Welfare is Unconstitutional

[danielpalos]

I posted him specifically because during the constitutional convention, he wanted it to mean an expansive welfare state but it got shot down. That quote was after the signing.

Like I said, they all had different opinions of the function of the state. What they produced was a compromise. One that seems to work just fine. Now, if you were really serious about welfare, you'd be arguing for an increase in the minimum wage, which would move millions off welfare. But that would mean businesses wouldn't make as much money as they did before. So you have a choice to make; do you want to continue subsidizing corporate profits, or do you want to reduce welfare enrollment? Because you can't have both.

increase in minimum wage is unconstitutional, arguably.

No, it isn't. Fixing Standards for the Union is in our Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

I guess since you guys want to rape the concept of general welfare, bailing out companies and giving them free shit is for the good of the people as a whole.
Guess you guys need to STFU about it.

The right wing doesn't have a problem bailing out the rich; why do you?

 

[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.

When the poor constantly demand others do for them, it's easy to see they're unwilling to do for themselves.

The rich were "too big to not get bailed out", remember. All they need to do, was simply hire the finest help money can buy, to solve any problems.

 

[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.

I told you, it is an implied power justified by the Supremacy Clause.

Now you tell me how you prevent state and local governments from ignoring the 2nd amendment without a Supreme Court with the power of judicial review.

...or you could just run away from the question again.

What to fuck are you rambling on about? The 2nd amendment is the 2nd amendment. I've read it. It's fairly simple to understand - even for a brainwashed leftist as yourself.

But how do you stop state and local governments from ignoring the 2nd amendment in their laws,

without a Supreme Court to declare those laws unconstitutional?

 

[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

That's what you say. It is for the general welfare that those unwilling to do for themselves start doing something for themselves instead of expecting others to do it. If you're unwilling to do for yourself, I have no problem is you go without.

Only in right wing fantasy. We can do without, our wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

[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.

I told you, it is an implied power justified by the Supremacy Clause.

Now you tell me how you prevent state and local governments from ignoring the 2nd amendment without a Supreme Court with the power of judicial review.

...or you could just run away from the question again.

That is your INTERPRETATION.

Yes, States Can Nullify Some Federal Laws, Not All

You did run away from the question.

You want to take the power of judicial review away from the Supreme Court, which would make the Constitution unenforceable,

as the example of state and local governments ignoring the 2nd Amendment proves.

What then is the point of having a Constitution?

 

[The Derp]

no that isn't what happens.

Yes, it is precisely what happens. It's actually a very simple equation:

W = Welfare
S = Wage/salary
LW = Living Wage (A constant)

So let's say for the sake of argument, that a "living wage" is $14/hr. That is the constant. The more you increase "S", the more you decrease "W".

So, W + S = LW

If LW = $14/hr and if S = $10/hr, then W = $4/hr

If S = $12/hr, then W = $2/hr

Understand?

see when one raises minimum wages, one then redefines the work force and more are put out of work. it's a really simple concept and in play in Seattle today.

NO IT FUCKING ISN'T!

Seattle's unemployment rate, April 2015 (Start of MW hike) = 3.2%

Seattle's unemployment rate, April 2017 = 2.6%

So in what fucking world is Seattle losing jobs when the unemployment rate has declined by 0.6% since the MW hike started?

Now, what about wages? How have those been affected by the Seattle Minimum Wage Hike?

Over the last 12-month period, June 2016 to June 2017, Seattle's wages have grown by 3.6%, which is the second-highest wage growth rate in the country. The United States' wage growth over the same period is 2.4%

The problem is that you refuse to accept facts, choosing to buy into bullshit that confirms your narrow world view instead. I think you do that because you're an insecure person who is desperate to be taken seriously because you never have been before.

There's a thread about it in here. you should look it up. I love the left's unintelligent.

Threads only work if you actually read them instead of sloppily glossing over counter points to your already false argument.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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?

It also says militia and 10USC246 is federal law. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about civics, either.

 

[The Derp]

The nanny state helps no one...

No, the Nanny State helps Conservatives because they use welfare in order to cover the deficits their tax policy creates.

