Welfare is Unconstitutional

[NYcarbineer]

So you are saying they are put into power by the people that we, the citizens, elect?

Which does not constitutionally give them the power to make law. The courts cannot constitutionally change or make law. The President cannot constiutionally change or make law. The Constitution reserves that authority not to the courts, not to the President, not to the bureaucrats, but to the congress alone.

Yeah except the Supreme Court CAN make law through interpretation. It's called Case Law.

Where does the Constitution SAY the Supreme Court can make law?

The Constitution gives the federal government the explicit power to overturn unconstitutional laws in the Supremacy Clause. That power is excercised by the Supreme Court.

That's your INTERPRETATION.

No, that's how it works.

The Supremacy Clause is clear and explicit. Unconstitutional laws can be overturned. Since that power is clear,
then a means to exercise that power is clearly authorized.

 

[TNHarley]

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".

So you think american internment was constitutional? Can you cite that?

I think it was wrong.

unfortunately it is still constitutional because that has never been struck down.

and while I think your machinations are amusing, your "opinion" as to what its constitutional isn't relevant... whether you agree with the court or not.

if you have a problem with that, feel free to blame the founding fathers. but I'm pretty sure they don't care.

Or he could get a good education, go to law school, spend many years as a lawyer and then judge, and get appointed to the Supreme Court and try to get the rulings changed.

Maybe you should go get an education and learn the basic principles of our branches of government

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Thank you for explaining what "general welfare" means, goober. I'm always interested in the unremarkable constitutional scholarly musings of an unsophisticated, know-nothing Repug such as yourself.

Glad i could help

 

[Conservative65]

Which does not constitutionally give them the power to make law. The courts cannot constitutionally change or make law. The President cannot constiutionally change or make law. The Constitution reserves that authority not to the courts, not to the President, not to the bureaucrats, but to the congress alone.

Yeah except the Supreme Court CAN make law through interpretation. It's called Case Law.

Where does the Constitution SAY the Supreme Court can make law?

The Constitution gives the federal government the explicit power to overturn unconstitutional laws in the Supremacy Clause. That power is excercised by the Supreme Court.

That's your INTERPRETATION.

No, that's how it works.

The Supremacy Clause is clear and explicit. Unconstitutional laws can be overturned. Since that power is clear,
then a means to exercise that power is clearly authorized.

That's how you WANT it to work. Where does it SAY that?

While you're at it, show me where the Constitution says food stamps, healthcare, government housing, Medicaid, or any other term related to social welfare.

You big government ass lickers are all the same. Claims the Constitution says something then can show specifically where it actually says it. You take things you want to say what you claim yet fall flat on your faces when you don't. Why do you need the government doing so much for you? Are you incapable of doing it yourself?

 

[Votto]

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.

Exactly.

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.

I understand that rightwingnut idiots think that... but other than the way I saw Scalia and Thomas behave, the justices are brilliant even when you don't agree with them and try to decide cases in keeping with their understanding of the law.

or do you think idiots who know nothing should be able to make those decisions?

hmmmm;... let's see... wing nut idiot on a message board or brilliant jurist... who on earth should we listen to...?

I never said that they were not brilliant. They are brilliant stooges.

After all, you have to brilliant to make Obamacare half way Constitutional, or legalize sanctuary cities when illegal immigration is.....well.....illegal.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Exactly.

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.

I understand that rightwingnut idiots think that... but other than the way I saw Scalia and Thomas behave, the justices are brilliant even when you don't agree with them and try to decide cases in keeping with their understanding of the law.

or do you think idiots who know nothing should be able to make those decisions?

hmmmm;... let's see... wing nut idiot on a message board or brilliant jurist... who on earth should we listen to...?

I never said that they were not brilliant. They are brilliant stooges.

After all, you have to brilliant to make Obamacare half way Constitutional, or legalize sanctuary cities when illegal immigration is.....well.....illegal.

Don't confuse sneaky and underhanded with anything related to intelligence.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah except the Supreme Court CAN make law through interpretation. It's called Case Law.

