Welfare is Unconstitutional

[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

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.

You are not getting robbed
You are contributing to the society you benefit from. Some programs help you, some help others

Stop being such a pussy

And the money is going to people who dont contribute.
I do my part and the govt goes way beyond theirs.

I wouldn't say they don't contribute. They pay what they can
The wealthy pay as little as they can get away with

 

[Conservative65]

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.

That's not what the Supremacy clause does.

That is absolutely what the Supremacy clause does.

If you think you can make a coherent argument disputing that,

bring it on.

I already have and you're simply unwilling or too fucking stupid to learn. Yours isn't a coherent argument because you claim it is. Show me in writing the words "judicial review" and I'll concede. When you start talking about it's the logical conclusion, you lose. Because it makes sense in the space between your ears doesn't mean it makes sense in reality.

So why were you all in favor of court challenges to Obamacare if you don't believe the court has the right of judicial review?

Who said I was in favor of them? Please quote me where I said that.

 

[dblack]

So why were you all in favor of court challenges to Obamacare if you don't believe the court has the right of judicial review?

It might sound like nitpicking, but government doesn't have "rights". It has powers. It's important to understand the difference.

 

[Timmy]

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.

You are not getting robbed
You are contributing to the society you benefit from. Some programs help you, some help others

Stop being such a pussy

And the money is going to people who dont contribute.
I do my part and the govt goes way beyond theirs.

I wouldn't say they don't contribute. They pay what they can
The wealthy pay as little as they can get away with

Lots of people on "welfare" are elderly who have worked their whole lives . Or people who lost their jobs and got sick .

 

[NYcarbineer]

So why were you all in favor of court challenges to Obamacare if you don't believe the court has the right of judicial review?

It might sound like nitpicking, but government doesn't have "rights". It has powers. It's important to understand the difference.

There is no difference in that context.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Read the fucking thread. You RWnuts do this all the time when you've lost an argument. Demand that people repeat themselves over and over againg.

Read the Constitution. You left wingers constantly claim the Constitution says certain things then refuse to show where it says it. If you can't, just say so. If you're going to use "it was implied", don't bother. That means it doesn't say so, it's what YOU want it to say.

I can show you where Congress has the direct and delegated authority to fund the military. You can't show me where things you say are in the Constitution are. See how that works?

Here's what the con says about the military. Not all that much . How do you get an air force or foreign bases out of this :


To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Not all that much in the scheme of things but ENOUGH.

If you knew the history of how the Air Force came about and an ounce of anything about the Constitution, you'd know the answer. It's simple.

Raising and Maintaining. Your argument that it doesn't foreign bases has everything to do with you not liking it than being unconstitutional. It's the same argument you lefties use when you complain about military spending. The Constitution specifically says Congress can support Armies and maintain the Navy. Not liking how much has nothing to do with whether or not it can happen.

I'm yet to see anything giving Congress the power to force one group of people, the contributors, to support the other group, the freeloaders. If the Constitution said "basic needs", "health", "housing", or the like, I'd agree with you but it doesn't. That means you use something so vague to reach the level you reach, the word fast is more easily defined than it and fast is a subjective term.

See, here's where you game play . On one hand you want the con to specifically say X for it to be constitutional. On the other hand you have no problem stretching the language when it suits you .

I'm not stretching anything. I know the meaning of the words raising and maintaining. Apparently you don't. You're still confusing not liking the decisions of what is directly authorized and whether or not it's authorized.

No one said the specific day to day details has to be listed in the Constitution, just the authority to be able to make those specific details. If something directly gave power to Congress to make laws related to forcing one group to take care of another the specifics on how it was done, whether or not I like it, would be constitutional. You can't provide anything but vagueness in your claim that it does.

Next thing you'll tell me is the Marines aren't constitutional because the word doesn't appear.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

That's not what the Supremacy clause does.

That is absolutely what the Supremacy clause does.

If you think you can make a coherent argument disputing that,

bring it on.

I already have and you're simply unwilling or too fucking stupid to learn. Yours isn't a coherent argument because you claim it is. Show me in writing the words "judicial review" and I'll concede. When you start talking about it's the logical conclusion, you lose. Because it makes sense in the space between your ears doesn't mean it makes sense in reality.

So why were you all in favor of court challenges to Obamacare if you don't believe the court has the right of judicial review?

Who said I was in favor of them? Please quote me where I said that.

