Where does the constitution give federal judges the power to repeal laws?

[Conservative65]

There is absolutely ZERO chance that the Founders and Framers had the notion of a public dole in mind when they made any reference to "the General welfare."

Liberals try to take advantage of the fact that some words have a degree of ambiguity inherent in them.

Welfare has several meanings. In this day and age, "welfare" has taken on an aura of "the dole." Food stamps. Etc.

But back in the days of the founding of our Republic, "welfare" did not entail "hand outs." It just simply didn't.

Those who say general welfare means social welfare can't find a damn thing to support their claim when it comes to the writing of the founders. However, the same ones use the writings of the founders to back up other claims.

 

[Conservative65]

You get ridiculous when made to look like the fool you are.

You mean applying your standards to you is 'ridiculous'. As hyperliteralism is your standard. Its not my fault if your standards are ridiculously stupid nonsense.

Show me where the constitution we can find congressional authority to delegate the minting of coins.

You can't. So you ignore your own standards. And demonstate that even you don't buy your hyperliteralism bullshit.

I for one don't want coins minted in the Capitol Building and i don't want congresscritters doing the minting.

Neither do I. But alas, if we're using the standards of hyperliteralism, there really is no choice. Between votes, congressmen and women can work the minting presses.

Sigh....if only they'd been explicitly granted the authority to delegate the minting of money to say, a US Mint. And the folks that worked there. What were the founders thinking!

If they had explicitly name social welfare programs we wouldn't have people like you twisting the words of the Constitution as usual to make it say what you WANT it to say. Show me in any federalist paper where the founders said general welfare means social welfare.

Yet you refuse to answer..... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.​

I've answered. That you don't like it is your fault. I don't owe anyone anything in the way of social welfare. If they don't have it and you won't give them yours, let them do without.

 

[Skylar]

You mean applying your standards to you is 'ridiculous'. As hyperliteralism is your standard. Its not my fault if your standards are ridiculously stupid nonsense.

Show me where the constitution we can find congressional authority to delegate the minting of coins.

You can't. So you ignore your own standards. And demonstate that even you don't buy your hyperliteralism bullshit.

It's not my fault you go by something not officially adopted and ignore what is. By your standards, someone's writings hold a higher level than what the States adopted in creating the government.

The Judicial Power is explicitly delegated to the Judiciary. So that argument is out.

And ignore.....like you ignore the fact that the constitution makes no mention of 'arrests' or 'incarceration' or 'enforcement'? Like it makes no mention of the authority of congress to delegate its power to mint coins?

Laughing....even you don't buy your bullshit. You can understand why the nation never has.

I've explained multiple times about the executive things you mention.

You mentioned multiple times what you THINK it means. But the constitution makes no mention of arresting anyone. Or incarcerating anyone. Or enforcing any law.

You've interpreted all of those powers as being part of the Executive Power, despite any of them ever being explicitly cited by the Constitution. And in the process, wiped your ass with your own standards of hyperliteralism.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to show us where Congress is granted by the Constitution the authority to delegate its power to mint coins.

Laughing...keep running. I enjoy watching you demonstrate that even you don't believe your bullshit.

The Constitution says the executive is to execute the laws. That means enforce you dumbass. Read the definition.

How can they enforce laws.....without the power to arrest or incarcerate anyone? They're not even explicitly delegated the authority to collect *fines*. If you believe this power is explicitly delegated, show me in the constitution.

Perhaps 'explcitly' doesn't mean what you think it means.

Hyperliteralism is a bitch, ain't it?

 

[Conservative65]

You get ridiculous when made to look like the fool you are.

You mean applying your standards to you is 'ridiculous'. As hyperliteralism is your standard. Its not my fault if your standards are ridiculously stupid nonsense.

Show me where the constitution we can find congressional authority to delegate the minting of coins.

You can't. So you ignore your own standards. And demonstate that even you don't buy your hyperliteralism bullshit.

I for one don't want coins minted in the Capitol Building and i don't want congresscritters doing the minting.

Neither do I. But alas, if we're using the standards of hyperliteralism, there really is no choice. Between votes, congressmen and women can work the minting presses.

Sigh....if only they'd been explicitly granted the authority to delegate the minting of money to say, a US Mint. And the folks that worked there. What were the founders thinking!

