Welfare is Unconstitutional

[Foxfyre]

The history and founding documents simply do not support your argument.

Who cares? That the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law and make binding decisions as to the constitutionality of those laws was settled two centuries ago.

I care. We are supposed to be a representative republic. When we can be made subject to laws dictated by unelected judges/justices who are accountable to nobody, we do not have a representative republic.

They settle disputes because congress will carelessly write laws . If the court rules and congress doesn't like it, they can usually just fix things wh new legislation.

Checks n balances , bitches !

The function of the court is to determine what the existing law is and how it is intended to be applied to settle disputes. It is NOT intended to change the law or write new law to settle disputes.

The function of the Supreme Court is to determine whether or not laws are constitutional, and to strike down those that it decides are not.

No. It was never intended to have ANY authority over the elected representatives of the people. THEY decide what the laws will be within the limits of the Constitution. The High Court may indeed rule a law unconstitutional, but it was never intended to have the power to change that law. That was the jurisdiction of Congress alone with the consent of the President. And Congress could override a Presidential veto with a 2/3rds majority vote in both houses.

That ensured that we the people were in charge of our own destiny. Once the President and/or the bureaucracy has more power than Congress, which is currently the case, or the Supreme Court has final say in what will and will not be law even if it writes the law itself, we are no longer a representative republic but a despotic system controlled by an unelected and unaccountable oligarchy.

Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law. Some examples include cases to which the United States is a party, cases involving Treaties, and cases involving ships on the high seas and navigable waterways (admiralty cases).​

About the Supreme Court

 

[Timmy]

Wrong... because the Supreme Court Justices are put into place through Democratic proxy. That is, they are appointed by the President who is elected by the people, and then confirmed by the Senate who are also elected by the people. So whether you like it or not, as part of a Democratic Republic, that's just how it works.

They aren't given authority to be the conscience of the nation? Their primary job is to interpret the Constitution and review laws to make sure they fit within the spirit of it... and these decisions are used to create Case Law for subjects that were only broadly defined within the Constitution, because such things like the internet and automobiles didn't exist at the time of the Constitution's creation.

The history and founding documents simply do not support your argument.

Who cares? That the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law and make binding decisions as to the constitutionality of those laws was settled two centuries ago.

I care. We are supposed to be a representative republic. When we can be made subject to laws passed by unelected judges/justices who are accountable to nobody, we do not have a representative republic.

So if a city passes a law banning all individual ownership of handguns,

who do you want to have the authority to strike down that law?

The Constitution gives no authority to the federal government to say who cannot have firearms anywhere other than on federal property or property under federal authority such as airports. So the state or local community should be the ones to establish any laws regarding handguns on state property or in the public sector. I do believe the 2nd Amendment establishes a right of a person to be armed on his/her own property.

Where does the 2nd say that? I love how you righty nuts have no problem "interpreting " the text when it suits you .

 

[Foxfyre]

The history and founding documents simply do not support your argument.

Who cares? That the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law and make binding decisions as to the constitutionality of those laws was settled two centuries ago.

I care. We are supposed to be a representative republic. When we can be made subject to laws passed by unelected judges/justices who are accountable to nobody, we do not have a representative republic.

So if a city passes a law banning all individual ownership of handguns,

who do you want to have the authority to strike down that law?

The Constitution gives no authority to the federal government to say who cannot have firearms anywhere other than on federal property or property under federal authority such as airports. So the state or local community should be the ones to establish any laws regarding handguns on state property or in the public sector. I do believe the 2nd Amendment establishes a right of a person to be armed on his/her own property.

Where does the 2nd say that? I love how you righty nuts have no problem "interpreting " the text when it suits you .

Some of us have actually studied U.S. history, including the founding of this nation, and we have had good education that included how the government works, what the Constitution is and what it is not, and the basis that underpins it. Plus this 'wingnut' has actually read the Constitution and keeps a copy of it fairly close by most of the time.

You might try reading it some time. But I suppose that would be asking too much, most especially if it included reading the founding documents to understand the intent and purpose of the Constitution by those who agreed to it and signed it.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Special pleading is what the right wing does best:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The purpose of the courts was to interpret the existing law and determine how or whether it had been violated. The courts were never intended to change, amend, or add to existing law.

Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively on this subject. Once the court is assumed to have power to state what the law will be, it becomes a despotic branch answerable to nobody but itself.

He was absolutely correct.

Neither the government nor the courts were given authority to be the conscience of the nation.

Wrong... because the Supreme Court Justices are put into place through Democratic proxy. That is, they are appointed by the President who is elected by the people, and then confirmed by the Senate who are also elected by the people. So whether you like it or not, as part of a Democratic Republic, that's just how it works.

