Welfare is Unconstitutional

[danielpalos]

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.

Dear, the whole and entire concept of welfare, Must be Constitutional, simply Because the terms, to provide for the general welfare; is in our Constitution.

 

[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.

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?

Nobody should ever take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Because the law is living, the documentation is recorded in the ever evolving law. Judicial review came to the United States from the English Common Law, much as the Bill of Rights was codified from the Magna Carta and the The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen passed by France's National Constituent Assembly in August 1789

 

[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.

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.

Do you believe Jesus the Christ, merely wasted His time, preaching social morals for free under Any form of Capitalism?

 

[danielpalos]

Fucking stoner

I just, "do it over again when drugs are involved".

 

[Lewdog]

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.

Yeah... because guess what, Supreme Court decisions can be revisited, like many hope that Roe v Wade does... but that is beyond your comprehension.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

I already proved your logic faulty eons ago.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Yeah... because guess what, Supreme Court decisions can be revisited, like many hope that Roe v Wade does... but that is beyond your comprehension.

It has to be initiated by someone else. If you understand the process, you should that in your sarcasm so you dont sound like an idiot

 

[koshergrl]

"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.

Trump has the support of the people. It is the anarchists and the anti-American pigs who are trying to destroy this country.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

Yeah... because guess what, Supreme Court decisions can be revisited, like many hope that Roe v Wade does... but that is beyond your comprehension.

It has to be initiated by someone else. If you understand the process, you should that in your sarcasm so you dont sound like an idiot

Did I say it didn't have to be? I said if you feel that the rulings are so wrong, get appointed to the Supreme Court and get the rulings changed. That means when a case comes in front of you, you change the case law.

If you understood this at all... you would understand that as soon as those in political parties feel the have an advantage on the Supreme Court, they make sure that certain case law gets put in front of the court in order to get it changed... just like Roe v Wade which I have already mentioned.

Now you are trying to put words in my mouth I didn't say, in order to tear it down. That's called a strawman. I hope you are taking notes.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Yeah... because guess what, Supreme Court decisions can be revisited, like many hope that Roe v Wade does... but that is beyond your comprehension.

It has to be initiated by someone else. If you understand the process, you should that in your sarcasm so you dont sound like an idiot

Did I say it didn't have to be? I said if you feel that the rulings are so wrong, get appointed to the Supreme Court and get the rulings changed. That means when a case comes in front of you, you change the case law.

If you understood this at all... you would understand that as soon as those in political parties feel the have an advantage on the Supreme Court, they make sure that certain case law gets put in front of the court in order to get it changed... just like Roe v Wade which I have already mentioned.

Now you are trying to put words in my mouth I didn't say, in order to tear it down. That's called a strawman. I hope you are taking notes.

Lol you are funny bro.

 

[danielpalos]

Both terms, to promote and to provide are employed as a group for the general welfare.

Thus, the general welfare may be promoted to the field marshal welfare, whenever the exigencies of our Republic should require it.

Any questions, gentlemen?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Trump has the support of the people. It is the anarchists and the anti-American pigs who are trying to destroy this country.

I've been to most of the lower 48, and most of the red stains are open lands, the blue areas have the most population which is sufficient evidence to make your claim a lie of omission.

Q. Why do Trumpanzees lie

 

[Votto]

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.

Yeah... because guess what, Supreme Court decisions can be revisited, like many hope that Roe v Wade does... but that is beyond your comprehension.

It has to be initiated by someone else. If you understand the process, you should that in your sarcasm so you dont sound like an idiot

Did I say it didn't have to be? I said if you feel that the rulings are so wrong, get appointed to the Supreme Court and get the rulings changed. That means when a case comes in front of you, you change the case law.

If you understood this at all... you would understand that as soon as those in political parties feel the have an advantage on the Supreme Court, they make sure that certain case law gets put in front of the court in order to get it changed... just like Roe v Wade which I have already mentioned.

Now you are trying to put words in my mouth I didn't say, in order to tear it down. That's called a strawman. I hope you are taking notes.