So you believe that the protection of rights in the Constitution is unenforceable?

lol, that's my laugh of the day.

 

[Conservative65]

I rather have my taxes go to a needy family than to a useless costly war.

When the Constitution grants Congress direct authority to do that and an amendment deletes the part about Congress being able to declare war and fund it, you'll get your wish. Until then, I suggest you reach into your pocket and give YOUR money to whomever the hell you choose.

 

[dblack]

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.

You are not getting robbed
You are contributing to the society you benefit from. Some programs help you, some help others

Stop being such a pussy

And the money is going to people who dont contribute.
I do my part and the govt goes way beyond theirs.

I wouldn't say they don't contribute. They pay what they can
The wealthy pay as little as they can get away with

Lots of people on "welfare" are elderly who have worked their whole lives . Or people who lost their jobs and got sick .

One thing I agree with the toker on, it is pretty shameful to go hating on welfare recipients.

 

[dblack]

So why were you all in favor of court challenges to Obamacare if you don't believe the court has the right of judicial review?

It might sound like nitpicking, but government doesn't have "rights". It has powers. It's important to understand the difference.

There is no difference in that context.

As I said, it's important to recognize the difference. I'm not surprised you can't.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

You are not getting robbed
You are contributing to the society you benefit from. Some programs help you, some help others

Stop being such a pussy

And the money is going to people who dont contribute.
I do my part and the govt goes way beyond theirs.

I wouldn't say they don't contribute. They pay what they can
The wealthy pay as little as they can get away with

Lots of people on "welfare" are elderly who have worked their whole lives . Or people who lost their jobs and got sick .

My mother is elderly, 85 years old. She worked her whole life and saved her whole life. My dad, who has passed, did the same. They both prepared for old age. My mother is sitting well AND going strong. If family history means anything, she'll live many more years.

Look at them as opportunities for you to prove you care. I have no problem with helping those for which I determine the need is there. I have no problem with you doing the same for situations you know of. Where I have a problem is you thinking that it's your place to determine that for me. I don't do it to you and all I ask is you return the favor.

 

[Conservative65]

That's not what the Supremacy clause does.

That is absolutely what the Supremacy clause does.

If you think you can make a coherent argument disputing that,

bring it on.

I already have and you're simply unwilling or too fucking stupid to learn. Yours isn't a coherent argument because you claim it is. Show me in writing the words "judicial review" and I'll concede. When you start talking about it's the logical conclusion, you lose. Because it makes sense in the space between your ears doesn't mean it makes sense in reality.

So why were you all in favor of court challenges to Obamacare if you don't believe the court has the right of judicial review?

Who said I was in favor of them? Please quote me where I said that.

So you believe that the protection of rights in the Constitution is unenforceable?

lol, that's my laugh of the day.

I'm still looking for proof of your claim about me but you go off on some tangent.

 

[Conservative65]

So why were you all in favor of court challenges to Obamacare if you don't believe the court has the right of judicial review?

It might sound like nitpicking, but government doesn't have "rights". It has powers. It's important to understand the difference.

There is no difference in that context.

As I said, it's important to recognize the difference. I'm not surprised you can't.

He says in one breath that the Constitution grants the power then talks about how it's there because it's implied in the next breath.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

You are not getting robbed
You are contributing to the society you benefit from. Some programs help you, some help others

Stop being such a pussy

And the money is going to people who dont contribute.
I do my part and the govt goes way beyond theirs.

I wouldn't say they don't contribute. They pay what they can
The wealthy pay as little as they can get away with

The poor pay as little as they can get away with and what you support them paying. NOTHING.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

You are not getting robbed
You are contributing to the society you benefit from. Some programs help you, some help others

Stop being such a pussy

And the money is going to people who dont contribute.
I do my part and the govt goes way beyond theirs.

I wouldn't say they don't contribute. They pay what they can
The wealthy pay as little as they can get away with

Lots of people on "welfare" are elderly who have worked their whole lives . Or people who lost their jobs and got sick .

One thing I agree with the toker on, it is pretty shameful to go hating on welfare recipients.

It's pretty shameful to expect someone else to take care of you then complain that those doing the funding aren't paying their fair share and should pay more.

Someone using social welfare isn't paying the taxes that fund it. It has reached a point in this country where we have two groups of people. Those that work for a living and those that vote for one.

 

[dblack]

It's pretty shameful to expect someone else to take care of you then complain that those doing the funding aren't paying their fair share and should pay more.

