What did our founders really mean when they said “general welfare”?

[BrokeLoser]

No need to amend.

The courts, Congress, We the People and even the states have decided we don’t need one.

Until something happens that you dont like.
All you illogical statists are the same.

Give me an example where I ever demanded a change to the Constitution?

You are the one whining

I am referring to you implying the govt has unlimited power and then whining about something being unconstitutional.

They never had unlimited power

Our Constitutional government has always been subject to the most powerful check on their power......THE VOTE

If We the People think they are exceeding their responsibilities as our representative, we VOTE them out and replace them with someone who doesn’t.

I encourage anyone who disagrees with the powers used by Congress to vote them out


What are you waiting for?
Why not elect those who say they will limit their powers to a strict Constitutional interpretation ?

Why...recruiting Mexico’s filth to beg along side of you degenerates not working anymore?

 

[rightwinger]

Until something happens that you dont like.
All you illogical statists are the same.

Give me an example where I ever demanded a change to the Constitution?

You are the one whining

I am referring to you implying the govt has unlimited power and then whining about something being unconstitutional.

They never had unlimited power

Our Constitutional government has always been subject to the most powerful check on their power......THE VOTE

If We the People think they are exceeding their responsibilities as our representative, we VOTE them out and replace them with someone who doesn’t.

I encourage anyone who disagrees with the powers used by Congress to vote them out

"Voting them out" is not a valid remedy.

Why not elect those who say they will limit their powers to a strict Constitutional interpretation ?

Because the Constitutional limits are designed to protect the minority from the majority. In most cases where the government is overstepping its bounds, it has the support of the majority. A vote on the matter won't change things.

If more Americans had the extreme interpretation that you do, you would have no problem voting in Congressmen who strictly interpret the Constitution

If you think the states should have more power, why isn’t your state suing the Federal Government to enforce the tenth amendment?

 

[dblack]

Give me an example where I ever demanded a change to the Constitution?

You are the one whining

I am referring to you implying the govt has unlimited power and then whining about something being unconstitutional.

They never had unlimited power

Our Constitutional government has always been subject to the most powerful check on their power......THE VOTE

If We the People think they are exceeding their responsibilities as our representative, we VOTE them out and replace them with someone who doesn’t.

I encourage anyone who disagrees with the powers used by Congress to vote them out

"Voting them out" is not a valid remedy.

Why not elect those who say they will limit their powers to a strict Constitutional interpretation ?

Because the Constitutional limits are designed to protect the minority from the majority. In most cases where the government is overstepping its bounds, it has the support of the majority. A vote on the matter won't change things.

If more Americans had the extreme interpretation that you do, you would have no problem voting in Congressmen who strictly interpret the Constitution

If you think the states should have more power, why isn’t your state suing the Federal Government to enforce the tenth amendment?

You simply ignored my point. Which, I assume, means you have no valid response for it. You believe in unlimited majority rule. I don't.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Give me an example where I ever demanded a change to the Constitution?

You are the one whining

I am referring to you implying the govt has unlimited power and then whining about something being unconstitutional.

They never had unlimited power

Our Constitutional government has always been subject to the most powerful check on their power......THE VOTE

If We the People think they are exceeding their responsibilities as our representative, we VOTE them out and replace them with someone who doesn’t.

I encourage anyone who disagrees with the powers used by Congress to vote them out

"Voting them out" is not a valid remedy.

Why not elect those who say they will limit their powers to a strict Constitutional interpretation ?

Because the Constitutional limits are designed to protect the minority from the majority. In most cases where the government is overstepping its bounds, it has the support of the majority. A vote on the matter won't change things.

If more Americans had the extreme interpretation that you do, you would have no problem voting in Congressmen who strictly interpret the Constitution

If you think the states should have more power, why isn’t your state suing the Federal Government to enforce the tenth amendment?

“Had the extreme interpretation”.....WTF
Haven’t you Mexicrats interpreted the “general welfare” directive to mean “force Americans to pay for Mexico’s healthcare” and “pay Mexicos trash to destroy American communities and take states from our Republic”?
That’s not “extreme” at all...huh?

 

[danielpalos]

Explain.

What do you think the framers meant when they said “GENERAL WELFARE”?
What do you think the definition of “GENERAL” is?

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency.

It doesn't. Why would there be enumerated powers listed in Article I, Section 8, if general welfare clause covers everything imaginable?

Yes, it must be able to respond to any given contingency. Only right wingers believe our Common Defense clause is more General than our general welfare clause.

