Welfare is Unconstitutional

[Lewdog]

And I thought I was surrounded by idiots when I go in the crackhead Walmart a couple towns over. HA

You haven't provided any form of an argument in this thread other than "But but but Madison said..." And then you want to attack other people's educations. I have verifiable proof of my education, what do you have? Some rep points on an internet message board? Do you put that on your resume? Have you gotten any raises at work from it? Do you bring it up during job evaluation meetings?

The only person I quoted was Hamilton. The same guy you did, you fucking idiot.
What argument besides reading the damn paper is there?
Goddamnnnnnnnnn

Liar. You said:

" as Madison contended,"

Liar.

Yep you were proven a liar in post #4 of this thread.

 

[Rambunctious]

corporate welfare

Or corporate investment?

 

[Rambunctious]

The only thing on that page attributed to him is the very top quotation

Ummmmm I think that is because it is his opinion...

 

[Lewdog]

The only thing on that page attributed to him is the very top quotation

Ummmmm I think that is because it is his opinion...

The rest of the page wasn't written by him. Did you even read the page? Or did you just click on the link and look at the top and think that was enough?

 

[Rambunctious]

The rest of the page wasn't written by him. Did you even read the page? Or did you just click on the link and look at the top and think that was enough?

So what part did he write?

 

[Rambunctious]

 

[Lewdog]

The rest of the page wasn't written by him. Did you even read the page? Or did you just click on the link and look at the top and think that was enough?

So what part did he write?

The only thing on that page that was written by him is the quote at the top of the page... like I just told you.

"The republic endures and this is the symbol of its faith."
- CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES
Cornerstone Address - Supreme Court Building

How do I know this? Maybe because I read it and there is this line...

"The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed."

Now, his opinion is covered on that page, but so is several Justices. But you would only know that if you read it. And here is an important paragraph...

"The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining aw "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations."

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

 

[Care4all]

i'll top you,

Military spending is unconstitutional as well, outside of funding the navy, or funding for a two year period at a time, when in a declared by congress, war.

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?

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Marines and Coast Guard are off-shoots of the Navy, and the modern Air Force (even though planes werent invented) was initially the Army Air Force. All five branches are Constitutional.
I also think that is why military spending is included in the yearly budget. Although i wont swear to it.

But doesn't the constitution say we will have NO STANDING ARMY and it shall not be funded when called up by the federal gvt, no more than 2 years at a time???

 

[Clementine]

But but but . . . if we don't have welfare programs, snowflakes will fall down dead in the streets.

The left is all about catering to the snowflakes in exchange for their votes. Libs like their charges to be ignorant and weak. They've been using our education system as an indoctrination camp to ensure the largest generation of snowflakes the world has ever seen. Liberals infiltrating the schools since the 60s has everything to do with the state of welfare now. And we allowed this to happen right under our noses for decades.

We've suffered through outcome based and common core "education". It's all mind games being played with our children.

Colleges don't require them to know math or English to enter college or graduate. Sad that a college grad still won't be able to communicate or have a clue what politicians are actually talking about or won't be able to understand the nation debt due to a gross lack of basic math skills. So much easier to fool stupid people. They will graduate feeling entitled to the earnings of others and they are all questioning their gender from the moment they set foot in kindergarten. They will grow up loving big government and hating freedom and liberty, such as the right to free speech or having the ability to protect ourselves. Only speech allowed is that which is government-approved.

Now a Georgia professor is letting students choose their own grades and will let them off the hook if they don't like group projects or think a subject is too difficult. Admittedly, he said, this will not help them learn to work with others or think through problems but that's something they have to work out on their own.

When you have liberals in education worrying more about talking to young children about gender identity than actual skills/ of course we will have to subsidize their entire lives. They will be too stupid to do anything for themselves.

The left would have been irrelevant decades ago if not for all the people they got hooked on government programs. And to ensure future power, they are doing their best to churn out more snowflakes who see government as their protector and provider.

Turning this around is nearly impossible at this point because some people are too far gone to ever hope to become independent. The left is damn good at luring people onto their plantation and rendering them incompetent to ever leave on their own.