Hence the problem.

SCOTUS is not suppose to be used to change laws.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

Yeah... because guess what, Supreme Court decisions can be revisited, like many hope that Roe v Wade does... but that is beyond your comprehension.

It has to be initiated by someone else. If you understand the process, you should that in your sarcasm so you dont sound like an idiot

Did I say it didn't have to be? I said if you feel that the rulings are so wrong, get appointed to the Supreme Court and get the rulings changed. That means when a case comes in front of you, you change the case law.

If you understood this at all... you would understand that as soon as those in political parties feel the have an advantage on the Supreme Court, they make sure that certain case law gets put in front of the court in order to get it changed... just like Roe v Wade which I have already mentioned.

Now you are trying to put words in my mouth I didn't say, in order to tear it down. That's called a strawman. I hope you are taking notes.

Hence the problem.

SCOTUS is not suppose to be used to change laws.

No the larger problem is that Presidents and the Senate appoint and confirm judges who they think will advance their political party beliefs, and not judges who they think are wise, intelligent, and unbiased.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Yeah... because guess what, Supreme Court decisions can be revisited, like many hope that Roe v Wade does... but that is beyond your comprehension.

It has to be initiated by someone else. If you understand the process, you should that in your sarcasm so you dont sound like an idiot

Did I say it didn't have to be? I said if you feel that the rulings are so wrong, get appointed to the Supreme Court and get the rulings changed. That means when a case comes in front of you, you change the case law.

If you understood this at all... you would understand that as soon as those in political parties feel the have an advantage on the Supreme Court, they make sure that certain case law gets put in front of the court in order to get it changed... just like Roe v Wade which I have already mentioned.

Now you are trying to put words in my mouth I didn't say, in order to tear it down. That's called a strawman. I hope you are taking notes.

Hence the problem.

SCOTUS is not suppose to be used to change laws.

No the larger problem is that Presidents and the Senate appoint and confirm judges who they think will advance their political party beliefs, and not judges who they think are wise, intelligent, and unbiased.

Exactly why i shit on the supreme court. They are political activists. Nothing more. Have been for generations

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Can you please describe how Supreme Court Justices are given their seats.

They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. But they were intended to have no constitutional powers of any kind to make law.

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.

The fact that it can do it, that it has done it by any name, does not make it constitutional.

 

[Lewdog]

Can you please describe how Supreme Court Justices are given their seats.

They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. But they were intended to have no constitutional powers of any kind to make law.

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.

The fact that it can do it, that it has done it by any name, does not make it constitutional.

Except for the fact that over more than 200 years no one has proven it is unconstitutional.

 

[Foxfyre]

They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. But they were intended to have no constitutional powers of any kind to make law.

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.

The fact that it can do it, that it has done it by any name, does not make it constitutional.

Except for the fact that over more than 200 years no one has proven it is unconstitutional.

With the exception of Dred Scott v Sanford in 1857, the Supreme Court has never made law until the 20th Century and only in recent decades have made rulings that constitute and are treated as law. And because we have created a permanent political class in Washington who uses the courts for its own purposes, and due to the incredible ignorance of a people most of whom have never read the Constitution much less understand or appreciate it, SCOTUS and lower courts are rarely challenged when they do that.

 

[Foxfyre]

How a law is supposed to become law:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.​

Note: NO constitutional authority or responsiblity of any kind is given to the President of the United States or to any court of the land including SCOTUS or to any bureaucrat to make or change any federal law, rule, or regulation on behalf of the people. Both the President and SCOTUS as well as the lower courts are to interpret and/or carry out the letter and intent of the existing law whatever that is and whether he/she/they approve of the law or not.

Because to some extent the Teddy Roosevelt administration changed the letter and intent of the Constitution and FDR and all who succeeded him doubled down on that, we have largely had an unconstitutional government and system since and that is growing worse all the time.

No wonder so many numbnuts have little respect or affection for the U.S. Constitution. They have been trained to believe that the whole government and/or the courts decides the law of the land and the Constitution is pretty much irrelevant.