Welfare is Unconstitutional

[jc456]

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.

well they can't give tax breaks to those who don't pay any. Exactly how is that done? whiner

 

[danielpalos]

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.

That only applies to individuals not governments.

 

[jc456]

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.

Analysis | A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news for liberals

"When Seattle officials voted three years ago to incrementally boost the city's minimum wage up to $15 an hour, they'd hoped to improve the lives of low-income workers. Yet according to a major new study that could force economists to reassess past research on the issue, the hike has had the opposite effect.

The city is gradually increasing the hourly minimum to $15 over several years. Already, though, some employers have not been able to afford the increased minimums. They've cut their payrolls, putting off new hiring, reducing hours or letting their workers go, the study found."

fk me?.......................fk you

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Just public policy on an Institutional basis that happens to favor the rich at the expense of the poor, under our form of Capitalism.

 

[Timmy]

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.

Analysis | A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news for liberals

"When Seattle officials voted three years ago to incrementally boost the city's minimum wage up to $15 an hour, they'd hoped to improve the lives of low-income workers. Yet according to a major new study that could force economists to reassess past research on the issue, the hike has had the opposite effect.

The city is gradually increasing the hourly minimum to $15 over several years. Already, though, some employers have not been able to afford the increased minimums. They've cut their payrolls, putting off new hiring, reducing hours or letting their workers go, the study found."

fk me?.......................fk you

You telling me there's no min wage jobs available in Seattle ? A place wh super low unemployment . That's the real q.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Just the right wing being disingenuous? Providing health care is a promotion of the general welfare.

The common defense does not encompass the common offense nor the general warfare.

 

[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.

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

Nothing but fallacy induced fantasy as I have always suspected.

 

[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.

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.

Should the government deny public school to children whose parents do not pay a fair market value share of the cost of public education?

 

[Conservative65]

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.

If it's THERE, show me in writing the term "judicial review". If it was THERE, Marbury v. Madison would have never been a case. The Court would not have had to give themselves the authority to do something is the Constitution did it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Just the right wing being disingenuous? Providing health care is a promotion of the general welfare.

The common defense does not encompass the common offense nor the general warfare.

A nation's health is also a defense issue. As is education. The sick and uneducated make poor soldiers.

 

[jc456]

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.

Should the government deny public school to children whose parents do not pay a fair market value share of the cost of public education?

apples and oranges bubba kong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If it's THERE, show me in writing the term "judicial review". If it was THERE, Marbury v. Madison would have never been a case. The Court would not have had to give themselves the authority to do something is the Constitution did it.

So you agree that the Constitution is unenforceable. Okay. That's all we need to hear.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Should the government deny public school to children whose parents do not pay a fair market value share of the cost of public education?

If the State in which the schools exist decides that, yes. Education, since it's not a specifically delegated power to the federal government belongs as a power to the STATES. What about the 10th Amendment is hard to understand for you big government leftists?

 

[Conservative65]

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.

No, not everything you leftists want is for the general welfare.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Should the government deny public school to children whose parents do not pay a fair market value share of the cost of public education?

apples and oranges bubba kong.

Not in response to what the other poster said:

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

We 'offset' by millions of taxpayer dollars the inability of poor parents to pay the cost of their children's education.
Why do you think ending that 'offset' will make America a better place?

 

[Conservative65]

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.

If it's THERE, show me in writing the term "judicial review". If it was THERE, Marbury v. Madison would have never been a case. The Court would not have had to give themselves the authority to do something is the Constitution did it.

So you agree that the Constitution is unenforceable. Okay. That's all we need to hear.

Is that what I said? Please show me those very words.

I go by what the Constitution says. You go by what you twist it to say. That's the difference.

 

[danielpalos]

[ 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.

I am smoking pot; you need to do it over again. Please read up on private law versus public law.

 

[jc456]

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.

Just the right wing being disingenuous? Providing health care is a promotion of the general welfare.

The common defense does not encompass the common offense nor the general warfare.

A nation's health is also a defense issue. As is education. The sick and uneducated make poor soldiers.

well someone should work on the VA then. you know that single payer system you all want.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Is that what I said? Please show me those very words.

I go by what the Constitution says. You go by what you twist it to say. That's the difference.

You said it when you said the SCOTUS has no constitutional power of judicial review.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

No, not everything you leftists want is for the general welfare.

What is or isn't part of the general welfare is up to the federal government to decide.