They aren't given authority to be the conscience of the nation? Their primary job is to interpret the Constitution and review laws to make sure they fit within the spirit of it... and these decisions are used to create Case Law for subjects that were only broadly defined within the Constitution, because such things like the internet and automobiles didn't exist at the time of the Constitution's creation.

The history and founding documents simply do not support your argument.

The supreme court is delegated the Judicial authority.

 

[danielpalos]

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution; providing for the common offense or general warfare is not.

 

[jasonnfree]

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.

Looks like you're just talking about welfare for ordinary people so far. What about corporate welfare?

 

[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.

Looks like you're just talking about welfare for ordinary people so far. What about corporate welfare?

That too

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who cares? That the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law and make binding decisions as to the constitutionality of those laws was settled two centuries ago.

I care. We are supposed to be a representative republic. When we can be made subject to laws passed by unelected judges/justices who are accountable to nobody, we do not have a representative republic.

So if a city passes a law banning all individual ownership of handguns,

who do you want to have the authority to strike down that law?

The Constitution gives no authority to the federal government to say who cannot have firearms anywhere other than on federal property or property under federal authority such as airports. So the state or local community should be the ones to establish any laws regarding handguns on state property or in the public sector. I do believe the 2nd Amendment establishes a right of a person to be armed on his/her own property.

Where does the 2nd say that? I love how you righty nuts have no problem "interpreting " the text when it suits you .

Some of us have actually studied U.S. history, including the founding of this nation, and we have had good education that included how the government works, what the Constitution is and what it is not, and the basis that underpins it. Plus this 'wingnut' has actually read the Constitution and keeps a copy of it fairly close by most of the time.

You might try reading it some time. But I suppose that would be asking too much, most especially if it included reading the founding documents to understand the intent and purpose of the Constitution by those who agreed to it and signed it.

The power of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of laws was established well within the time limits of the era of the founders,

if that matters.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong... because the Supreme Court Justices are put into place through Democratic proxy. That is, they are appointed by the President who is elected by the people, and then confirmed by the Senate who are also elected by the people. So whether you like it or not, as part of a Democratic Republic, that's just how it works.

They aren't given authority to be the conscience of the nation? Their primary job is to interpret the Constitution and review laws to make sure they fit within the spirit of it... and these decisions are used to create Case Law for subjects that were only broadly defined within the Constitution, because such things like the internet and automobiles didn't exist at the time of the Constitution's creation.

The history and founding documents simply do not support your argument.

Who cares? That the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law and make binding decisions as to the constitutionality of those laws was settled two centuries ago.

I care. We are supposed to be a representative republic. When we can be made subject to laws passed by unelected judges/justices who are accountable to nobody, we do not have a representative republic.

So if a city passes a law banning all individual ownership of handguns,

who do you want to have the authority to strike down that law?

Wrong... because the Supreme Court Justices are put into place through Democratic proxy. That is, they are appointed by the President who is elected by the people, and then confirmed by the Senate who are also elected by the people. So whether you like it or not, as part of a Democratic Republic, that's just how it works.

They aren't given authority to be the conscience of the nation? Their primary job is to interpret the Constitution and review laws to make sure they fit within the spirit of it... and these decisions are used to create Case Law for subjects that were only broadly defined within the Constitution, because such things like the internet and automobiles didn't exist at the time of the Constitution's creation.

The history and founding documents simply do not support your argument.

Who cares? That the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law and make binding decisions as to the constitutionality of those laws was settled two centuries ago.

I care. We are supposed to be a representative republic. When we can be made subject to laws passed by unelected judges/justices who are accountable to nobody, we do not have a representative republic.

So if a city passes a law banning all individual ownership of handguns,

who do you want to have the authority to strike down that law?

The 2nd amendment is my authority.

Assuming you're not just trolling as usual, your argument is that if a state or local government banned the ownership of guns,

you would remedy that by going to that place and shooting as many people as it took to get the law repealed?

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who cares? That the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law and make binding decisions as to the constitutionality of those laws was settled two centuries ago.

I care. We are supposed to be a representative republic. When we can be made subject to laws passed by unelected judges/justices who are accountable to nobody, we do not have a representative republic.

So if a city passes a law banning all individual ownership of handguns,

who do you want to have the authority to strike down that law?

The Constitution gives no authority to the federal government to say who cannot have firearms anywhere other than on federal property or property under federal authority such as airports. So the state or local community should be the ones to establish any laws regarding handguns on state property or in the public sector. I do believe the 2nd Amendment establishes a right of a person to be armed on his/her own property.

Where does the 2nd say that? I love how you righty nuts have no problem "interpreting " the text when it suits you .

Some of us have actually studied U.S. history, including the founding of this nation, and we have had good education that included how the government works, what the Constitution is and what it is not, and the basis that underpins it. Plus this 'wingnut' has actually read the Constitution and keeps a copy of it fairly close by most of the time.

