Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I wrote it, dipfuck. You morons can't comprehend the debate the founders were having, much less form a coherent opinion about it. Have you ever actually read any history? Read anything about the Constitution? Are you aware that Madison wrote the Constitution? Is there any point in my going on? Or will you just respond with another "Nuh-uh" and claim victory?Did you? It's failed opinion.
That is a failed opinion that has no meaning today.
Cut to the chase beggars….Did you? It's failed opinion.
There only commies are in your fantasies.
Does not matter what you think. It matters how SCOTUS has interpreted and ruled on it since.I wrote it, dipfuck. You morons can't comprehend the debate the founders were having, much less form a coherent opinion about it. Have you ever actually read any history? Read anything about the Constitution? Are you aware that Madison wrote the Constitution? Is there any point in my going on? Or will you just respond with another "Nuh-uh" and claim victory?
Link us to the SCOTUS ruling on free shit for parasites please.Does not matter what you think. It matters how SCOTUS has interpreted and ruled on it since.
I would say talks about benefiting the entire country, not individuals living in it.Means do what is in the best interests of the country
Would you prefer Yolanda abort those kids she can’t support?
The real question isn't the definition of the term "general welfare", it's whether the clause containing it is a limitation on the taxation power, or an "implied power" to spend money, and legislate, outside the constraints of the enumerate powers.I would say talks about benefiting the entire country, not individuals living in it.
If it did mean what you think it does, show me the record of the founders living your interpretation.
So what? The law can be interpreted again. Correctly, this time.Does not matter what you think. It matters how SCOTUS has interpreted and ruled on it since.
I would say its the latter.The real question isn't the definition of the term "general welfare", it's whether the clause containing it is a limitation on the taxation power, or an "implied power" to spend money outside the constraints of the enumerate powers of Congress.
Enumerated powers were the limit.The real question isn't the definition of the term "general welfare", it's whether the clause containing it is a limitation on the taxation power, or an "implied power" to spend money, and legislate, outside the constraints of the enumerate powers.
Actually it kinda is about the definition of the word GENERAL. There’s really nothing trivial about said definition.The real question isn't the definition of the term "general welfare", it's whether the clause containing it is a limitation on the taxation power, or an implied power to spend money outside the constraints of the enumerate powers of Congress.
Why? If the authors of the Constitution wanted to give Congress the broad power to promote the general welfare, why wouldn't they enumerate it as a power of Congress like the others listed? Why would they employ, in Madison's words, "so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases."?I would say its the latter.
Broad power? I feel it is a limited power? Ever read this story about Davy Crockett?Why? If the authors of the Constitution wanted to give Congress the broad power to promote the general welfare, why wouldn't they enumerate it as a power of Congress like the others listed? Why would they employ, in Madison's words, "so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases."?
We can bicker about that, sure, but it's not that important. The dam broke when the Court signed up with Hamilton and agreed that the general welfare clause described an "implied power", a double secret power that the Founders snuck in there so the federal government could do whatever it wanted, rather than be constrained by a limited set of powers.Actually it kinda is about the definition of the word GENERAL. There’s really nothing trivial about said definition.
The definition of “WELFARE” is quite clear as well.
What limits it?Broad power? I feel it is a limited power?
No, but I'll check it out.Ever read this story about Davy Crockett?
What limits it?
No, but I'll check it out.
I’m not familiar with that ruling that gave unbridled power to the Feds. Can you link me?We can bicker about that, sure, but it's not that important. The dam broke when the Court signed up with Hamilton and agreed that the general welfare clause described an "implied power", a double secret power that the Founders snuck in there so the federal government could do whatever it wanted, rather than be constrained by a limited set of powers.
Read the overview of the debate in my previous post.I’m not familiar with that ruling that gave unbridled power to the Feds. Can you link me?
Yes, you reinforced what I said. It does not matter now what the Founders thought then.So what? The law can be interpreted again. Correctly, this time.