Indeed, "common" and "general" mean the same thing, don't they.

No, they don't.

 

[Ame®icano]

It doesn't. Why would there be enumerated powers listed in Article I, Section 8, if general welfare clause covers everything imaginable?

Yes, it must be able to respond to any given contingency. Only right wingers believe our Common Defense clause is more General than our general welfare clause.

There are enumerated powers listed as "raising and support armies", and "providing and maintaining Navy".

Coin the money, establishing post offices, regulate commerce, etc. would go under "general welfare".

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;​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Exactly.

Powers are specific and listed right after.

By the way, while we're at it, do you think that duties, imposts and excises are uniform throughout the United States?

The Point is, our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency not our common defense clause. And, any solutions must be "filtered" through the specific powers. Our Commerce Clause for example, implies market friendly solutions to any general welfare issues.

I haven't really looked into it since the States have a vested interest to keep on top of that.

Flipping the words wont help.

Welfare clause is not "general", as you say, and it doesn't cover everything you can think of under "general". Welfare clause covers "general welfare" of the United states and it's limited to enumerated powers, as per Article I, Section 8.

Simple example, let's say government wants to replace all energy generated by fossil fuel with renewable energy. You would say that government have a right to spend money on renewable under general welfare clause. Well, they don't because enumerated powers are not giving them that right. However, nothing prevents them to set standards that will require private sector to push for renewable sources.

Article I, Section 8 is specific on what are enumerated powers of the government. Specific means, you do THIS, and nothing else. And if THIS is not for common defense or general welfare , you can't do it at all.

 

[Ame®icano]

Give me an example where I ever demanded a change to the Constitution?

You are the one whining

I am referring to you implying the govt has unlimited power and then whining about something being unconstitutional.

They never had unlimited power

Our Constitutional government has always been subject to the most powerful check on their power......THE VOTE

If We the People think they are exceeding their responsibilities as our representative, we VOTE them out and replace them with someone who doesn’t.

I encourage anyone who disagrees with the powers used by Congress to vote them out

"Voting them out" is not a valid remedy.

Why not elect those who say they will limit their powers to a strict Constitutional interpretation ?

Because the Constitutional limits are designed to protect the minority from the majority. In most cases where the government is overstepping its bounds, it has the support of the majority. A vote on the matter won't change things.

If more Americans had the extreme interpretation that you do, you would have no problem voting in Congressmen who strictly interpret the Constitution

If you think the states should have more power, why isn’t your state suing the Federal Government to enforce the tenth amendment?

States do that, as seen with ACA, or gun laws. They should sue federal government even more, on every law where they overstepped their authority.

Now, to use your words, instead of going around the Constitution to push for unconstitutional gun laws, why you lefties don't try to amend the Constitution in for that determined process, I'm sure if what you saying is true, you won't have problem to succeed.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If we could imagine that those who established the U.S. government were intelligent, educated people, we would be able to reason that they understood the language they were using. They used specific words here and non-specific words there, depending upon how they saw how things might evolve/develop. "Promote" and "general" and "welfare" are terms quite open to various views. Unless they were short sighted, blind or stupid, they fully understood this.

And, bingo.

The paranoids want to quibble over individual definitions of words. It's easier than doing the heavy lifting of changing hearts and minds, a struggle they are clearly losing.
.

To be fair, there was never any quibbling over words and definitions to the current extent until FDR sat in the white house long enough to own the SCOTUS.

Nobody seriously questioned the intent of "general welfare" for over 150 years, until 8 of the 9 SCOTUS justices were appointed by a self-described socialist.

Unless and until everyone recognizes that the federal government is intended to have a limited scope of power, we will continue to have these arguments.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If we could imagine that those who established the U.S. government were intelligent, educated people, we would be able to reason that they understood the language they were using. They used specific words here and non-specific words there, depending upon how they saw how things might evolve/develop. "Promote" and "general" and "welfare" are terms quite open to various views. Unless they were short sighted, blind or stupid, they fully understood this.

The Constitution was not meant to be a cook book telling you what ingredients you are allowed to use.

They provided a broad framework of government and left it to future generations to decide what it wanted from that government.

You have obviously never once even peeked at The Federalist Papers or any comments from the Framers of the Constitution, have you?

Every single fucking one of them stated multiple times that the federal government was to have limited power, and that most power was to remain with the states.

So take your "organic" misconceptions of the intent and purpose of the constitution and shove them where the gerbils crawl.

Amend or shut the fuck up.

.