Where does the Constitution SAY the Supreme Court can make law?

The Constitution gives the federal government the explicit power to overturn unconstitutional laws in the Supremacy Clause. That power is excercised by the Supreme Court.

That's your INTERPRETATION.

No, that's how it works.

The Supremacy Clause is clear and explicit. Unconstitutional laws can be overturned. Since that power is clear,
then a means to exercise that power is clearly authorized.

That's how you WANT it to work. Where does it SAY that?

While you're at it, show me where the Constitution says food stamps, healthcare, government housing, Medicaid, or any other term related to social welfare.

You big government ass lickers are all the same. Claims the Constitution says something then can show specifically where it actually says it. You take things you want to say what you claim yet fall flat on your faces when you don't. Why do you need the government doing so much for you? Are you incapable of doing it yourself?

Obviously you've never read the Supremacy Clause.

 

[Conservative65]

Where does the Constitution SAY the Supreme Court can make law?

The Constitution gives the federal government the explicit power to overturn unconstitutional laws in the Supremacy Clause. That power is excercised by the Supreme Court.

That's your INTERPRETATION.

No, that's how it works.

The Supremacy Clause is clear and explicit. Unconstitutional laws can be overturned. Since that power is clear,
then a means to exercise that power is clearly authorized.

That's how you WANT it to work. Where does it SAY that?

While you're at it, show me where the Constitution says food stamps, healthcare, government housing, Medicaid, or any other term related to social welfare.

You big government ass lickers are all the same. Claims the Constitution says something then can show specifically where it actually says it. You take things you want to say what you claim yet fall flat on your faces when you don't. Why do you need the government doing so much for you? Are you incapable of doing it yourself?

Obviously you've never read the Supremacy Clause.

I have and don't see the words claiming you say it states. I hear you claiming it says what the wording doesn't say.

Obviously you've never read the Constitution if you think the words related to social welfare I asked you to show me are in there.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

General welfare is about the whole country NOT an individual. Read the OP and read post #4

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.

It's quite simple actually. The Founders intended for the people to have liberty because they would have the power over their own situation and destiny rather than that be decided and dictated by a monarch or dictator or totalitarian government or archbishop or pope. The government was to derive its powers by the consent of the governed.

The whole concept of welfare is unconstitutional because by definition, it must allot power to the government to confiscate from some in order to give to others. Once government has that power it can do anything it wants to anybody for any reason.

The concept of Government by the people seems far and away from government by the Trump. But his time in power, and the power he believes is his and absolute is coming to an end. The system of checks and balances, upset by moneyed interests, will prevail when the adults in the Republican Party take control, and the pendulum moves back to the center from authoritarianism to participatory democracy.

Country First means nothing unless the country is its citizens, a concept anarchists and authoritarians oppose. Remember folks, it's not what a Pol says, it's what they do, and at this point the Trump Administration puts failed ideology and self interests above our country.

 

[Lewdog]

So you are saying they are put into power by the people that we, the citizens, elect?

Which does not constitutionally give them the power to make law. The courts cannot constitutionally change or make law. The President cannot constiutionally change or make law. The Constitution reserves that authority not to the courts, not to the President, not to the bureaucrats, but to the congress alone.

Yeah except the Supreme Court CAN make law through interpretation. It's called Case Law.

Where does the Constitution SAY the Supreme Court can make law?

When laws are interpreted by the courts it becomes new case law. Due try to keep up.

Not what I asked. Where does the Constitution delegate authority to the Supreme Court to do that? Unless you can show me, what you're telling me is the Supreme Court is acting unconstitutionally.

Bro, the Supreme Court is not acting unconstitutionally, and the fact you think after 240 years of this shit going on that you have come to some realization that the Supreme Court is doing something wrong and no one has done anything about it all that time... you are as delusional as Dale.

 

[Lewdog]

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".

So you think american internment was constitutional? Can you cite that?

