Welfare is Unconstitutional

[NYcarbineer]

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 You claim millions have it taken away if Obamacare was repealed.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.

It IS there. The Supreme Court has been using judicial review for over 200 years.

You believe they never should have had that power, therefore you believe the Constitution is unenforceable.

 

[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.

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 love right wing fantasy where Only hard working fishermen are real Capitalists.

Capitalism doesn't care about ethics, only that capital Circulates. That engenders a positive multiplier effect that multiplies the effect of any "tide" upon any "boats".

 

[rightwinger]

[ 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.

It basically gives them authority to do what they think is best for the nation
Their decisions are affirmed by the voters

 

[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.

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?

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.

If the only skills you have earn you a skill equivalent $8/hour, the W is irrelevant. It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to offset someone's inability. The living wage bullshit is nothing more than a bleeding heart program designed to give someone something they didn't or couldn't earn.

You left out one variable:

Y - YOU

If the LW is $14 and the low skilled person is only making $8, let the LW = S + Y and get rid of the W. Get to paying the $6 you think that person deserves. It's the ONLY way. If they can't get it from you or those like you that say they deserve it, tough shit.

 

[danielpalos]

No. I meant unconstitutional laws that oppress people. Like the war on drugs and how it has jailed millions and millions of people. Illegal wars that left families without a father. That kind of stuff.

Ah...I see and I agree! We definitely need to prioritize what is important to the welfare of the country.

Although i will say that this huge amount of taxes because half the govt shouldnt be there could very well be argued it is oppression.

Well, I mean sure...there's parts of government that are too big and massive, like the military. I wouldn't necessarily consider taxation as oppression...more like what that taxation pays for used to oppress people. I don't see health care as one of those things, though I do agree with you about our bloated military adventurism and the failed War on Drugs.

The nanny state helps no one...

lol. End the nanny police-State of our wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Y'all are just a bunch of socialists on a national basis and don't know it.

Some on the left are trying to be poets, and know it.

 

[Conservative65]

[ 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.

It basically gives them authority to do what they think is best for the nation
Their decisions are affirmed by the voters

Or for themselves

You mean the voters that don't pay the taxes they're willing to place on others in order to do what's best for their own personal gain?

 

[Conservative65]

No. I meant unconstitutional laws that oppress people. Like the war on drugs and how it has jailed millions and millions of people. Illegal wars that left families without a father. That kind of stuff.

Ah...I see and I agree! We definitely need to prioritize what is important to the welfare of the country.

Although i will say that this huge amount of taxes because half the govt shouldnt be there could very well be argued it is oppression.

Well, I mean sure...there's parts of government that are too big and massive, like the military. I wouldn't necessarily consider taxation as oppression...more like what that taxation pays for used to oppress people. I don't see health care as one of those things, though I do agree with you about our bloated military adventurism and the failed War on Drugs.

The nanny state helps no one...

lol. End the nanny police-State of our wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Y'all are just a bunch of socialists on a national basis and don't know it.

Some on the left are trying to be poets, and know it.

Run along, troll. It's the best thing you can do.

 

[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.

The Constitution says that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms,

but according to your literalist interpretation, nowhere in the Constitution does it provide for any mechanism or method to take action against any entity that might violate those second amendment rights.

So what is the Amendment? Just wishful thinking?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

But a law that banned all handgun ownership would ban that.

How would you overturn such a law as unconstitutional if you took away the power of judicial review from the Supreme Court?

It is why the Judicial Power is vested with the Supreme Court and not Congress or the Executive.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Who has decided they are unconstitutional?

Only the fantastical right wing does that: Every Thing for the "general welfare" is Bad, and every Thing for the "common Offense or general Warfare" is Good.

 

[danielpalos]

No. I meant unconstitutional laws that oppress people. Like the war on drugs and how it has jailed millions and millions of people. Illegal wars that left families without a father. That kind of stuff.

Ah...I see and I agree! We definitely need to prioritize what is important to the welfare of the country.

Although i will say that this huge amount of taxes because half the govt shouldnt be there could very well be argued it is oppression.

Well, I mean sure...there's parts of government that are too big and massive, like the military. I wouldn't necessarily consider taxation as oppression...more like what that taxation pays for used to oppress people. I don't see health care as one of those things, though I do agree with you about our bloated military adventurism and the failed War on Drugs.

The nanny state helps no one...

It helps nannies.

The right wing wants tax breaks for those who can afford to hire professional nannies.

 

[danielpalos]

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;

Insist on, Standing Army Tax rates during alleged times of war, almost.

 

[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.

But a law that banned all handgun ownership would ban that.

How would you overturn such a law as unconstitutional if you took away the power of judicial review from the Supreme Court?

It is why the Judicial Power is vested with the Supreme Court and not Congress or the Executive.

Of course it is, and just as a side note, the power of judicial review predated the Constitution in America.

 

[danielpalos]

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;

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.

Whose fault is it that capitalism doesn't work in real life, like it does in right wing fantasy?

The left knows Capitalism died in 1929 and we have been "soaking in socialism" ever since.

 

[danielpalos]

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;

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.

Can't see reality forest for the fantasy trees, right wingers?

Our "wars" on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror are simple socialism on a national basis.

 

[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.

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.

The Judicial power of the United States is vested in one Supreme Court, not Congress or the Executive.

 

[danielpalos]

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..;

You don't! Unless you employ Hamilton's exploit. Interesting, eh?

I believe Hamilton would agree that public policies must, pay the debts, promote and provide for the general welfare and also provide for the common defense.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

lol. 10USC246 is federal law. Why do we have any alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; and those costs that should be audited, before any audit of the Fed.

 

[danielpalos]

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

We have recourse to the literal, letter of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

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 right believes people are only worth, their net; under our form of Capitalism.