If they had explicitly name social welfare programs we wouldn't have people like you twisting the words of the Constitution as usual to make it say what you WANT it to say. Show me in any federalist paper where the founders said general welfare means social welfare.

Yet you refuse to answer..... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.​

Yet you refuse to answer where it includes it. You ask for something even you won't provide. Typical lefty.

 

[Skylar]

You mean applying your standards to you is 'ridiculous'. As hyperliteralism is your standard. Its not my fault if your standards are ridiculously stupid nonsense.

Show me where the constitution we can find congressional authority to delegate the minting of coins.

You can't. So you ignore your own standards. And demonstate that even you don't buy your hyperliteralism bullshit.

I for one don't want coins minted in the Capitol Building and i don't want congresscritters doing the minting.

Neither do I. But alas, if we're using the standards of hyperliteralism, there really is no choice. Between votes, congressmen and women can work the minting presses.

Sigh....if only they'd been explicitly granted the authority to delegate the minting of money to say, a US Mint. And the folks that worked there. What were the founders thinking!

If they had explicitly name social welfare programs we wouldn't have people like you twisting the words of the Constitution as usual to make it say what you WANT it to say. Show me in any federalist paper where the founders said general welfare means social welfare.

Yet you refuse to answer..... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.​

I've answered. That you don't like it is your fault. I don't owe anyone anything in the way of social welfare. If they don't have it and you won't give them yours, let them do without.

You've given us your interpretation. But you've ignored the actual meaning of the word. This immediately after offering us a 'its what the word means, dumbass' argument.

Oh, irony.

 

[Conservative65]

It's not my fault you go by something not officially adopted and ignore what is. By your standards, someone's writings hold a higher level than what the States adopted in creating the government.

The Judicial Power is explicitly delegated to the Judiciary. So that argument is out.

And ignore.....like you ignore the fact that the constitution makes no mention of 'arrests' or 'incarceration' or 'enforcement'? Like it makes no mention of the authority of congress to delegate its power to mint coins?

Laughing....even you don't buy your bullshit. You can understand why the nation never has.

I've explained multiple times about the executive things you mention.

You mentioned multiple times what you THINK it means. But the constitution makes no mention of arresting anyone. Or incarcerating anyone. Or enforcing any law.

You've interpreted all of those powers as being part of the Executive Power, despite any of them ever being explicitly cited by the Constitution. And in the process, wiped your ass with your own standards of hyperliteralism.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to show us where Congress is granted by the Constitution the authority to delegate its power to mint coins.

Laughing...keep running. I enjoy watching you demonstrate that even you don't believe your bullshit.

The Constitution says the executive is to execute the laws. That means enforce you dumbass. Read the definition.

How can they enforce laws.....without the power to arrest or incarcerate anyone? They're not even explicitly delegated the authority to collect *fines*. If you believe this power is explicitly delegated, show me in the constitution.

Perhaps 'explcitly' doesn't mean what you think it means.

Hyperliteralism is a bitch, ain't it?

Enforcing doesn't necessarily mean arrest or incarcerate. There are speed limit signs that people follow. Posting those signs in a method of enforcing a law. If people follow, there is not arrest or incarceration.

Those fines are collected on a State or local level.

 

[Skylar]

You mean applying your standards to you is 'ridiculous'. As hyperliteralism is your standard. Its not my fault if your standards are ridiculously stupid nonsense.

Show me where the constitution we can find congressional authority to delegate the minting of coins.

You can't. So you ignore your own standards. And demonstate that even you don't buy your hyperliteralism bullshit.

I for one don't want coins minted in the Capitol Building and i don't want congresscritters doing the minting.

Neither do I. But alas, if we're using the standards of hyperliteralism, there really is no choice. Between votes, congressmen and women can work the minting presses.

Sigh....if only they'd been explicitly granted the authority to delegate the minting of money to say, a US Mint. And the folks that worked there. What were the founders thinking!

If they had explicitly name social welfare programs we wouldn't have people like you twisting the words of the Constitution as usual to make it say what you WANT it to say. Show me in any federalist paper where the founders said general welfare means social welfare.

Yet you refuse to answer..... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.​

Yet you refuse to answer where it includes it. You ask for something even you won't provide. Typical lefty.

