Welfare is Unconstitutional

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

Article 3, Section 1.

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.

 

[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.

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.

Just expecting the poor to do something for themselves once in their lives.

Only the right wing is that clueless and that causeless.

The rich were "too big to not get bailed out", remember.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Of course it is constitutional
Every court case for the last 75 years has affirmed it


General welfare is for the good of the country. Taking care of our less fortunate is for the good of the country

 

[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.

Of course it is constitutional
Every court case for the last 75 years has affirmed it


General welfare is for the good of the country. Taking care of our less fortunate is for the good of the country

Giving free shit to people based on status isnt for the "general welfare" it is for the individual welfare. Kinda sounds like discrimination

 

[dblack]

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.

Of course it is constitutional
Every court case for the last 75 years has affirmed it


General welfare is for the good of the country. Taking care of our less fortunate is for the good of the country

Guess you could make the same argument for corporate welfare, eh?

 

[rightwinger]

Funny how some of the people in this thread, and on this forum as a whole, don't understand that the "general welfare" of the entire country is based on a foundation that includes ALL citizens, even the ones they would rather die off and disappear. I guess many of these members have never heard the saying:

“The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members.”

That's not a quote from a Democrat... it's from Mahatma Gandhi.

General doesn't mean giving free shit to individuals unless its ALL of them. Forcing Paul to pay for Peter is unconstitutional

No legislation applies to each person equally. Some will benefit, some will suffer.....It is up to our elected officials to decide

 

[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.

Of course it is constitutional
Every court case for the last 75 years has affirmed it


General welfare is for the good of the country. Taking care of our less fortunate is for the good of the country

Guess you could make the same argument for corporate welfare, eh?

excellent

 

[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.

Of course it is constitutional
Every court case for the last 75 years has affirmed it


General welfare is for the good of the country. Taking care of our less fortunate is for the good of the country

General welfare includes every contingency; only the major welfare is more specific.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Of course it is constitutional
Every court case for the last 75 years has affirmed it


General welfare is for the good of the country. Taking care of our less fortunate is for the good of the country

Giving free shit to people based on status isnt for the "general welfare" it is for the individual welfare. Kinda sounds like discrimination

It is for the general welfare of We the People not to have sick and starving people in the streets

 

[TNHarley]

Funny how some of the people in this thread, and on this forum as a whole, don't understand that the "general welfare" of the entire country is based on a foundation that includes ALL citizens, even the ones they would rather die off and disappear. I guess many of these members have never heard the saying:

“The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members.”

That's not a quote from a Democrat... it's from Mahatma Gandhi.

General doesn't mean giving free shit to individuals unless its ALL of them. Forcing Paul to pay for Peter is unconstitutional

No legislation applies to each person equally. Some will benefit, some will suffer.....It is up to our elected officials to decide

When the majority is getting robbed, it isnt for the general welfare.
It amazes me how statists will rape words to get their agenda passed. So dishonest.

 

[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.

Of course it is constitutional
Every court case for the last 75 years has affirmed it


General welfare is for the good of the country. Taking care of our less fortunate is for the good of the country

Giving free shit to people based on status isnt for the "general welfare" it is for the individual welfare. Kinda sounds like discrimination

Dear right wingers, "hating on the poor" is immoral.

Where Is The Outrage Over 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.

Of course it is constitutional
Every court case for the last 75 years has affirmed it


General welfare is for the good of the country. Taking care of our less fortunate is for the good of the country

Giving free shit to people based on status isnt for the "general welfare" it is for the individual welfare. Kinda sounds like discrimination

It is for the general welfare of We the People not to have sick and starving people in the streets

Creating generational dependency isnt for the general 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.

Of course it is constitutional
Every court case for the last 75 years has affirmed it


General welfare is for the good of the country. Taking care of our less fortunate is for the good of the country

Giving free shit to people based on status isnt for the "general welfare" it is for the individual welfare. Kinda sounds like discrimination

Dear right wingers, "hating on the poor" is immoral.

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?

Im not hating on the poor, numbnuts. Go smoke another one

 

[The Derp]

btw, what are the two sides of the argument on welfare? I hear your side, but just wondering the other side's full argument on why it is constitutional? I've never really paid attention?

Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

BTW - we wouldn't need as much, if any welfare if employers paid their workers more.

 

[danielpalos]

Funny how some of the people in this thread, and on this forum as a whole, don't understand that the "general welfare" of the entire country is based on a foundation that includes ALL citizens, even the ones they would rather die off and disappear. I guess many of these members have never heard the saying:

“The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members.”

That's not a quote from a Democrat... it's from Mahatma Gandhi.

General doesn't mean giving free shit to individuals unless its ALL of them. Forcing Paul to pay for Peter is unconstitutional

No legislation applies to each person equally. Some will benefit, some will suffer.....It is up to our elected officials to decide

When the majority is getting robbed, it isnt for the general welfare.
It amazes me how statists will rape words to get their agenda passed. So dishonest.

lol. end the drug war with your majority in government, right wingers. don't be all political talk and no political action.

 

[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.

Of course it is constitutional
Every court case for the last 75 years has affirmed it


General welfare is for the good of the country. Taking care of our less fortunate is for the good of the country

Giving free shit to people based on status isnt for the "general welfare" it is for the individual welfare. Kinda sounds like discrimination

It is for the general welfare of We the People not to have sick and starving people in the streets

Creating generational dependency isnt for the general welfare.

Only lousy management does that.

 

[TNHarley]

btw, what are the two sides of the argument on welfare? I hear your side, but just wondering the other side's full argument on why it is constitutional? I've never really paid attention?

Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

BTW - we wouldn't need as much, if any welfare if employers paid their workers more.

We wouldnt need any welfare if we didnt have so many unconstitutional programs.

 

[The Derp]

Alexander Hamilton who supported an extensive spending clause during the Constitutional Convention said this : language is not, as Madison contended, a shorthand way of limiting the power to tax and spend in furtherance of the powers elsewhere enumerated in Article I, Section 8; but it does contain its own limitation, namely, that spending under the clause be for the “general” (that is, national) welfare and not for purely local or regional benefit.

Which is just his opinion on what "general" means. Others had different opinions. Hamilton's is not the be-all, end-all. And if we got rid of welfare, how will red states subsidize their low tax rates?

 

[The Derp]

We wouldnt need any welfare if we didnt have so many unconstitutional programs.

???? What programs? What are you talking about? Are you saying the because welfare programs exist, people are on welfare? And what about all those red states who use welfare to balance their budgets? Where does that leave them?

 

[TNHarley]

Funny how some of the people in this thread, and on this forum as a whole, don't understand that the "general welfare" of the entire country is based on a foundation that includes ALL citizens, even the ones they would rather die off and disappear. I guess many of these members have never heard the saying:

“The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members.”

That's not a quote from a Democrat... it's from Mahatma Gandhi.

General doesn't mean giving free shit to individuals unless its ALL of them. Forcing Paul to pay for Peter is unconstitutional

No legislation applies to each person equally. Some will benefit, some will suffer.....It is up to our elected officials to decide

When the majority is getting robbed, it isnt for the general welfare.
It amazes me how statists will rape words to get their agenda passed. So dishonest.

lol. end the drug war with your majority in government, right wingers. don't be all political talk and no political action.

I wish they would! That is also unconstitutional