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

[Conservative65]

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.

The electric company provided me something for what I paid them. That you equate some leech getting something for nothing with me paying a bill for something I actually used proves you're an idiot.

You assume that taxes are "paid". Taxes are collected. There is a difference. Read the definition if you're capable of understanding the difference.

It's a good thing people like me have taxes collected so worthless people like you can eat.

 

[Faun]

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.

WTF??

Where does the Constitution state that Congress is limited to the enumerated powers?

 

[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.

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.

You support others who didn't earn it getting it. If you cared so much, you'd provide it to them and the government wouldn't be involved.

You SEE nothing that excludes it? That means you WANT it to include social but have nothing to back it up but what you say.

 

[Faun]

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?

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.

I've already explained it....

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

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

 

[Conservative65]

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.

WTF??

Where does the Constitution state that Congress is limited to the enumerated powers?

10th Amendment. It says that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the states.

Where does the Constitution say Congress can do whatever it wants because idiots like you WANT them to do so?

 

[Conservative65]

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?

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.

I've already explained it....

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

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

You've stated YOU don't see anything that excludes it. That's an interpretation based on what you WANT.

Show me where the definition says one owes another. If someone can't cut it and you won't provide it to them, let them do without.

 

[Faun]

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.

You support others who didn't earn it getting it. If you cared so much, you'd provide it to them and the government wouldn't be involved.

You SEE nothing that excludes it? That means you WANT it to include social but have nothing to back it up but what you say.

I have the definition of the word...

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

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

 

[Conservative65]

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.

You support others who didn't earn it getting it. If you cared so much, you'd provide it to them and the government wouldn't be involved.

You SEE nothing that excludes it? That means you WANT it to include social but have nothing to back it up but what you say.

I have the definition of the word...

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

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

You have your interpretation of what you said was vague.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

You support others who didn't earn it getting it. If you cared so much, you'd provide it to them and the government wouldn't be involved.

You SEE nothing that excludes it? That means you WANT it to include social but have nothing to back it up but what you say.

I have the definition of the word...

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?

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.

I've already explained it....

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

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

What you refuse to explain is why you think someone with owes someone without. You have no valid argument only a bleeding heart mentality. If you cared for those without as you seem to claim, you'd provide and go on about your business.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

WTF??

Where does the Constitution state that Congress is limited to the enumerated powers?

Holy shit.

Can you tell us what the purpose was in enumerating the powers if they didn't draw a line of limitation?

 

[Skylar]

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.

The electric company provided me something for what I paid them.

So you minted your own money? You provided for the national defense? You set weights and measures? You did all this?

Or are you deluding yourself into believing that you did?

Again, once you pay your taxes, that money isn't yours any more. Per your batshit interpretation of 'ownership', you pay your taxes and the money is still yours. If so, why can't you spend it on say, a big screen TV. Or a new car? Or a trip to your favorite resteraunt?

Easy: its no longer your money. Your conception of ownership is meaningless gibberish. And it doesn't constitute an excuse for you ignoring the meaning of words.

Try again. Why would I ignore the meaning of 'general' provided by the dictionary and instead accept you citing yourself instead?

 

[Skylar]

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.

You support others who didn't earn it getting it. If you cared so much, you'd provide it to them and the government wouldn't be involved.

You SEE nothing that excludes it? That means you WANT it to include social but have nothing to back it up but what you say.

I have the definition of the word...

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

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

You have your interpretation of what you said was vague.

General is vague. "affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread' is about as vague as it gets.

Just like 'unreasonable' is vague. Or 'cruel and unusual' is vague.

And I'm still waiting for you to show us where in the constitution 'arrest' is located'. Or 'incarcerate'. Or 'fine'. Or any authority to make people pay their taxes. I'm also waiting for you to show me where in the constitution congress is granted the authority to delegate its power to mint coins.

Or have you just completely abandoned your entire hyperliteralism standard?

 

[Conservative65]

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.

The electric company provided me something for what I paid them.

So you minted your own money? You provided for the national defense? You set weights and measures? You did all this?

Or are you deluding yourself into believing that you did?

Again, once you pay your taxes, that money isn't yours any more. Per your batshit interpretation of 'ownership', you pay your taxes and the money is still yours. If so, why can't you spend it on say, a big screen TV. Or a new car? Or a trip to your favorite resteraunt?

Easy: its no longer your money. Your conception of ownership is meaningless gibberish. And it doesn't constitute an excuse for you ignoring the meaning of words.

Try again. Why would I ignore the meaning of 'general' provided by the dictionary and instead accept you citing yourself instead?

Again, people don't pay taxes. People have them collected. There's a difference.

It's a good thing you don't need someone to support you and I'm the only one that can do it. You'd starve and I'd laugh while you did.

If someone came and "collected" your money and had it in their possession, does that mean it's not yours? That's your argument. The entity that has it owns it.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

You support others who didn't earn it getting it. If you cared so much, you'd provide it to them and the government wouldn't be involved.

You SEE nothing that excludes it? That means you WANT it to include social but have nothing to back it up but what you say.

I have the definition of the word...