As you've refused to answer where the authority to arrest, incarcerate or fine is located in the constitution as a power of the executive? Or as you've refused to answer where the authority to delegate the power to mint coins is located in the constitution as a power of the legislature?

Wait....does that mean you're a lefty?

 

[Conservative65]

I for one don't want coins minted in the Capitol Building and i don't want congresscritters doing the minting.

Neither do I. But alas, if we're using the standards of hyperliteralism, there really is no choice. Between votes, congressmen and women can work the minting presses.

Sigh....if only they'd been explicitly granted the authority to delegate the minting of money to say, a US Mint. And the folks that worked there. What were the founders thinking!

If they had explicitly name social welfare programs we wouldn't have people like you twisting the words of the Constitution as usual to make it say what you WANT it to say. Show me in any federalist paper where the founders said general welfare means social welfare.

Yet you refuse to answer..... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.​

I've answered. That you don't like it is your fault. I don't owe anyone anything in the way of social welfare. If they don't have it and you won't give them yours, let them do without.

You've given us your interpretation. But you've ignored the actual meaning of the word. This immediately after offering us a 'its what the word means, dumbass' argument.

Oh, irony.

The definition doesn't include anything about one person being forced to support another. Show me in any of the founder's writings where they said that's what it meant. That's how you argue.

 

[Skylar]

The Judicial Power is explicitly delegated to the Judiciary. So that argument is out.

And ignore.....like you ignore the fact that the constitution makes no mention of 'arrests' or 'incarceration' or 'enforcement'? Like it makes no mention of the authority of congress to delegate its power to mint coins?

Laughing....even you don't buy your bullshit. You can understand why the nation never has.

I've explained multiple times about the executive things you mention.

You mentioned multiple times what you THINK it means. But the constitution makes no mention of arresting anyone. Or incarcerating anyone. Or enforcing any law.

You've interpreted all of those powers as being part of the Executive Power, despite any of them ever being explicitly cited by the Constitution. And in the process, wiped your ass with your own standards of hyperliteralism.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to show us where Congress is granted by the Constitution the authority to delegate its power to mint coins.

Laughing...keep running. I enjoy watching you demonstrate that even you don't believe your bullshit.

The Constitution says the executive is to execute the laws. That means enforce you dumbass. Read the definition.

How can they enforce laws.....without the power to arrest or incarcerate anyone? They're not even explicitly delegated the authority to collect *fines*. If you believe this power is explicitly delegated, show me in the constitution.

Perhaps 'explcitly' doesn't mean what you think it means.

Hyperliteralism is a bitch, ain't it?

Enforcing doesn't necessarily mean arrest or incarcerate. T

So by your own standards, the Executive Branch doesn't have the authority to arrest anyone, incarcerate anyone, collect any fine......no matter what the laws of congress say?

So, um.....if someone refuses to pay their taxes, the Executive Branch uses harsh language? As per you, they have no authority to do anything else.

 

[Conservative65]

I for one don't want coins minted in the Capitol Building and i don't want congresscritters doing the minting.

Neither do I. But alas, if we're using the standards of hyperliteralism, there really is no choice. Between votes, congressmen and women can work the minting presses.

Sigh....if only they'd been explicitly granted the authority to delegate the minting of money to say, a US Mint. And the folks that worked there. What were the founders thinking!

If they had explicitly name social welfare programs we wouldn't have people like you twisting the words of the Constitution as usual to make it say what you WANT it to say. Show me in any federalist paper where the founders said general welfare means social welfare.

Yet you refuse to answer..... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.​

Yet you refuse to answer where it includes it. You ask for something even you won't provide. Typical lefty.

As you've refused to answer where the authority to arrest, incarcerate or fine is located in the constitution as a power of the executive? Or as you've refused to answer where the authority to delegate the power to mint coins is located in the constitution as a power of the legislature?

Wait....does that mean you're a lefty?

It means I, unlike you, know the Constitution.

I'd shoot myself if I was stupid enough to be a lefty. Try it.

 

[Faun]

You mean applying your standards to you is 'ridiculous'. As hyperliteralism is your standard. Its not my fault if your standards are ridiculously stupid nonsense.

Show me where the constitution we can find congressional authority to delegate the minting of coins.

You can't. So you ignore your own standards. And demonstate that even you don't buy your hyperliteralism bullshit.

