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.
Considering there were 10 million illegal alien voters, that makes you about 7 million votes off.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?
Roads are regulated by the govt. That is the way it is supposed to be. Nice failThat'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?
You are being ridiculous. The con is not some exhaustive list of what is allowed. It clearly describes how laws can be written and created.
The constitution doesn't say we must stop at Red lights . Are red lights unconstitutional? Must we have a convention to pass a red light amendment ?
That would be silly . Stop being stupid .
How is that a fail? You're thread title implies Welfare is unconstitutional, because it's not mentioned in the con. Neither are red lights .
The fail is you misunderstand how federalism works entirely. Red lights don't have to be listed to be constitutional. Welfare done at the federal level is because no authority to do so exists at that level.
They passed a welfare law . What's unconstitutional about that ?
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.
Just typical right wing, "hate on the poor, real Persons". They love, rich artificial Persons.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?
The Judicial Authority is vested with the Supreme Court for our supreme law of the land.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.
Show me where the Constitution gives them that specific authority. I can find all sorts of powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8. I can find where the President has the authority to veto legislation. Nowhere does the Constitution specifically say the Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional.
Article III is only 3 sections. No sub clauses, etc. While you want the Supreme Court to have extensive power, the founders did not. The shortness of the Article dealing with the Courts is proof enough. If the Constitution granted such authority, why did John Marshall have to twist himself into a tighter pretzel with Marbury v. Madison than John Roberts did with the Obamacare ruling in order for what you say the Constitution grants to exist?
The Judicial Authority is vested with the Supreme Court for our supreme law of the land.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.
Show me where the Constitution gives them that specific authority. I can find all sorts of powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8. I can find where the President has the authority to veto legislation. Nowhere does the Constitution specifically say the Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional.
Article III is only 3 sections. No sub clauses, etc. While you want the Supreme Court to have extensive power, the founders did not. The shortness of the Article dealing with the Courts is proof enough. If the Constitution granted such authority, why did John Marshall have to twist himself into a tighter pretzel with Marbury v. Madison than John Roberts did with the Obamacare ruling in order for what you say the Constitution grants to exist?
Just typical right wing, "hate on the poor, real Persons". They love, rich artificial Persons.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?
Just typical right wing, "hate on the poor, real Persons". They love, rich artificial Persons.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?
Just expecting the poor to do something for themselves once in their lives.
Why would the VA be unconstitutional?Just typical right wing, "hate on the poor, real Persons". They love, rich artificial Persons.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?
Just expecting the poor to do something for themselves once in their lives.
Would the VA also fall under your unconstitutional rant ?
Just typical right wing, "hate on the poor, real Persons". They love, rich artificial Persons.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?
Just expecting the poor to do something for themselves once in their lives.
Would the VA also fall under your unconstitutional rant ?
Another question is why does Timmy consider it welfare?Why would the VA be unconstitutional?Just typical right wing, "hate on the poor, real Persons". They love, rich artificial Persons.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?
Just expecting the poor to do something for themselves once in their lives.
Would the VA also fall under your unconstitutional rant ?
Why are you so bad at analogies?
The Judicial Authority is vested with the Supreme Court for our supreme law of the land.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.
Show me where the Constitution gives them that specific authority. I can find all sorts of powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8. I can find where the President has the authority to veto legislation. Nowhere does the Constitution specifically say the Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional.
Article III is only 3 sections. No sub clauses, etc. While you want the Supreme Court to have extensive power, the founders did not. The shortness of the Article dealing with the Courts is proof enough. If the Constitution granted such authority, why did John Marshall have to twist himself into a tighter pretzel with Marbury v. Madison than John Roberts did with the Obamacare ruling in order for what you say the Constitution grants to exist?
Why don't you just say you can't find the specific location where you claim the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority you say they have.
Another question is why does Timmy consider it welfare?Why would the VA be unconstitutional?Just typical right wing, "hate on the poor, real Persons". They love, rich artificial Persons.Looks like you're just talking about welfare for ordinary people so far. What about corporate welfare?
Just expecting the poor to do something for themselves once in their lives.
Would the VA also fall under your unconstitutional rant ?
Why are you so bad at analogies?
The Judicial Authority is vested with the Supreme Court for our supreme law of the land.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.
Show me where the Constitution gives them that specific authority. I can find all sorts of powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8. I can find where the President has the authority to veto legislation. Nowhere does the Constitution specifically say the Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional.
Article III is only 3 sections. No sub clauses, etc. While you want the Supreme Court to have extensive power, the founders did not. The shortness of the Article dealing with the Courts is proof enough. If the Constitution granted such authority, why did John Marshall have to twist himself into a tighter pretzel with Marbury v. Madison than John Roberts did with the Obamacare ruling in order for what you say the Constitution grants to exist?
Why don't you just say you can't find the specific location where you claim the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority you say they have.
The power of judicial review was implied in the original Constitution and confirmed in later case law.
The Judicial Authority is vested with the Supreme Court for our supreme law of the land.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.
Show me where the Constitution gives them that specific authority. I can find all sorts of powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8. I can find where the President has the authority to veto legislation. Nowhere does the Constitution specifically say the Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional.
