Welfare is Unconstitutional

[SavannahMann]

Um. No.

Helvering v. Davis - Wikipedia

Now the way our system works is this. You can pass an amendment, or you can come up with a new argument to try in court. Stomping your foot and saying Nuh-uh. Doesn't count.

Social security involves everyone but the amish lol Try again?

Again, you sitting in your room does not make it so. You know what it will take.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Notice you don't mention corporate welfare. The great glaring oversight.

It's always the poor that are the problem, not the free money that is shoveled into the pockets of the already wealthy.

Just like Jesus would do eh?

Corporate welfare is corporate investment...Pelosi called welfare people investment... Job creating corporate investment is a good thing.

No it's corporate welfare. Any corporation that is standing on it's own carries it's own capitalization or can get loans to cover business expenses and expansion. Crony capitalism is when Republicans hand out taxpayer money to corporations that can't make it on their own and aren't in an emerging market.

It is welfare for the wealthy, not some fake noble endeavor to 'create jobs'. That is a Stalinistic double-speak phrase that could come straight out of Orwell's 1984.

I am against corporate welfare as well.
I am against loans and bailouts of any sort. They are illegal. Plus, i dont think it is the citizens responsibility.
I also like how you completely ignore the OP and bring up other things. Why dont you comment on the constitutionality of individual welfare?

Why don't you leave the United States, you hate the government, hate its citizens and hold an ideology which lacks any bit of pragmatism? Go find some county which pleases you, I'm certain you won't be missed.

I dont hate the citizens. I think alot of them are dumb, but they are my fellow countrymen. Just because i support the rule of law doesnt mean i want to move or hate people. What a stupid, desperate thing to say.

 

[TNHarley]

Um. No.

Helvering v. Davis - Wikipedia

Now the way our system works is this. You can pass an amendment, or you can come up with a new argument to try in court. Stomping your foot and saying Nuh-uh. Doesn't count.

Social security involves everyone but the amish lol Try again?

Again, you sitting in your room does not make it so. You know what it will take.

make what so? Social security actually meets the criteria of "general." Individual welfare, doesnt.
Although i do wish we didnt have Social Security. I would much rather invest a higher percentage than i do now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Um. No.

Helvering v. Davis - Wikipedia

Now the way our system works is this. You can pass an amendment, or you can come up with a new argument to try in court. Stomping your foot and saying Nuh-uh. Doesn't count.

Social security involves everyone but the amish lol Try again?

Again, you sitting in your room does not make it so. You know what it will take.

make what so? Social security actually meets the criteria of "general." Individual welfare, doesnt.
Although i do wish we didnt have Social Security. I would much rather invest a higher percentage than i do now.

The general welfare has many components. A contribution to the general welfare need only affect one of those components.
Take federal disaster relief, for example.

 

[Rambunctious]

The general welfare has many components. A contribution to the general welfare need only affect one of those components.
Take federal disaster relief, for example.

If liberals want their precious welfare programs to remain in place and they want disaster relief you would think they would be in favor of increasing wealth and paying down the national debt. You would think they would be in favor of targeted corporate tax cuts. You would think they would want to help businesses small and large to increase their profits and grow their workforce for the increase in tax dollars. You can't keep pulling money out of an empty vault. The vault must be replenished at some point.

 

[TNHarley]

Um. No.

Helvering v. Davis - Wikipedia

Now the way our system works is this. You can pass an amendment, or you can come up with a new argument to try in court. Stomping your foot and saying Nuh-uh. Doesn't count.

Social security involves everyone but the amish lol Try again?

Again, you sitting in your room does not make it so. You know what it will take.

make what so? Social security actually meets the criteria of "general." Individual welfare, doesnt.
Although i do wish we didnt have Social Security. I would much rather invest a higher percentage than i do now.

The general welfare has many components. A contribution to the general welfare need only affect one of those components.
Take federal disaster relief, for example.

Federal Disaster Relief was deemed unconstitutional by the 4th Congress as it didnt meet the clauses requirements. Ever hear of the big Savannah GA fire?
A few years before, they ruled that loans to corporations were unconstitutional as well.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Um. No.