 

[TNHarley]

I was reading through the constitution and I didn't see where this is so. I see you're pulling shit out of your ass again. Idiots. SO is corporate welfare if this is true....So yes, two can play at this game.

Indeed corporate welfare is illegal as well. I have stated that in this thread

 

[Rambunctious]

The rest of the page wasn't written by him. Did you even read the page? Or did you just click on the link and look at the top and think that was enough?

So what part did he write?

The only thing on that page that was written by him is the quote at the top of the page... like I just told you.

"The republic endures and this is the symbol of its faith."
- CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES
Cornerstone Address - Supreme Court Building


Exposing the “Living Document” Lie
How do I know this? Maybe because I read it and there is this line...

"The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed."

Now, his opinion is covered on that page, but so is several Justices. But you would only know that if you read it. And here is an important paragraph...

"The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining aw "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations."

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

The Constitution only provided the general government the powers “expressly delegated to it”

The plain understanding that the Constitution only gave the general government the powers that were specifically enumerated was not a “theory” during the Constitution’s writing or adoption by the states. On the contrary, it was the only understanding reached by the states, and held until modern reinterpretations of the Constitution took hold. From the origin of the ratification debates, James Wilson’s “State House Yard Speech” confirms this to be the case. To the accusation that the Constitution gave the general government powers which were not explicitly stated, Wilson responded to such an assertion by noting that “everything which is not given is reserved.” Wilson said that power in the Constitution is not granted by “tacit implication, but from the positive grant expressed in the instrument of the union.

If the Constitutional model was truly that of a “living document,” an inquisitive mind may question why the founders made the document extremely difficult to alter through the amendment process notated in Article V. The notion that the states will easily come to the same conclusion on adjusting the Constitution is a faulty one

It is irrefutable that founders made the document difficult to alter for a reason. Those who espouse views to the contrary do not seek to consider the document “living” because it can be changed; they strive to misinterpret specific clauses within the document to justify actions of an almost unlimited variety, using such content to draw upon a vast reservoir of untapped power. Thomas Jefferson wrote that by doing so, Congress “is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” The tendency to do so was considered constitutionally erroneous and invalid.

Those who advocate the “living document” doctrine typically point to several clauses within the Constitution’s text to justify these views. These clauses are sometimes referred to as the “elastic clauses.” Patrick Henry, a persuasive opponent of the United States Constitution, called them “sweeping clauses” because he believed they would provide overwhelming power to the general government and act to eradicate the power of the states. When it came to Henry and many other voices of opposition, the antagonists were swiftly rebuked by those who were responsible for bringing the states to an understanding of what the Constitution did.
Exposing the “Living Document” Lie

 

[TNHarley]

And I thought I was surrounded by idiots when I go in the crackhead Walmart a couple towns over. HA

You haven't provided any form of an argument in this thread other than "But but but Madison said..." And then you want to attack other people's educations. I have verifiable proof of my education, what do you have? Some rep points on an internet message board? Do you put that on your resume? Have you gotten any raises at work from it? Do you bring it up during job evaluation meetings?

The only person I quoted was Hamilton. The same guy you did, you fucking idiot.
What argument besides reading the damn paper is there?
Goddamnnnnnnnnn

Liar. You said:

" as Madison contended,"

Liar.

Yep you were proven a liar in post #4 of this thread.

No, you are just dumb bro

 

[Lewdog]

The rest of the page wasn't written by him. Did you even read the page? Or did you just click on the link and look at the top and think that was enough?

So what part did he write?

The only thing on that page that was written by him is the quote at the top of the page... like I just told you.

"The republic endures and this is the symbol of its faith."
- CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES
Cornerstone Address - Supreme Court Building

How do I know this? Maybe because I read it and there is this line...

"The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed."

Now, his opinion is covered on that page, but so is several Justices. But you would only know that if you read it. And here is an important paragraph...

"The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining aw "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations."