You might try reading it some time. But I suppose that would be asking too much, most especially if it included reading the founding documents to understand the intent and purpose of the Constitution by those who agreed to it and signed it.

Then tell us how you enforce the constitutional protections of individual rights, using the Constitution.

 

[Trump The Failure]

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.

First of all, if he is a Republican the proper term is not Repug, it is an Obamacare loving Pube.

Secondly, I've already provided you with the Madison quote about the General Welfare clause because he wrote it.

"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."

Now run along and go burn down a city in a Trump protest or something.

The key term, little man, is "If". Which can be interpreted a million different ways. Which is why Madison's musings about general welfare and the role of government are not law and are not in the Constitution.

So is corporate welfare and welfare for the rich also unconstitutional? Or is only welfare that helps the poor unconstitutional?

 

[jillian]

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.

they can....

but they generally don't change to DIVEST people of their rights.

feel free to find an example where individual rights are constricted when the Supreme Court revisits an issue.

 

[jillian]

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.

there are 3 million more people who voted for Clinton, psyhcho

how many people are in a district in Montana? ten?

 

[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.

they can....

but they generally don't change to DIVEST people of their rights.

feel free to find an example where individual rights are constricted when the Supreme Court revisits an issue.

I can't think of the name of the case off the top of my head, but the courts have ruled that people's rights to privacy has certain circumstances that are not protected, including when a drone is flown more than 50 feet over their property. Also if a Closed caption camera is placed in a public place, it can be focused on private property and the property owner can not say their right to privacy is being violated.

 

[Trump The Failure]

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.

they can....

but they generally don't change to DIVEST people of their rights.

feel free to find an example where individual rights are constricted when the Supreme Court revisits an issue.

The recent ruling regarding the Voting Rights Act of 1964.

 

[whitehall]

The Founders listed the duties of the federal government in a single sentence, "to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare". They didn't say "promote the common defense and provide for the general welfare". Just as liberal justices found a "right to privacy" that didn't exist in the Constitution to justify the carnage of abortion they probably invented a clause that justifies the redistribution of wealth.

 

[jillian]

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.

they can....

but they generally don't change to DIVEST people of their rights.

feel free to find an example where individual rights are constricted when the Supreme Court revisits an issue.

I can't think of the name of the case off the top of my head, but the courts have ruled that people's rights to privacy has certain circumstances that are not protected, including when a drone is flown more than 50 feet over their property. Also if a Closed caption camera is placed in a public place, it can be focused on private property and the property owner can not say their right to privacy is being violated.

I think this is what you're looking for:

Google Scholar

Google Scholar

 

[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.

they can....

but they generally don't change to DIVEST people of their rights.

feel free to find an example where individual rights are constricted when the Supreme Court revisits an issue.

I can't think of the name of the case off the top of my head, but the courts have ruled that people's rights to privacy has certain circumstances that are not protected, including when a drone is flown more than 50 feet over their property. Also if a Closed caption camera is placed in a public place, it can be focused on private property and the property owner can not say their right to privacy is being violated.

I think this is what you're looking for:

Google Scholar

Google Scholar

Like I said I couldn't remember the names of the cases off the top of my head but this last semester one of my courses had to do with surveillance and we went over this stuff including the ability of police to use infrared detectors to see if people could be growing marijuana in their homes.

 

[jillian]

The Founders listed the duties of the federal government in a single sentence, "to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare". They didn't say "promote the common defense and provide for the general welfare". Just as liberal justices found a "right to privacy" that didn't exist in the Constitution to justify the carnage of abortion they probably invented a clause that justifies the redistribution of wealth.

you mean like Scalia discarding the requirement for hundreds of years that the right to gun ownership was in the context of a well-organized militia?

 

[SmokeALib]

The history and founding documents simply do not support your argument.

Who cares? That the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law and make binding decisions as to the constitutionality of those laws was settled two centuries ago.

I care. We are supposed to be a representative republic. When we can be made subject to laws passed by unelected judges/justices who are accountable to nobody, we do not have a representative republic.

So if a city passes a law banning all individual ownership of handguns,

who do you want to have the authority to strike down that law?

The history and founding documents simply do not support your argument.

Who cares? That the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law and make binding decisions as to the constitutionality of those laws was settled two centuries ago.

I care. We are supposed to be a representative republic. When we can be made subject to laws passed by unelected judges/justices who are accountable to nobody, we do not have a representative republic.

So if a city passes a law banning all individual ownership of handguns,

who do you want to have the authority to strike down that law?

The 2nd amendment is my authority.

Assuming you're not just trolling as usual, your argument is that if a state or local government banned the ownership of guns,

you would remedy that by going to that place and shooting as many people as it took to get the law repealed?

lol

Ok yeah if you're not a worthless, leftist, traitorous, bootlicking lazy ass marxist government-bowing piece of shit - you're a troll. Thanks for clarifying.