 

[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.

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?

It also says militia and 10USC246 is federal law. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about civics, either.

We're talking about the Constitution, troll.

 

[danielpalos]

increase in minimum wage is unconstitutional, arguably.

But that's not what I asked. If you raise wages, you spend less on welfare for people. It's a very simple equation, which may explain why you can't grasp it.

no that isn't what happens. you need to take a course in economics. see when one raises minimum wages, one then redefines the work force and more are put out of work. it's a really simple concept and in play in Seattle today. There's a thread about it in here. you should look it up. I love the left's unintelligent.

Dude, red herrings is all the right wing knows how to catch, for their learning how to fish ethic.

State’s unemployment rate falls to a historic low

 

[Conservative65]

The nanny state helps no one...

No, the Nanny State helps Conservatives because they use welfare in order to cover the deficits their tax policy creates.

Deficits don't occur from lack of money. They occur from spending more than you have.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[ 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. .

...and to promote the general welfare. Since 'general welfare' is a term wholly open to interpretation, the founders were authorizing that interpretation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The nanny state helps no one...

No, the Nanny State helps Conservatives because they use welfare in order to cover the deficits their tax policy creates.

Deficits don't occur from lack of money. They occur from spending more than you have.

If you lack the money to pay as you go, you borrow, and create a debt.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

That's not what the Supremacy clause does.

Not for the fascist right wing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Question:

If the Supreme Court ought not have the power of judicial review and the power to overturn unconstitutional laws,

what happens if a state or a city or a county or wherever, by law, bans all individual gun ownership?

First of all, the Supreme Court may or may not hear the case. Shows how little you know about the Constitution.

They would not hear any cases if you had your way. If you had your way, for example, the Chicago gun ban would still be law.

 

[The Derp]

Deficits don't occur from lack of money.

Ummm, wrong. This is why Conservatives have never been able to balance a budget. Because they think that cutting revenue doesn't create deficits. Because they don't know math or finance.

 

[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.

I told you, it is an implied power justified by the Supremacy Clause.

Now you tell me how you prevent state and local governments from ignoring the 2nd amendment without a Supreme Court with the power of judicial review.

...or you could just run away from the question again.

That is your INTERPRETATION.

Yes, States Can Nullify Some Federal Laws, Not All

You did run away from the question.

You want to take the power of judicial review away from the Supreme Court, which would make the Constitution unenforceable,

as the example of state and local governments ignoring the 2nd Amendment proves.

What then is the point of having a Constitution?

How can something that wasn't there to start with be taken away?

That's the same bullshit argument you bleeding hearts use with healthcare. You claim millions have it taken away if Obamacare was repealed. When someone has something that another group was forced to fund they shouldn't have had unless they bought it themselves, it's not taking it away. It's allowing those forced to fund it to keep what they never should have lost.

To you, it seems then point of having a Constitution is to give you something to find things in that aren't there.

 

[Conservative65]

Question:

If the Supreme Court ought not have the power of judicial review and the power to overturn unconstitutional laws,

what happens if a state or a city or a county or wherever, by law, bans all individual gun ownership?

First of all, the Supreme Court may or may not hear the case. Shows how little you know about the Constitution.

They would not hear any cases if you had your way. If you had your way, for example, the Chicago gun ban would still be law.

Whether or not the Supreme Court ever hears a case is up to them not the Constitution or me other than the exceptions where the Constitution says they have original jurisdiction.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Question:

If the Supreme Court ought not have the power of judicial review and the power to overturn unconstitutional laws,

what happens if a state or a city or a county or wherever, by law, bans all individual gun ownership?

First of all, the Supreme Court may or may not hear the case. Shows how little you know about the Constitution.

They would not hear any cases if you had your way. If you had your way, for example, the Chicago gun ban would still be law.

Whether or not the Supreme Court ever hears a case is up to them not the Constitution or me other than the exceptions where the Constitution says they have original jurisdiction.

You are sneaking away from your original claim that the Supreme Court has no right whatsoever to review laws and strike them down if they deem them unconstitutional.

Why are you doing that?