 

[there4eyeM]

The Federal Government has thousands of nuclear weapons and massive armed forces. What limits do we think there are to that power?
The founders' desire to keep the central government without a large standing army was superseded by time. The same is true in other areas. World developments went in directions unforeseen in the 18th century.
We could all recognize fully what intentions of the past were. That would not change that we are in the present and need to recognize contemporary intentions, needs and capacities..

 

[BrokeLoser]

The Federal Government has thousands of nuclear weapons and massive armed forces. What limits do we think there are to that power?
The founders' desire to keep the central government without a large standing army was superseded by time. The same is true in other areas. World developments went in directions unforeseen in the 18th century.
We could all recognize fully what intentions of the past were. That would not change that we are in the present and need to recognize contemporary intentions, needs and capacities..

haha...That ole' super LefTarded shit...."that pesky Constitution is a dated document no longer useful in modern times"
This is why you Tards are getting your asses handed to you by that orange dude.

 

[rightwinger]

I am referring to you implying the govt has unlimited power and then whining about something being unconstitutional.

They never had unlimited power

Our Constitutional government has always been subject to the most powerful check on their power......THE VOTE

If We the People think they are exceeding their responsibilities as our representative, we VOTE them out and replace them with someone who doesn’t.

I encourage anyone who disagrees with the powers used by Congress to vote them out

"Voting them out" is not a valid remedy.

Why not elect those who say they will limit their powers to a strict Constitutional interpretation ?

Because the Constitutional limits are designed to protect the minority from the majority. In most cases where the government is overstepping its bounds, it has the support of the majority. A vote on the matter won't change things.

If more Americans had the extreme interpretation that you do, you would have no problem voting in Congressmen who strictly interpret the Constitution

If you think the states should have more power, why isn’t your state suing the Federal Government to enforce the tenth amendment?

You simply ignored my point. Which, I assume, means you have no valid response for it. You believe in unlimited majority rule. I don't.

The rights of the minority are protected.
That is why we have courts

 

[rightwinger]

If we could imagine that those who established the U.S. government were intelligent, educated people, we would be able to reason that they understood the language they were using. They used specific words here and non-specific words there, depending upon how they saw how things might evolve/develop. "Promote" and "general" and "welfare" are terms quite open to various views. Unless they were short sighted, blind or stupid, they fully understood this.

The Constitution was not meant to be a cook book telling you what ingredients you are allowed to use.

They provided a broad framework of government and left it to future generations to decide what it wanted from that government.

You have obviously never once even peeked at The Federalist Papers or any comments from the Framers of the Constitution, have you?

Every single fucking one of them stated multiple times that the federal government was to have limited power, and that most power was to remain with the states.

So take your "organic" misconceptions of the intent and purpose of the constitution and shove them where the gerbils crawl.

Amend or shut the fuck up.

.

You know what legal bearing The Federalist Papers have?
None

They understood the power of words. If they intended those sentiments to be the law.......they would be included in the Constitution

 

[dblack]

They never had unlimited power

Our Constitutional government has always been subject to the most powerful check on their power......THE VOTE

If We the People think they are exceeding their responsibilities as our representative, we VOTE them out and replace them with someone who doesn’t.

I encourage anyone who disagrees with the powers used by Congress to vote them out

"Voting them out" is not a valid remedy.

Why not elect those who say they will limit their powers to a strict Constitutional interpretation ?

Because the Constitutional limits are designed to protect the minority from the majority. In most cases where the government is overstepping its bounds, it has the support of the majority. A vote on the matter won't change things.

If more Americans had the extreme interpretation that you do, you would have no problem voting in Congressmen who strictly interpret the Constitution

If you think the states should have more power, why isn’t your state suing the Federal Government to enforce the tenth amendment?

You simply ignored my point. Which, I assume, means you have no valid response for it. You believe in unlimited majority rule. I don't.

The rights of the minority are protected.
That is why we have courts

Which has nothing to do with voting. Your suggestion that the way to deal with government overreach is to "vote them out", or elect someone who agrees with you - is bullshit.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it must be able to respond to any given contingency. Only right wingers believe our Common Defense clause is more General than our general welfare clause.

There are enumerated powers listed as "raising and support armies", and "providing and maintaining Navy".

Coin the money, establishing post offices, regulate commerce, etc. would go under "general welfare".

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;​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Exactly.

Powers are specific and listed right after.

By the way, while we're at it, do you think that duties, imposts and excises are uniform throughout the United States?

The Point is, our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency not our common defense clause. And, any solutions must be "filtered" through the specific powers. Our Commerce Clause for example, implies market friendly solutions to any general welfare issues.