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

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

You have your interpretation of what you said was vague.

General is vague. "affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread' is about as vague as it gets.

Just like 'unreasonable' is vague. Or 'cruel and unusual' is vague.

And I'm still waiting for you to show us where in the constitution 'arrest' is located'. Or 'incarcerate'. Or 'fine'. Or any authority to make people pay their taxes. I'm also waiting for you to show me where in the constitution congress is granted the authority to delegate its power to mint coins.

Or have you just completely abandoned your entire hyperliteralism standard?

Do you claim I said the word arrest is in the Constitution?

Article I, Section 8 says Congress has the authority to collect taxes. That was easy.

 

[Skylar]

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.

You support others who didn't earn it getting it. If you cared so much, you'd provide it to them and the government wouldn't be involved.

You SEE nothing that excludes it? That means you WANT it to include social but have nothing to back it up but what you say.

I have the definition of the word...

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

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

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?

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.

I've already explained it....

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

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

What you refuse to explain is why you think someone with owes someone without. You have no valid argument only a bleeding heart mentality. If you cared for those without as you seem to claim, you'd provide and go on about your business.

The Federal Governent isn't a 'someone'. Its the government that you own your tax money to. And when you pay it, its no longer yours.

You have no valid argument for why that money is still yours. As demonstrated by the fact that you can't spend it as you wish. Your entire conception of ownership is just gibberish. Just like your debunked standard of hyperliteralism.

 

[Faun]

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?

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.

I've already explained it....

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

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

You've stated YOU don't see anything that excludes it. That's an interpretation based on what you WANT.

Show me where the definition says one owes another. If someone can't cut it and you won't provide it to them, let them do without.

It's based on the word, "general." Your ignorance of the word, despite being shown it's meaning, is irrelevant.

 

[Faun]

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.

You support others who didn't earn it getting it. If you cared so much, you'd provide it to them and the government wouldn't be involved.

You SEE nothing that excludes it? That means you WANT it to include social but have nothing to back it up but what you say.

I have the definition of the word...

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

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

You have your interpretation of what you said was vague.

Which you can't dispute.

 

[Skylar]

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.

You support others who didn't earn it getting it. If you cared so much, you'd provide it to them and the government wouldn't be involved.

You SEE nothing that excludes it? That means you WANT it to include social but have nothing to back it up but what you say.

I have the definition of the word...

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

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

You have your interpretation of what you said was vague.

General is vague. "affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread' is about as vague as it gets.

Just like 'unreasonable' is vague. Or 'cruel and unusual' is vague.

And I'm still waiting for you to show us where in the constitution 'arrest' is located'. Or 'incarcerate'. Or 'fine'. Or any authority to make people pay their taxes. I'm also waiting for you to show me where in the constitution congress is granted the authority to delegate its power to mint coins.

Or have you just completely abandoned your entire hyperliteralism standard?

Do you claim I said the word arrest is in the Constitution?

Then you admit that the power to arrest, incarcerate, fine, compel payment of taxes, etc...isn't an explicitly articulated power of the Executive.

Thus, per your standard of hyperliteralism, the Executive has no such powers.

Article I, Section 8 says Congress has the authority to collect taxes. That was easy.

My question was about the executive being able to compel people to pay taxes. With your switch to 'congress', do you concede that the executive has no such explicitly articulated authority?

And of course, where does the constitution say that congress has the authority to delegate their power to collect taxes? Per your hyperliteralism, Congress itself would have to collect them.

If not, why not?

 

[Conservative65]

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.

WTF??

Where does the Constitution state that Congress is limited to the enumerated powers?

10th Amendment. It says that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the states.

Where does the Constitution say Congress can do whatever it wants because idiots like you WANT them to do so?

Just how demented are you? The 10th Amendment says nothing about Congress being limited to the enumerated powers. It doesn't even speak of

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?

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.

I've already explained it....

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

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

You've stated YOU don't see anything that excludes it. That's an interpretation based on what you WANT.

Show me where the definition says one owes another. If someone can't cut it and you won't provide it to them, let them do without.

It's based on the word, "general." Your ignorance of the word, despite being shown it's meaning, is irrelevant.

The 10th Amendment says powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States. Are you claiming that the 10th Amendment doesn't mean States have the authority to make laws on things not specifically granted to the federal government? If states have the authority to make laws on things for which the federal government isn't specifically delegated to do, the federal government is limited to their delegated powers. States have the rest unless specifically prohibited. That's in the Constitution. Perhaps you should look up the word reserved. It doesn't mean that the federal government, by default, can do it if a state doesn't on an issue or if they don't like what the states are doing.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

You support others who didn't earn it getting it. If you cared so much, you'd provide it to them and the government wouldn't be involved.

You SEE nothing that excludes it? That means you WANT it to include social but have nothing to back it up but what you say.

I have the definition of the word...

gen·er·al

ˈjen(ə)rəl/

adjective

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

You have your interpretation of what you said was vague.

Which you can't dispute.

What I can dispute is that it means social welfare. You can't prove that they mean the same thing. You can only interpret based on your bleeding heart mentality.