Personally, I've never heard anyone on welfare make this complaint. Outside of cherry-picked sound bites, most welfare recipients find the whole experience naturally humiliating and make no demands on anyone.

Someone using social welfare isn't paying the taxes that fund it.

Not at the time they're using it, sure. But unless they're lifers, they've definitely paid into it.

It has reached a point in this country where we have two groups of people. Those that work for a living and those that vote for one.

That doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Plenty of poor people, even people who are "on the dole", recognize the harm done by the welfare state. That's why so many liberals are puzzled by Trump supporters who voted "against their interests".

Likewise, many wealthy people strongly support the welfare state. They want to keep the masses subdued and in their place. It's really not as simply as the makers and takers fairy tale.

 

[Conservative65]

It's pretty shameful to expect someone else to take care of you then complain that those doing the funding aren't paying their fair share and should pay more.

Personally, I've never heard anyone on welfare make this complaint. Outside of cherry-picked sound bites, most welfare recipients find the whole experience naturally humiliating and make no demands on anyone.

Someone using social welfare isn't paying the taxes that fund it.

Not at the time they're using it, sure. But unless they're lifers, they've definitely paid into it.

It has reached a point in this country where we have two groups of people. Those that work for a living and those that vote for one.

That doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Plenty of poor people, even people who are "on the dole", recognize the harm done by the welfare state. That's why so many liberals are puzzled by Trump supporters who voted "against their interests".

Likewise, many wealthy people strongly support the welfare state. They want to keep the masses subdued and in their place. It's really not as simply as the makers and takers fairy tale.

They make a demand on everyone each time they use the money someone else was forced to pay. If they find it humiliating, many apparently don't have a problem being humiliated. It used to be that someone using the actual stamps did it discreetly. Now, they do it openly with the EBT card and don't care who knows. It's easy to tell those that think it's owed to them and those that use it the way it was designed.

If the poor recognize the harm done by the welfare state why do so many millions continue to do the harm. If I was harming something, I'd do my best to stop.

There are too many lifers and multi-generational recipients. To say they've paid into it if they're not a lifer isn't necessarily true. A family of four (2 adults, 2 children) doesn't pay a dime of income taxes, those that fund things like this, until the family income is damn near $50,000. The argument that they pay those taxes is as potentially faulty as the one used by the $15/hr minimum wage crowd that says if the minimum is that much, people will pay taxes. Maybe, maybe not. It depends.

Also, since budgets funding these programs are year to year with the remaining money not rolling over, if they used one year they didn't pay taxes in that year. If they paid the next year, they were funding that budget year and the year they received doesn't come into play.

The makes and takers concept is really that simple. People try to make it more complicated than it has to be. Imagine that when the government is involved.

 

[dblack]

The makes and takers concept is really that simple. People try to make it more complicated than it has to be. Imagine that when the government is involved.

No. It's a fairy tale for self-righteous simpletons.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Read the fucking thread. You RWnuts do this all the time when you've lost an argument. Demand that people repeat themselves over and over againg.

Read the Constitution. You left wingers constantly claim the Constitution says certain things then refuse to show where it says it. If you can't, just say so. If you're going to use "it was implied", don't bother. That means it doesn't say so, it's what YOU want it to say.

I can show you where Congress has the direct and delegated authority to fund the military. You can't show me where things you say are in the Constitution are. See how that works?

Here's what the con says about the military. Not all that much . How do you get an air force or foreign bases out of this :


To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Since the Founders had absolutely no way to know that there ever would be an Air Force, it of course is not mentioned in the Constitution. But it is abundantly clear to anybody who has studied the Founding documents and the Constitution itself that it was considered to be a function of the federal government to provide the common defense. So an Air Force being necessary to achieve that is well within constitutional intent.

Since the Congress passes a defense budget each and every year--except for a few years during the Obama Administration which was unconstitutional--the government has been well within the constitutional limits of the two years appropriations.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

You are not getting robbed
You are contributing to the society you benefit from. Some programs help you, some help others

Stop being such a pussy

And the money is going to people who dont contribute.
I do my part and the govt goes way beyond theirs.

I wouldn't say they don't contribute. They pay what they can
The wealthy pay as little as they can get away with

Lots of people on "welfare" are elderly who have worked their whole lives . Or people who lost their jobs and got sick .

Conservatives don't care

They resent having to help anyone