I for one don't want coins minted in the Capitol Building and i don't want congresscritters doing the minting.

Neither do I. But alas, if we're using the standards of hyperliteralism, there really is no choice. Between votes, congressmen and women can work the minting presses.

Sigh....if only they'd been explicitly granted the authority to delegate the minting of money to say, a US Mint. And the folks that worked there. What were the founders thinking!

If they had explicitly name social welfare programs we wouldn't have people like you twisting the words of the Constitution as usual to make it say what you WANT it to say. Show me in any federalist paper where the founders said general welfare means social welfare.

Yet you refuse to answer..... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.​

I've answered. That you don't like it is your fault. I don't owe anyone anything in the way of social welfare. If they don't have it and you won't give them yours, let them do without.

No, you didn't answer. You lied. You said they're not the same thing. How so? Again, the word, "general," is vague and subject to interpretation.

So why would, "general," exclude, "social?"

I even gave you a definition for the word....

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.​

 

[Skylar]

Neither do I. But alas, if we're using the standards of hyperliteralism, there really is no choice. Between votes, congressmen and women can work the minting presses.

Sigh....if only they'd been explicitly granted the authority to delegate the minting of money to say, a US Mint. And the folks that worked there. What were the founders thinking!

If they had explicitly name social welfare programs we wouldn't have people like you twisting the words of the Constitution as usual to make it say what you WANT it to say. Show me in any federalist paper where the founders said general welfare means social welfare.

Yet you refuse to answer..... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.​

I've answered. That you don't like it is your fault. I don't owe anyone anything in the way of social welfare. If they don't have it and you won't give them yours, let them do without.

You've given us your interpretation. But you've ignored the actual meaning of the word. This immediately after offering us a 'its what the word means, dumbass' argument.

Oh, irony.

The definition doesn't include anything about one person being forced to support another. Show me in any of the founder's writings where they said that's what it meant. That's how you argue.

That assumes that your tax money belongs to you. It doesn't. So the money supporting 'someone else' isn't yours. Its the federal government's money.

But again, you're ignoring your own standards of hyperliteralism. Whenever it doens't work, you discard it.

If even you treat your standard of hyperliteralism like the rhetorical garbage it is, surely you can understand when we treat it the same way. Especially since the Founders did the exact same thing.

 

[Conservative65]

I for one don't want coins minted in the Capitol Building and i don't want congresscritters doing the minting.

Neither do I. But alas, if we're using the standards of hyperliteralism, there really is no choice. Between votes, congressmen and women can work the minting presses.

Sigh....if only they'd been explicitly granted the authority to delegate the minting of money to say, a US Mint. And the folks that worked there. What were the founders thinking!

If they had explicitly name social welfare programs we wouldn't have people like you twisting the words of the Constitution as usual to make it say what you WANT it to say. Show me in any federalist paper where the founders said general welfare means social welfare.

Yet you refuse to answer..... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.​

I've answered. That you don't like it is your fault. I don't owe anyone anything in the way of social welfare. If they don't have it and you won't give them yours, let them do without.

No, you didn't answer. You lied. You said they're not the same thing. How so? Again, the word, "general," is vague and subject to interpretation.

So why would, "general," exclude, "social?"

I even gave you a definition for the word....

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.​

They aren't the same thing. That you make them out to be shows you have the leftist, bleeding heart mentality. Typical of your kind wanting to spend someone else's money when you're too soory to do it yourself for what you support.

 

[Faun]

Neither do I. But alas, if we're using the standards of hyperliteralism, there really is no choice. Between votes, congressmen and women can work the minting presses.

Sigh....if only they'd been explicitly granted the authority to delegate the minting of money to say, a US Mint. And the folks that worked there. What were the founders thinking!

If they had explicitly name social welfare programs we wouldn't have people like you twisting the words of the Constitution as usual to make it say what you WANT it to say. Show me in any federalist paper where the founders said general welfare means social welfare.

Yet you refuse to answer..... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.​

I've answered. That you don't like it is your fault. I don't owe anyone anything in the way of social welfare. If they don't have it and you won't give them yours, let them do without.

You've given us your interpretation. But you've ignored the actual meaning of the word. This immediately after offering us a 'its what the word means, dumbass' argument.

Oh, irony.