Helvering v. Davis - Wikipedia

Now the way our system works is this. You can pass an amendment, or you can come up with a new argument to try in court. Stomping your foot and saying Nuh-uh. Doesn't count.

Social security involves everyone but the amish lol Try again?

Again, you sitting in your room does not make it so. You know what it will take.

make what so? Social security actually meets the criteria of "general." Individual welfare, doesnt.
Although i do wish we didnt have Social Security. I would much rather invest a higher percentage than i do now.

The general welfare has many components. A contribution to the general welfare need only affect one of those components.
Take federal disaster relief, for example.

Federal Disaster Relief was deemed unconstitutional by the 4th Congress as it didnt meet the clauses requirements. Ever hear of the big Savannah GA fire?
A few years before, they ruled that loans to corporations were unconstitutional as well.

So all the federal disaster relief since, including FEMA, is an hallucination? WTF?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

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.

are you a Constitutional lawyer ...? of course not...you are an ignorant podunk wing nut repeating crazy ass talking points from Alex Jones

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Um. No.

Helvering v. Davis - Wikipedia

Now the way our system works is this. You can pass an amendment, or you can come up with a new argument to try in court. Stomping your foot and saying Nuh-uh. Doesn't count.

Social security involves everyone but the amish lol Try again?

Again, you sitting in your room does not make it so. You know what it will take.

make what so? Social security actually meets the criteria of "general." Individual welfare, doesnt.
Although i do wish we didnt have Social Security. I would much rather invest a higher percentage than i do now.

strictly podunk ...after the GOP meltdown of the market in 2008 you would have been hung out to dry ...

 

[TNHarley]

Social security involves everyone but the amish lol Try again?

Again, you sitting in your room does not make it so. You know what it will take.

make what so? Social security actually meets the criteria of "general." Individual welfare, doesnt.
Although i do wish we didnt have Social Security. I would much rather invest a higher percentage than i do now.

The general welfare has many components. A contribution to the general welfare need only affect one of those components.
Take federal disaster relief, for example.

Federal Disaster Relief was deemed unconstitutional by the 4th Congress as it didnt meet the clauses requirements. Ever hear of the big Savannah GA fire?
A few years before, they ruled that loans to corporations were unconstitutional as well.

So all the federal disaster relief since, including FEMA, is an hallucination? WTF?

Not a hallucination but unconstitutional.
It might seem like the right thing to do, but it goes against the COTUS. Isnt much of a way around that. As in the case with welfare, the clause isnt confined to an individual or certain area. It must be the entire Nation.
The COTUS protected us from a big govt. You know, the main reason we declared independence?

 

[TNHarley]

Um. No.

Helvering v. Davis - Wikipedia

Now the way our system works is this. You can pass an amendment, or you can come up with a new argument to try in court. Stomping your foot and saying Nuh-uh. Doesn't count.

Social security involves everyone but the amish lol Try again?

Again, you sitting in your room does not make it so. You know what it will take.

make what so? Social security actually meets the criteria of "general." Individual welfare, doesnt.
Although i do wish we didnt have Social Security. I would much rather invest a higher percentage than i do now.

strictly podunk ...after the GOP meltdown of the market in 2008 you would have been hung out to dry ...

yea, the duopoly tends to that to non conformists.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

are you a Constitutional lawyer ...? of course not...you are an ignorant podunk wing nut repeating crazy ass talking points from Alex Jones

The Constitution is a "talking point?" Lol ok

 

[NYcarbineer]

Again, you sitting in your room does not make it so. You know what it will take.

make what so? Social security actually meets the criteria of "general." Individual welfare, doesnt.
Although i do wish we didnt have Social Security. I would much rather invest a higher percentage than i do now.

The general welfare has many components. A contribution to the general welfare need only affect one of those components.
Take federal disaster relief, for example.

Federal Disaster Relief was deemed unconstitutional by the 4th Congress as it didnt meet the clauses requirements. Ever hear of the big Savannah GA fire?
A few years before, they ruled that loans to corporations were unconstitutional as well.

So all the federal disaster relief since, including FEMA, is an hallucination? WTF?