Article III is only 3 sections. No sub clauses, etc. While you want the Supreme Court to have extensive power, the founders did not. The shortness of the Article dealing with the Courts is proof enough. If the Constitution granted such authority, why did John Marshall have to twist himself into a tighter pretzel with Marbury v. Madison than John Roberts did with the Obamacare ruling in order for what you say the Constitution grants to exist?
Why don't you just say you can't find the specific location where you claim the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority you say they have.
The power of judicial review was implied in the original Constitution and confirmed in later case law.
That you say it was implied proves what I've been saying. If the Constitution gave them that power, you wouldn't have to infer through interpretation, you could look at the very wording. What you're saying is that the Supreme Court giving itself the authority of judicial review is the same as the Constitution having it written in it. If it was there, as you say, it wouldn't have to be inferred or a case wouldn't have to grant it. It would grant itself.
The Judicial Authority is vested with the Supreme Court for our supreme law of the land.+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.
Show me where the Constitution gives them that specific authority. I can find all sorts of powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8. I can find where the President has the authority to veto legislation. Nowhere does the Constitution specifically say the Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional.
Article III is only 3 sections. No sub clauses, etc. While you want the Supreme Court to have extensive power, the founders did not. The shortness of the Article dealing with the Courts is proof enough. If the Constitution granted such authority, why did John Marshall have to twist himself into a tighter pretzel with Marbury v. Madison than John Roberts did with the Obamacare ruling in order for what you say the Constitution grants to exist?
Why don't you just say you can't find the specific location where you claim the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority you say they have.
The power of judicial review was implied in the original Constitution and confirmed in later case law.
The Judicial Authority is vested with the Supreme Court for our supreme law of the land.+
-+++++
++
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.
Show me where the Constitution gives them that specific authority. I can find all sorts of powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8. I can find where the President has the authority to veto legislation. Nowhere does the Constitution specifically say the Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional.
Article III is only 3 sections. No sub clauses, etc. While you want the Supreme Court to have extensive power, the founders did not. The shortness of the Article dealing with the Courts is proof enough. If the Constitution granted such authority, why did John Marshall have to twist himself into a tighter pretzel with Marbury v. Madison than John Roberts did with the Obamacare ruling in order for what you say the Constitution grants to exist?
Why don't you just say you can't find the specific location where you claim the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority you say they have.
The power of judicial review was implied in the original Constitution and confirmed in later case law.
Please cite the Constitutional article and section that implies that the U.S. Supreme Court was given power of judicial review.
Certainly the Founders expected SCOTUS to rule on whether a law was constitutional or unconstitutional when such was disputed by any legislative body or anyone with standing. But they NEVER intended such rulings to themselves become the law. The Court was given no power to make law, repeal law, or enforce law. It was intended to discern what the existing law is and, in the case where the judge or jury had authority to determine guilt or innocence, what consequences would be assigned according to the existing law.
Certainly the court was not intended to order anybody to provide welfare for somebody else. Nor was the federal government intended to do that.
The Judicial Authority is vested with the Supreme Court for our supreme law of the land.Show me where the Constitution gives them that specific authority. I can find all sorts of powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8. I can find where the President has the authority to veto legislation. Nowhere does the Constitution specifically say the Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional.
Article III is only 3 sections. No sub clauses, etc. While you want the Supreme Court to have extensive power, the founders did not. The shortness of the Article dealing with the Courts is proof enough. If the Constitution granted such authority, why did John Marshall have to twist himself into a tighter pretzel with Marbury v. Madison than John Roberts did with the Obamacare ruling in order for what you say the Constitution grants to exist?
Why don't you just say you can't find the specific location where you claim the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority you say they have.
The power of judicial review was implied in the original Constitution and confirmed in later case law.
That you say it was implied proves what I've been saying. If the Constitution gave them that power, you wouldn't have to infer through interpretation, you could look at the very wording. What you're saying is that the Supreme Court giving itself the authority of judicial review is the same as the Constitution having it written in it. If it was there, as you say, it wouldn't have to be inferred or a case wouldn't have to grant it. It would grant itself.
The Supremacy Clause requires all laws to be constitutional. That is an explicit power given to the federal government.
Thus, the implied power is that the federal government can review laws, interpret them, determine whether they are constitutional, and strike them down if they are not.
That is what the Supreme Court does.
The Judicial Authority is vested with the Supreme Court for our supreme law of the land.
Why don't you just say you can't find the specific location where you claim the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority you say they have.
The power of judicial review was implied in the original Constitution and confirmed in later case law.
That you say it was implied proves what I've been saying. If the Constitution gave them that power, you wouldn't have to infer through interpretation, you could look at the very wording. What you're saying is that the Supreme Court giving itself the authority of judicial review is the same as the Constitution having it written in it. If it was there, as you say, it wouldn't have to be inferred or a case wouldn't have to grant it. It would grant itself.
The Supremacy Clause requires all laws to be constitutional. That is an explicit power given to the federal government.
Thus, the implied power is that the federal government can review laws, interpret them, determine whether they are constitutional, and strike them down if they are not.
That is what the Supreme Court does.
Well then I definitely need to be educated. Please show me where in the Constitution that any authority is given the Supreme Court to strike down any law. Please cite the Article, section, and clause.
