Welfare is Unconstitutional

[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.

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.

that is standard right wing propaganda, lately. activist judges, and all of that.

 

[Foxfyre]

[ 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.

But even a cursory examination of the Founding documents establishes the the 'general welfare' means EVERYBODY'S welfare and not targeted individuals, groups, or demographics. There is no constitutional authority for congress to use the tax payers money or resources to benefit anybody that does not benefit all.

Federal highways for example can be justified constitutionally because they are used by everybody or benefit everybody by increasing national defense capabilities as well as making it easier for people to travel about and/or receive goods and services where they are. They benefit one demographic no more than any other demographics.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You should do it over again, even if I am the one on drugs.

Please read our federal Constitution, again; more thoroughly.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

technically, they are part of the navy.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Congress can establish public policy. Social safety nets are a part of public policy, like infrastructure.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

only lousy capitalists do that.

 

[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.

But even a cursory examination of the Founding documents establishes the the 'general welfare' means EVERYBODY'S welfare and not targeted individuals, groups, or demographics. There is no constitutional authority for congress to use the tax payers money or resources to benefit anybody that does not benefit all.

Federal highways for example can be justified constitutionally because they are used by everybody or benefit everybody by increasing national defense capabilities as well as making it easier for people to travel about and/or receive goods and services where they are. They benefit one demographic no more than any other demographics.

There is no way to pass legislation that benefits everyone equally
Welfare does benefit everyone. It provides for society as a whole, keeps beggars off the street, helps stop the spread of disease
Think Calcutta

 

[danielpalos]

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.

No one is making you sign up for unemployment or welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Dear, Mr. Trump and the poor Only pay the taxes we are legally obligated to pay. Don't complain; Be Patriotic!

 

[danielpalos]

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.

All political talk and no political action, right wingers?

End the drug war to pay for health care. There is no excuse.

 

[The Derp]

If the only skills you have earn you a skill equivalent $8/hour, the W is irrelevant.

First of all, the skill equivalent of $8/hr is artificial because of welfare. So the real wage should be $14/hr, yet it's $8/hr because welfare will make up that gap. So the true cost equivalent is much higher than $8/hr, and welfare is subsidizing the corporate profits that come from low labor costs. Because Walmart pays its workers like shit, it skates away with $14B in profit whereas, if it paid a living wage, it would skate away with just $8B in profit. But in both cases, it's still profitable. So welfare is really for the Walton Family who uses it to walk away with nearly double the profits.

If you think someone working a full-time job should only get $8/hr, then you're a pretty shitty person who is inadvertently supporting corporate welfare.

It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to offset someone's inability.

Yet that is precisely what business expects, which is why it pays its workers so little. So you're kinda, sorta making my argument for me. Since businesses clearly are relying on welfare to bridge the gap for their workers, then why don't you put pressure on the employer to increase it's wages so taxpayers don't have to do so artificially through welfare???? Business comes with the expectation that welfare is there to bridge the income gaps. If you remove that expectation, then what is the natural result of wages? They have to go up, right? Unless you don't think so. And I would ask why you don't think that?

The living wage bullshit is nothing more than a bleeding heart program designed to give someone something they didn't or couldn't earn.

So if we ended welfare tomorrow, what do you think would happen to wages?

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.

Skill level is irrelevant because it's a subjective judgment. You may not think fast food workers have high skill, but try working in a fast food joint for one day during lunch and you then tell me that t's not hard work worthy of higher wages. I think you like to judge people, probably because you feel so insecure about yourself. So you convince yourself that a low wage corresponds to low skill, and that's just not the case at all. A low wage corresponds with corporate profits.

 

[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;

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.

We have a Second Amendment; why do we have wars on crime, drugs, and terror?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The fairy tale is that someone unwilling to do for themselves has a claim or the right to demand someone be forced to do it for them. When their attitude is that I deserve it although I didn't earn it, fuck them.

If you're not making it and you have it handed to you, it's called taking it. Just like there are only two genders, there are only two options here. You can't be both at the same time.

Taxing the rich into Heaven is moral. The power to Tax is to pay the Debts, and everything else.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Yet another one that doesn't get it. I don't have a problem helping anyone where I have determined the need. I have a problem when you think it's your place to determine it for me.

It's apparent that people like you resent helping anyone. When you answer to helping is see how much the government can get out of others, that's not you helping.

Our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, are nothing but, command economics.

 

[Foxfyre]

[ 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.

But even a cursory examination of the Founding documents establishes the the 'general welfare' means EVERYBODY'S welfare and not targeted individuals, groups, or demographics. There is no constitutional authority for congress to use the tax payers money or resources to benefit anybody that does not benefit all.

Federal highways for example can be justified constitutionally because they are used by everybody or benefit everybody by increasing national defense capabilities as well as making it easier for people to travel about and/or receive goods and services where they are. They benefit one demographic no more than any other demographics.

There is no way to pass legislation that benefits everyone equally
Welfare does benefit everyone. It provides for society as a whole, keeps beggars off the street, helps stop the spread of disease
Think Calcutta

There are more beggars on the street than ever despite more than 50 years of the so-called war on poverty. Bad federal policy has actually caused at least some of that. The best remedy to avoid places like Calcutta are human rights/recognition and respect for unalienable rights, liberty, free markets, and a thriving economy.

But the point is, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution authorizing the federal government to take resources from Citizen A for the benefit of Citizen B. Such matters were intended to be a state and/or local matter.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Congress has a Constitutional power to pass legislation

That legislation can be passed to provide for the General Welfare of the people

To pass legislation based on their delegated powers.

Social welfare is not general welfare.

Yes, it is. General welfare covers every contingency; major or common welfare covers specifics like social welfare.

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

What nonsense.

The usual statement of a person opinion with no support.

To the iggy trash heap for you.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Not much there to tax

More than you think and are willing to acknowledge.

Lets look at where the money is

Now, why do you want to increase taxes on those that have only one tenth of a percent of our nations wealth?

Why does our One Percenter in Chief, want to cut taxes for the rich and cut social spending for the poor?

 

[danielpalos]

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?

The right only has enough work ethic for learning how to fish, not learning how to muster.

The People of the State are the Militia.

 

[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?

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.

did you know, that appealing to ignorance of the law is a moral turpitude, for the militia of the United States?