Not a hallucination but unconstitutional.
It might seem like the right thing to do, but it goes against the COTUS. Isnt much of a way around that. As in the case with welfare, the clause isnt confined to an individual or certain area. It must be the entire Nation.
The COTUS protected us from a big govt. You know, the main reason we declared independence?

No, the general welfare clause has absolutely no stipulation regarding the 'entire Nation'.

So now you concede that federal disaster relief is NOT unconstitutional?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The Constitution is a "talking point?" Lol ok

Hey Alex Jones LOL
you have not quoted the constitution just your opinion ..you are not a Constitutional; scholar in fact you are a Rube an ignorant Podunk Rube ...you have discovered that Welfare is Unconstitutional ? are you freaking kidding me LOL you are a dumb fuck posting in a Right wing suck hole

 

[TNHarley]

make what so? Social security actually meets the criteria of "general." Individual welfare, doesnt.
Although i do wish we didnt have Social Security. I would much rather invest a higher percentage than i do now.

The general welfare has many components. A contribution to the general welfare need only affect one of those components.
Take federal disaster relief, for example.

Federal Disaster Relief was deemed unconstitutional by the 4th Congress as it didnt meet the clauses requirements. Ever hear of the big Savannah GA fire?
A few years before, they ruled that loans to corporations were unconstitutional as well.

So all the federal disaster relief since, including FEMA, is an hallucination? WTF?

Not a hallucination but unconstitutional.
It might seem like the right thing to do, but it goes against the COTUS. Isnt much of a way around that. As in the case with welfare, the clause isnt confined to an individual or certain area. It must be the entire Nation.
The COTUS protected us from a big govt. You know, the main reason we declared independence?

No, the general welfare clause has absolutely no stipulation regarding the 'entire Nation'.

So now you concede that federal disaster relief is NOT unconstitutional?

Do you understand what "general" means?
Look up the intent from the constitutional convention. It is hard, i assure you. The people that wanted an expansive welfare state got shot down.

 

[TNHarley]

The Constitution is a "talking point?" Lol ok

Hey Alex Jones LOL
you have not quoted the constitution just your opinion ..you are not a Constitutional; scholar in fact you are a Rube an ignorant Podunk Rube ...you have discovered that Welfare is Unconstitutional ? are you freaking kidding me LOL you are a dumb fuck posting in a Right wing suck hole

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”
General doesnt mean individual. It doesnt mean local. It doesnt mean regional. It means "general"
Its funny you keep mentioning talking points, rubes and partisan "suck holes" but you bring up alex jones LOL
Bless your heart

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

are you a Constitutional lawyer ...? of course not...you are an ignorant podunk wing nut repeating crazy ass talking points from Alex Jones

The Constitution is a "talking point?" Lol ok

We get it. You're in that tiny minority that thinks that the everything except defense is unconstitutional.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

yea, the duopoly tends to that to non conformists.

you post so stupid "the duopoly" ....the duopoly owns your ass ...take a look at this chart chump ...it shows how you are pwned...not by people on welfare as your podunk thesis indicates .,..the duopoly fucked you LOL

David Leonhardt: “The message is straightforward. Only a few decades ago, the middle class and the poor weren’t just receiving healthy raises. Their take-home pay was rising even more rapidly, in percentage terms, than the pay of the rich.”

“In recent decades, by contrast, only very affluent families — those in roughly the top 1/40th of the income distribution — have received such large raises. Yes, the upper-middle class has done better than the middle class or the poor, but the huge gaps are between the super-rich and everyone else.”

 

[TNHarley]

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.

are you a Constitutional lawyer ...? of course not...you are an ignorant podunk wing nut repeating crazy ass talking points from Alex Jones

The Constitution is a "talking point?" Lol ok

We get it. You're in that tiny minority that thinks that the everything except defense is unconstitutional.

Not everything. No need to bring up strawmen. I have laid out my argument to a T. You know, the COTUS..
Im sorry, im just not one to rape the meaning of words for agenda. Or defy intent. Which is there for all who seek it.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

General doesnt mean individual.

Generally speaking since the Nations population is made up of Individual Americans then obviously they are covered ...you are a moron LOL