The definition doesn't include anything about one person being forced to support another. Show me in any of the founder's writings where they said that's what it meant. That's how you argue.

What do you think the Constitution means when it authorizes the Congress to provide for the "general welfare" of the nation?

 

[Skylar]

Neither do I. But alas, if we're using the standards of hyperliteralism, there really is no choice. Between votes, congressmen and women can work the minting presses.

Sigh....if only they'd been explicitly granted the authority to delegate the minting of money to say, a US Mint. And the folks that worked there. What were the founders thinking!

If they had explicitly name social welfare programs we wouldn't have people like you twisting the words of the Constitution as usual to make it say what you WANT it to say. Show me in any federalist paper where the founders said general welfare means social welfare.

Yet you refuse to answer..... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.​

Yet you refuse to answer where it includes it. You ask for something even you won't provide. Typical lefty.

As you've refused to answer where the authority to arrest, incarcerate or fine is located in the constitution as a power of the executive? Or as you've refused to answer where the authority to delegate the power to mint coins is located in the constitution as a power of the legislature?

Wait....does that mean you're a lefty?

It means I, unlike you, know the Constitution.

I'd shoot myself if I was stupid enough to be a lefty. Try it.

Then with your vast knowledge where the authority to arrest is located in the constitution. The authority to incarcerate anyone? The authority to fine anyone? The authority to make people pay their taxes if they refuse?

How about the authority of congress to delegate its power to mint coins?

You keep telling us of your vast, sweeping knowledge of the constitution. So deep that you're content to even ignore the founders themselves on what the constitution means. Yet when I ask you to SHOW US the passages that explicitly articulate powers you recognize the government has.....

.......you give us sniveling excuses why you can't.

Huh. Its almost like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[Conservative65]

If they had explicitly name social welfare programs we wouldn't have people like you twisting the words of the Constitution as usual to make it say what you WANT it to say. Show me in any federalist paper where the founders said general welfare means social welfare.

Yet you refuse to answer..... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.​

I've answered. That you don't like it is your fault. I don't owe anyone anything in the way of social welfare. If they don't have it and you won't give them yours, let them do without.

You've given us your interpretation. But you've ignored the actual meaning of the word. This immediately after offering us a 'its what the word means, dumbass' argument.

Oh, irony.

The definition doesn't include anything about one person being forced to support another. Show me in any of the founder's writings where they said that's what it meant. That's how you argue.

That assumes that your tax money belongs to you. It doesn't. So the money supporting 'someone else' isn't yours. Its the federal government's money.

But again, you're ignoring your own standards of hyperliteralism. Whenever it doens't work, you discard it.

If even you treat your standard of hyperliteralism like the rhetorical garbage it is, surely you can understand when we treat it the same way. Especially since the Founders did the exact same thing.

I am the one that earned it. Apparently you think some worthless piece of shit that won't work has more of a right to it than the person that did earn it. It's not an assumption, it's fact that if I earned it, it's mine.

Typical bleeding heart. You say you care then go about getting others to fund what you support. I don't know if you support yourself of not. If you do, it's a good thing. I'd let your ass starve and laugh while you did if you couldn't.

Still can't show any writings of the founders that said general meant social welfare? That's how you operate but totally ignore that when you can't do it.

 

[Skylar]

Neither do I. But alas, if we're using the standards of hyperliteralism, there really is no choice. Between votes, congressmen and women can work the minting presses.

Sigh....if only they'd been explicitly granted the authority to delegate the minting of money to say, a US Mint. And the folks that worked there. What were the founders thinking!

If they had explicitly name social welfare programs we wouldn't have people like you twisting the words of the Constitution as usual to make it say what you WANT it to say. Show me in any federalist paper where the founders said general welfare means social welfare.

Yet you refuse to answer..... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.​

I've answered. That you don't like it is your fault. I don't owe anyone anything in the way of social welfare. If they don't have it and you won't give them yours, let them do without.

No, you didn't answer. You lied. You said they're not the same thing. How so? Again, the word, "general," is vague and subject to interpretation.

So why would, "general," exclude, "social?"

I even gave you a definition for the word....

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.​

They aren't the same thing. That you make them out to be shows you have the leftist, bleeding heart mentality. Typical of your kind wanting to spend someone else's money when you're too soory to do it yourself for what you support.