I think it was wrong.

unfortunately it is still constitutional because that has never been struck down.

and while I think your machinations are amusing, your "opinion" as to what its constitutional isn't relevant... whether you agree with the court or not.

if you have a problem with that, feel free to blame the founding fathers. but I'm pretty sure they don't care.

Or he could get a good education, go to law school, spend many years as a lawyer and then judge, and get appointed to the Supreme Court and try to get the rulings changed.

Maybe you should go get an education and learn the basic principles of our branches of government

Lol... you keep saying the dumbest shit. You do nothing but parrot Ultra conservative conspiracy talking points and you think you are some smart cookie.

I KNOW what the branches of government are, and I KNOW what their duties are... you on the other hand couldn't pass the courses I've aced if you were given a 50 point curve.

 

[Lewdog]

So you are saying they are put into power by the people that we, the citizens, elect?

Which does not constitutionally give them the power to make law. The courts cannot constitutionally change or make law. The President cannot constiutionally change or make law. The Constitution reserves that authority not to the courts, not to the President, not to the bureaucrats, but to the congress alone.

Yeah except the Supreme Court CAN make law through interpretation. It's called Case Law.

Where does the Constitution SAY the Supreme Court can make law?

The Constitution gives the federal government the explicit power to overturn unconstitutional laws in the Supremacy Clause. That power is excercised by the Supreme Court.

That's your INTERPRETATION.

No, that's the interpretation of all the great legal minds in the last 240 years. But hey, you're smarter than all those guys right?

 

[TNHarley]

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".

So you think american internment was constitutional? Can you cite that?

I think it was wrong.

unfortunately it is still constitutional because that has never been struck down.

and while I think your machinations are amusing, your "opinion" as to what its constitutional isn't relevant... whether you agree with the court or not.

if you have a problem with that, feel free to blame the founding fathers. but I'm pretty sure they don't care.

Or he could get a good education, go to law school, spend many years as a lawyer and then judge, and get appointed to the Supreme Court and try to get the rulings changed.

Maybe you should go get an education and learn the basic principles of our branches of government

Lol... you keep saying the dumbest shit. You do nothing but parrot Ultra conservative conspiracy talking points and you think you are some smart cookie.

I KNOW what the branches of government are, and I KNOW what their duties are... you on the other hand couldn't pass the courses I've aced if you were given a 50 point curve.

get appointed to the Supreme Court and try to get the rulings changed
That makes you a dumb dumb.
Granted, most of what you say does.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Yes, it is. General means it covers every contingency, only the major welfare or the common welfare deal with specifics.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Our drug war does not promote the general welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

The 20 T debt is a product of two wars, The Great Recession and Tax Cuts

Wry I don't care why we are in debt but we are...20 trillion dollars. It has to be paid off so we all must tighten the belt.

End the drug war, right winger.

 

[danielpalos]

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

When my customers make more money I make more money. Trickle down.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage also means potential customers will be making more money.

 

[danielpalos]

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" 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?

General welfare is about the whole country NOT an individual. Read the OP and read post #4

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.

dude; the federal Doctrine is liberal, not conservative.

 

[TNHarley]

Fucking stoner

 

[Conservative65]

Which does not constitutionally give them the power to make law. The courts cannot constitutionally change or make law. The President cannot constiutionally change or make law. The Constitution reserves that authority not to the courts, not to the President, not to the bureaucrats, but to the congress alone.

Yeah except the Supreme Court CAN make law through interpretation. It's called Case Law.

Where does the Constitution SAY the Supreme Court can make law?

When laws are interpreted by the courts it becomes new case law. Due try to keep up.

Not what I asked. Where does the Constitution delegate authority to the Supreme Court to do that? Unless you can show me, what you're telling me is the Supreme Court is acting unconstitutionally.

Bro, the Supreme Court is not acting unconstitutionally, and the fact you think after 240 years of this shit going on that you have come to some realization that the Supreme Court is doing something wrong and no one has done anything about it all that time... you are as delusional as Dale.

Yet you still can't show in writing where the authority exists.