I haven't really looked into it since the States have a vested interest to keep on top of that.

Flipping the words wont help.

Welfare clause is not "general", as you say, and it doesn't cover everything you can think of under "general". Welfare clause covers "general welfare" of the United states and it's limited to enumerated powers, as per Article I, Section 8.

Simple example, let's say government wants to replace all energy generated by fossil fuel with renewable energy. You would say that government have a right to spend money on renewable under general welfare clause. Well, they don't because enumerated powers are not giving them that right. However, nothing prevents them to set standards that will require private sector to push for renewable sources.

Article I, Section 8 is specific on what are enumerated powers of the government. Specific means, you do THIS, and nothing else. And if THIS is not for common defense or general welfare , you can't do it at all.

The General government of the Union is delegated the Power to fix the Standard of weights and measures. Such fixed Standards apply for the general welfare.

 

[Ame®icano]

There are enumerated powers listed as "raising and support armies", and "providing and maintaining Navy".

Coin the money, establishing post offices, regulate commerce, etc. would go under "general welfare".

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;​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Exactly.

Powers are specific and listed right after.

By the way, while we're at it, do you think that duties, imposts and excises are uniform throughout the United States?

The Point is, our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency not our common defense clause. And, any solutions must be "filtered" through the specific powers. Our Commerce Clause for example, implies market friendly solutions to any general welfare issues.

I haven't really looked into it since the States have a vested interest to keep on top of that.

Flipping the words wont help.

Welfare clause is not "general", as you say, and it doesn't cover everything you can think of under "general". Welfare clause covers "general welfare" of the United states and it's limited to enumerated powers, as per Article I, Section 8.

Simple example, let's say government wants to replace all energy generated by fossil fuel with renewable energy. You would say that government have a right to spend money on renewable under general welfare clause. Well, they don't because enumerated powers are not giving them that right. However, nothing prevents them to set standards that will require private sector to push for renewable sources.

Article I, Section 8 is specific on what are enumerated powers of the government. Specific means, you do THIS, and nothing else. And if THIS is not for common defense or general welfare , you can't do it at all.

The General government of the Union is delegated the Power to fix the Standard of weights and measures. Such fixed Standards apply for the general welfare.

Is anybody questioning that, since the Constitution calls for it?

 

[rightwinger]

I encourage anyone who disagrees with the powers used by Congress to vote them out

"Voting them out" is not a valid remedy.

Why not elect those who say they will limit their powers to a strict Constitutional interpretation ?

Because the Constitutional limits are designed to protect the minority from the majority. In most cases where the government is overstepping its bounds, it has the support of the majority. A vote on the matter won't change things.

If more Americans had the extreme interpretation that you do, you would have no problem voting in Congressmen who strictly interpret the Constitution

If you think the states should have more power, why isn’t your state suing the Federal Government to enforce the tenth amendment?

You simply ignored my point. Which, I assume, means you have no valid response for it. You believe in unlimited majority rule. I don't.

The rights of the minority are protected.
That is why we have courts

Which has nothing to do with voting. Your suggestion that the way to deal with government overreach is to "vote them out", or elect someone who agrees with you - is bullshit.

That is the way our system of government works

If you think something is unconstitutional.....the courts are available to you
If you think your Congressman is exceeding his authority......vote him out

 

[dblack]

Which has nothing to do with voting. Your suggestion that the way to deal with government overreach is to "vote them out", or elect someone who agrees with you - is bullshit.

That is the way our system of government works

Not according to the Constitution. The Constitution set limits on government power that aren't subject to a vote.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You know what legal bearing The Federalist Papers have?
None

WRONG, bitch.

When the constitution is or seems ambiguous, the proper course of action for interpretation is to look at legislative intent. The Courts have and do look to the Federalist Papers along with debate records to determine legislative intent.

You are a know-nothing pile of donkey shit.

.

They understood the power of words. If they intended those sentiments to be the law.......they would be included in the Constitution

Right. If they had intended to Federal Government to take money from one guy to give to another, they would have included it.

And when they said SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, they meant it.

They did not. So fuck you.

.

 

[Supposn]

Americana, our United States federal government or our states could, (with extraordinary procedures), modify our constitution. Our federal government could pass and enact a bill to constitutionally add, or reduce, or modify our federal statutes and regulations.

But otherwise, it’s our federal courts, and ultimately our federal Supreme Court, that is that are the final determiners of what is or is not constitutional. Respectfully, Supposn