things passed through an amendment. That's why they twist themselves into a pretzel coming up with ways to justify how a law passed by Congress can do what the founders intended to be done by an amendment.

 

[Timmy]

Ok don't and enjoy a lifetime of disappointment.

Better than waiting in line for my next marching order

Yea? Is that what you think will happen if you god forbid let this one go and accept that government is allowed to tax and spend?

Its not just this man. The govt walks all over us every fucking day.
I know the govt is allowed to tax and spend. But only certain things. The constitution was a power hold on the federal govt. Not a "broad document" that would let them do whatever they deemed fit and whatever time they feel necessary.

You realize we send reps to D.C. who then vote on new laws . That's allowed under the con.

So when they vote to create the VA, thats constitutional .

You goobers want the us to be frozen in the late 1700s??

Are you saying that if elected officials chose to outlaw abortions you'd be good with that?

No . But if they passed an amendment I'd be stuck .

Oh. I assume u mean a 100% ban . Since it is already legal for states to have some restrictions.

 

[Timmy]

Better than waiting in line for my next marching order

Yea? Is that what you think will happen if you god forbid let this one go and accept that government is allowed to tax and spend?

Its not just this man. The govt walks all over us every fucking day.
I know the govt is allowed to tax and spend. But only certain things. The constitution was a power hold on the federal govt. Not a "broad document" that would let them do whatever they deemed fit and whatever time they feel necessary.

You realize we send reps to D.C. who then vote on new laws . That's allowed under the con.

So when they vote to create the VA, thats constitutional .

You goobers want the us to be frozen in the late 1700s??

I want us to abide by the law. If people want to change something, all they have to do is make an amendment. ignoring law is bullshit. Even if it seems like the moral thing to do.
Of course I am only talking of our govt.

The left knows they can't get things passed through an amendment. That's why they twist themselves into a pretzel coming up with ways to justify how a law passed by Congress can do what the founders intended to be done by an amendment.

"Amendments " are to change the actual constitution. That's not the same as creating a law .

 

[koshergrl]

Ok don't and enjoy a lifetime of disappointment.

Better than waiting in line for my next marching order

Yea? Is that what you think will happen if you god forbid let this one go and accept that government is allowed to tax and spend?

Its not just this man. The govt walks all over us every fucking day.
I know the govt is allowed to tax and spend. But only certain things. The constitution was a power hold on the federal govt. Not a "broad document" that would let them do whatever they deemed fit and whatever time they feel necessary.

You realize we send reps to D.C. who then vote on new laws . That's allowed under the con.

So when they vote to create the VA, thats constitutional .

You goobers want the us to be frozen in the late 1700s??

I want us to abide by the law. If people want to change something, all they have to do is make an amendment. ignoring law is bullshit. Even if it seems like the moral thing to do.
Of course I am only talking of our govt.

Immoral, illegal laws should not be followed.

Ever.