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

The Constitution only provided the general government the powers “expressly delegated to it”

The plain understanding that the Constitution only gave the general government the powers that were specifically enumerated was not a “theory” during the Constitution’s writing or adoption by the states. On the contrary, it was the only understanding reached by the states, and held until modern reinterpretations of the Constitution took hold. From the origin of the ratification debates, James Wilson’s “State House Yard Speech” confirms this to be the case. To the accusation that the Constitution gave the general government powers which were not explicitly stated, Wilson responded to such an assertion by noting that “everything which is not given is reserved.” Wilson said that power in the Constitution is not granted by “tacit implication, but from the positive grant expressed in the instrument of the union.

If the Constitutional model was truly that of a “living document,” an inquisitive mind may question why the founders made the document extremely difficult to alter through the amendment process notated in Article V. The notion that the states will easily come to the same conclusion on adjusting the Constitution is a faulty one

It is irrefutable that founders made the document difficult to alter for a reason. Those who espouse views to the contrary do not seek to consider the document “living” because it can be changed; they strive to misinterpret specific clauses within the document to justify actions of an almost unlimited variety, using such content to draw upon a vast reservoir of untapped power. Thomas Jefferson wrote that by doing so, Congress “is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” The tendency to do so was considered constitutionally erroneous and invalid.

Those who advocate the “living document” doctrine typically point to several clauses within the Constitution’s text to justify these views. These clauses are sometimes referred to as the “elastic clauses.” Patrick Henry, a persuasive opponent of the United States Constitution, called them “sweeping clauses” because he believed they would provide overwhelming power to the general government and act to eradicate the power of the states. When it came to Henry and many other voices of opposition, the antagonists were swiftly rebuked by those who were responsible for bringing the states to an understanding of what the Constitution did.

The Supreme Court disagrees. And where did you cut and paste from? Because you didn't provide a link.

 

[Lewdog]

You haven't provided any form of an argument in this thread other than "But but but Madison said..." And then you want to attack other people's educations. I have verifiable proof of my education, what do you have? Some rep points on an internet message board? Do you put that on your resume? Have you gotten any raises at work from it? Do you bring it up during job evaluation meetings?

The only person I quoted was Hamilton. The same guy you did, you fucking idiot.
What argument besides reading the damn paper is there?
Goddamnnnnnnnnn

Liar. You said:

" as Madison contended,"

Liar.

Yep you were proven a liar in post #4 of this thread.

No, you are just dumb bro

Great comeback... do I need to quote post #4 again where you mention Madison and his opinion, and then the post where you say you only mentioned Hamilton? Do you really need to be embarrassed?

 

[Rambunctious]

The Supreme Court disagrees. And where did you cut and paste from? Because you didn't provide a link

I posted several links, you don't read them and you should because if what you think the constitution is comes to be we all, including you will not be happy. It is the rule book for our government state and federal to follow. If it's weakened and malleable we the little guy are toast. Don't be an advocate for less power for the citizenry. It's self defeating.

 

[Rambunctious]

The Supreme Court disagrees. And where did you cut and paste from? Because you didn't provide a link

Then you can provide the ruling?

 

[Lewdog]

The Supreme Court disagrees. And where did you cut and paste from? Because you didn't provide a link

I posted several links, you don't read them and you should because if what you think the constitution is comes to be we all, including you will not be happy. It is the rule book for our government state and federal to follow. If it's weakened and malleable we the little guy are toast. Don't be an advocate for less power for the citizenry. It's self defeating.

You just plagiarized your last post without citing the original source or posting it as a quote.

 

[Lewdog]

The Supreme Court disagrees. And where did you cut and paste from? Because you didn't provide a link

Then you can provide the ruling?

What's the point? You think you know what is Constitutional more than the Supreme Court Justices.

 

[Rambunctious]

You just plagiarized your last post without citing the original source or posting it as a quote.

Oh give me a break...I posted the link several posts ago. Just because it makes a good point that you can not argue doesn't mean it's untrue.

Exposing the “Living Document” Lie

 

[Rambunctious]

What's the point? You think you know what is Constitutional more than the Supreme Court Justices

There must be a ruling....can you find it?