Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
General welfare is about the whole country NOT an individual. Read the OP and read post #4Federal 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!
"General welfare" doesn't mean "foodstamps and a salary for being drug addicted, stupid and/or mentally ill".
If doesn't? Well, do tell, what does it mean?
Madison, who helped write the Constitution, had this to say about the General Welfare clause.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."
Of course, Dims reject this so they either force the Constitution to evolve or completely ignore it altogether.
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.
When my customers make more money I make more money. Trickle down.What an idea!!! And all of those tax cuts will trickle down to benefit all of our citizens!
Funding research for disease promotes the GENERAL WELFARE. Giving a single mother free shit doesnt equate to General Welfare.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!
General welfare doesnt mean single, local or regional.
Exactly.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?
I've read Marbury v. Madison. It doesn't include those words either. Try again.
It is a living document intended to be changed by an amendment process. Why are you opposed to having it live in a manner other than what the founders intended?
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13.
The con allows the creation of laws . Yes or no???
Not everything requires an amendment .
Changing the fundamentals of the Constitution does. You want it changed by Congress. Not how it works.
These leftist hand wringing faggots want a different form of government altogether, and they think that it can be done just by ignoring the constitution and creating new laws that VIOLATE the constitution.
No, it's not how it works.
We can thank Obama for the fact that they think it is.
If they amend, it isn't illegal. I don't like the thought either. However that thought process from them is how we got like thisI 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.Its not just this man. The govt walks all over us every fucking day.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?
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??
Of course I am only talking of our govt.
Immoral, illegal laws should not be followed.
Ever.
When my customers make more money I make more money. Trickle down.What an idea!!! And all of those tax cuts will trickle down to benefit all of our citizens!
Also a business that is doing well is far more likely to hire good people and pay them a good wage and benefits to keep them.
Funding research for disease promotes the GENERAL WELFARE. Giving a single mother free shit doesnt equate to General Welfare.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!
General welfare doesnt mean single, local or regional.
in your useless opinion.
feel free to cite the Supreme Court cases you're relying on for your baseless assertions.
Exactly.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?
I've read Marbury v. Madison. It doesn't include those words either. Try again.
It is a living document intended to be changed by an amendment process. Why are you opposed to having it live in a manner other than what the founders intended?
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13.
The con allows the creation of laws . Yes or no???
Not everything requires an amendment .
Changing the fundamentals of the Constitution does. You want it changed by Congress. Not how it works.
These leftist hand wringing faggots want a different form of government altogether, and they think that it can be done just by ignoring the constitution and creating new laws that VIOLATE the constitution.
No, it's not how it works.
We can thank Obama for the fact that they think it is.
No, it is how it works. And to do it, all they need is to appoint 9 stooges to SCOTUS to interpret things their way.
Its not baseless. I actually read the darn thing and didn't make shit up.Funding research for disease promotes the GENERAL WELFARE. Giving a single mother free shit doesnt equate to General Welfare.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!
General welfare doesnt mean single, local or regional.
in your useless opinion.
feel free to cite the Supreme Court cases you're relying on for your baseless assertions.
General welfare is about the whole country NOT an individual. Read the OP and read post #4Federal 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!
"General welfare" doesn't mean "foodstamps and a salary for being drug addicted, stupid and/or mentally ill".
If doesn't? Well, do tell, what does it mean?
Madison, who helped write the Constitution, had this to say about the General Welfare clause.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."
Of course, Dims reject this so they either force the Constitution to evolve or completely ignore it altogether.
So you think american internment was constitutional? Can you cite that?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.
er... no it isn't unconstitutional.
congress has the right to legislate for the general welfare. and these issues have ALREADY been ruled on by the Supreme Court. and in case you're confused, they decide what's constitutional., not your baseless "opinion".
When my customers make more money I make more money. Trickle down.What an idea!!! And all of those tax cuts will trickle down to benefit all of our citizens!
Also a business that is doing well is far more likely to hire good people and pay them a good wage and benefits to keep them.
because there were never any such things as sweat shops... right?
because rich business owners are sooooo much more likely to take good care of their employees.
wishful thinking.
The federal government regulates state drivers licenses. This not specifically authorized in the Constitution.So your license say United States instead of the State in which you reside? Did the federal government ISSUE that license?
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?
I've read Marbury v. Madison. It doesn't include those words either. Try again.
It is a living document intended to be changed by an amendment process. Why are you opposed to having it live in a manner other than what the founders intended?
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13.
The con allows the creation of laws . Yes or no???
Not everything requires an amendment .
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?
I've read Marbury v. Madison. It doesn't include those words either. Try again.
It is a living document intended to be changed by an amendment process. Why are you opposed to having it live in a manner other than what the founders intended?
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13.
The con allows the creation of laws . Yes or no???
Not everything requires an amendment .
Conservatives know that the constitutional intent was that government derives its power from the people who shall not be taxed without representation nor shall the government impose any other laws on them without representation.
Therefore the intent was that the people's elected representatives would pass the laws that the President would have the power to sign or veto. And even if he vetoed legislation, the people's representatives had means to override that veto.
The people are supposed to have the power, not a king issuing edicts. And certainly it was never intended to give the courts power to make or change a law in any way nor is the court given any power to enforce its rulings should the President or legislature ignore them.
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.
i'll top you,
Military spending is unconstitutional as well, outside of funding the navy, or funding for a two year period at a time, when in a declared by congress, war.
btw, what are the two sides of the argument on welfare? I hear your side, but just wondering the other side's full argument on why it is constitutional? I've never really paid attention?
When my customers make more money I make more money. Trickle down.What an idea!!! And all of those tax cuts will trickle down to benefit all of our citizens!
Also a business that is doing well is far more likely to hire good people and pay them a good wage and benefits to keep them.
because there were never any such things as sweat shops... right?
because rich business owners are sooooo much more likely to take good care of their employees.
wishful thinking.
I worked for wages from the time I was 14 to well past the average retirement age, and I can honestly say that I never once even saw, much less worked in a sweatshop even during the years in which I visited hundreds of businesses.
And I have worked for but didn't make great wages or receive great benefits with businesses that were struggling. I have never ever been offered a job by a poor man. I have had tremendous opportunities and made very good money with businesses that were doing well.
And when I ran my own business, when I did well so did my employees. When I didn't do so well my employees had less opportunity to prosper if they got any work at all.
I'm not much of one to take away from people once it started. Like non land owners votingFederal 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.
Agree entirely with your OP, but try and take that stuff away now.
Quotation: "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
So you think american internment was constitutional? Can you cite that?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.
er... no it isn't unconstitutional.
congress has the right to legislate for the general welfare. and these issues have ALREADY been ruled on by the Supreme Court. and in case you're confused, they decide what's constitutional., not your baseless "opinion".