Demonstrate that they 'aren't the same thing'. You merely dismissing the definition of a word doesn't actualy change that definition. Especially after you gave us the 'its the meaning of the word, dumbass' argument.

Wait....are you wiping your ass with *another* one of your standards?

 

[Skylar]

Yet you refuse to answer..... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.​

I've answered. That you don't like it is your fault. I don't owe anyone anything in the way of social welfare. If they don't have it and you won't give them yours, let them do without.

You've given us your interpretation. But you've ignored the actual meaning of the word. This immediately after offering us a 'its what the word means, dumbass' argument.

Oh, irony.

The definition doesn't include anything about one person being forced to support another. Show me in any of the founder's writings where they said that's what it meant. That's how you argue.

That assumes that your tax money belongs to you. It doesn't. So the money supporting 'someone else' isn't yours. Its the federal government's money.

But again, you're ignoring your own standards of hyperliteralism. Whenever it doens't work, you discard it.

If even you treat your standard of hyperliteralism like the rhetorical garbage it is, surely you can understand when we treat it the same way. Especially since the Founders did the exact same thing.

I am the one that earned it.

And then you paid it in taxes. If you paid your electric bill, you don't still own the money that you paid. It now belongs to the electric company.

Yet per your batshit argument, that money is still yours. I don't think you understand how ownership works. As when you pay your taxes, you no longer own the tax money. The government does.

So you use your own profound misunderstanding of how ownership works as an awkward excuse for ignoring the meaning of words? Right after you offer us the 'its the meaning of the word, dumbass' argument?

Laughing...if not for double standards, you've have none at all.

 

[Faun]

Neither do I. But alas, if we're using the standards of hyperliteralism, there really is no choice. Between votes, congressmen and women can work the minting presses.

Sigh....if only they'd been explicitly granted the authority to delegate the minting of money to say, a US Mint. And the folks that worked there. What were the founders thinking!

If they had explicitly name social welfare programs we wouldn't have people like you twisting the words of the Constitution as usual to make it say what you WANT it to say. Show me in any federalist paper where the founders said general welfare means social welfare.

Yet you refuse to answer..... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.​

I've answered. That you don't like it is your fault. I don't owe anyone anything in the way of social welfare. If they don't have it and you won't give them yours, let them do without.

No, you didn't answer. You lied. You said they're not the same thing. How so? Again, the word, "general," is vague and subject to interpretation.

So why would, "general," exclude, "social?"

I even gave you a definition for the word....

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.​

They aren't the same thing. That you make them out to be shows you have the leftist, bleeding heart mentality. Typical of your kind wanting to spend someone else's money when you're too soory to do it yourself for what you support.

You're demented -- I pay for everything I have. I get nothing from the government.

Your dementia aside, I showed you a definition for the word, "general," and I see nothing in it which excludes, "social." I can only conclude by your refusal to explain why it would exclude it that you can't. So you do your silly little conservative dance instead.

 

[Conservative65]

If they had explicitly name social welfare programs we wouldn't have people like you twisting the words of the Constitution as usual to make it say what you WANT it to say. Show me in any federalist paper where the founders said general welfare means social welfare.

Yet you refuse to answer..... why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.​

I've answered. That you don't like it is your fault. I don't owe anyone anything in the way of social welfare. If they don't have it and you won't give them yours, let them do without.

You've given us your interpretation. But you've ignored the actual meaning of the word. This immediately after offering us a 'its what the word means, dumbass' argument.

Oh, irony.

The definition doesn't include anything about one person being forced to support another. Show me in any of the founder's writings where they said that's what it meant. That's how you argue.

What do you think the Constitution means when it authorizes the Congress to provide for the "general welfare" of the nation?

Equal opportunity not equal results. It was never designed to create a situation where if someone has something and someone else didn't, that the one who did was to have it forcibly taken so it could be handed to the other person. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, made it clear that the clause authorized Congress to spend money but only to carry out the power/duties specifically enumerated in the Constitution not to meet the infinite wants and needs of everyone. In other words, the "Father" didn't believe general welfare meant one group should be forced to hand over their earnings to another group because the other group didn't have the same things. Thomas Jefferson felt the same way.

Now, YOU show why general includes social. Explain to me why one that took their opportunities and succeeded owes someone that didn't succeed a damn thing in life.