Who Should Have The Right To Vote?

[Eric Cartman]

Is that sarcasm?

1 Is there actually someone who believes that every citizen can become a doctor or engineer?

2 I think if the people of the united states should promoted welfare to establish justice (social and otherwise) it would help insure domestic tranquility (peace in the streets) in order to remove some of the flaws of our union (past and present)... don't just do it for ourselves, do it for the children.

Whatever you say comrade ......

Maybe I should have worded it another way:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Hmmmm . . . Where does it mention robbing Peter to pay Paul?

It mentions taxes, welfare and creates the framework for writing laws to deal with the ever changing needs of our nation, not to mention the process of amending the constitution itself... in order to form a more perfect union.

In other words, it doesn't mention robbing Peter to pay Paul.

When did the country pass the Constitutional Amendment allowing government to hand out welfare checks?

I guess you are arguing with yourself because nobody has mentioned robbing someone named peter.

 

[bripat9643]

Whatever you say comrade ......

Maybe I should have worded it another way:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Hmmmm . . . Where does it mention robbing Peter to pay Paul?

It mentions taxes, welfare and creates the framework for writing laws to deal with the ever changing needs of our nation, not to mention the process of amending the constitution itself... in order to form a more perfect union.

In other words, it doesn't mention robbing Peter to pay Paul.

When did the country pass the Constitutional Amendment allowing government to hand out welfare checks?

I guess you are arguing with yourself because nobody has mentioned robbing someone named peter.

We have euphemisms for it. We call it "welfare" or "social security."

 

[candycorn]

Of course the Constitution doesn't mention NASA, the Air Force, or approval of a pipeline either. Yet somehow if a certain demographic is not benefiting from obvious government over-reach...well it's unconstitutional. If the benefits are there, it's providing for the general welfare and fully within the document.

I've summed up 53 pages of argument in one paragraph...no?

 

[bripat9643]

Of course the Constitution doesn't mention NASA, the Air Force, or approval of a pipeline either. Yet somehow if a certain demographic is not benefiting from obvious government over-reach...well it's unconstitutional. If the benefits are there, it's providing for the general welfare and fully within the document.

I've summed up 53 pages of argument in one paragraph...no?

Most things the government now does are not constitutional. The "general welfare" clause refers to the powers explicitly granted to the federal government. If it was blanket permission for the government to do whatever it believed to be "in the general welfare" the Constitution could be reduced to one sentence.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It takes a special kind of stupid to say that collecting the benefits of the insurance you paid for is welfare.

The OP specifically excluded social security.

Read and expand post 442 and probably dozen more in this thread. This has been a pissing contest between me, Kaz and Bripat9643 since they insist that Soc Sec is a welfare program and I consider it a rather typical mismanaged government insurance program. I finally decided arguing with fools was rubbing off on me and quit.

The problem is it's neither. Insurance is optional. Social security being a program we are compelled to participate in becomes quite something else, just like Obamacare. We're told to have a sense of entitlement with Social Security because we paid into it, but we didn't have a choice, and certainly that money could have been invested much better had we had the power to direct it. Social Security is perhaps a greater cause of poverty than welfare and certainly is for those 65 or older.

It's quite amusing to see you three vigorously agreeing with each other. You're on the same side.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Of course the Constitution doesn't mention NASA, the Air Force, or approval of a pipeline either. Yet somehow if a certain demographic is not benefiting from obvious government over-reach...well it's unconstitutional. If the benefits are there, it's providing for the general welfare and fully within the document.

I've summed up 53 pages of argument in one paragraph...no?

Isn't that cute....a Leftist pretending they know the Constitution? The Keystone Pipeline falls under the treaty making power of Congress, the Air Force, which started as part of the Army, in defense powers, and NASA, because it doesn't impose itself against state's rights, falls under the spending and appropriations powers of Congress as well.

Any program that forces people to pay into it, forces people to buy "insurance" or forces people buy anything is unconstitutional. Bringing up NASA doesn't make that go away.

 

[candycorn]

Of course the Constitution doesn't mention NASA, the Air Force, or approval of a pipeline either. Yet somehow if a certain demographic is not benefiting from obvious government over-reach...well it's unconstitutional. If the benefits are there, it's providing for the general welfare and fully within the document.

I've summed up 53 pages of argument in one paragraph...no?

Isn't that cute....a Leftist pretending they know the Constitution? The Keystone Pipeline falls under the treaty making power of Congress, the Air Force, which started as part of the Army, in defense powers, and NASA, because it doesn't impose itself against state's rights, falls under the spending and appropriations powers of Congress as well.

Any program that forces people to pay into it, forces people to buy "insurance" or forces people buy anything is unconstitutional. Bringing up NASA doesn't make that go away.

No more adorable than your equating Keystone Pipeline to the "treaty making power" of Congress. Can you quote the Constitution where Congress has the right to negotiate treaties? The Air Force, last I checked, was no longer part of the Army, and NASA still hasn't been added to the Constitution in the last 45 minutes....according to the Constitution, the Federal Government has no right to explore Space. Mississippi does if they could figure out what dem-dare bright spots out yonder are but, unless you want to interpret the Constitution to suit your own arguments...the Feds don't have the right.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No more adorable than your equating Keystone Pipeline to the "treaty making power" of Congress. Can you quote the Constitution where Congress has the right to negotiate treaties? The Air Force, last I checked, was no longer part of the Army, and NASA still hasn't been added to the Constitution in the last 45 minutes....according to the Constitution, the Federal Government has no right to explore Space. Mississippi does if they could figure out what dem-dare bright spots out yonder are but, unless you want to interpret the Constitution to suit your own arguments...the Feds don't have the right.

Your understanding of the Constitution is lacking in historical context. The first undiscovered country was the Louisiana Purchase and it's exploration was funded by Congress. Apparently there were no issues in the very generation that ratified the document. Moreover, the Senate advises and consents to treaties. The Keystone Pipeline is part law, part treaty since it involves an international transaction with Canada. Because it's also a spending bill, it's appropriate that the House of Representatives originates the bill and it is sent to the Senate. But if you're concerned that the Keystone Pipeline is not constitutional, you need to take a closer look at the Commerce Clause which applies readily to a project like this that goes through several states.

And the Air Force is part of defense, unless you really think the Constitution didn't foresee evolving technology in the instruments of warfare. In that era, there were already ballistic rockets used in artillery warfare. You're on shaky ground trying to make the case that the Air Force is not constitutional.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course the Constitution doesn't mention NASA, the Air Force, or approval of a pipeline either. Yet somehow if a certain demographic is not benefiting from obvious government over-reach...well it's unconstitutional. If the benefits are there, it's providing for the general welfare and fully within the document.

I've summed up 53 pages of argument in one paragraph...no?

Isn't that cute....a Leftist pretending they know the Constitution? The Keystone Pipeline falls under the treaty making power of Congress, the Air Force, which started as part of the Army, in defense powers, and NASA, because it doesn't impose itself against state's rights, falls under the spending and appropriations powers of Congress as well.

Any program that forces people to pay into it, forces people to buy "insurance" or forces people buy anything is unconstitutional. Bringing up NASA doesn't make that go away.

No more adorable than your equating Keystone Pipeline to the "treaty making power" of Congress. Can you quote the Constitution where Congress has the right to negotiate treaties? The Air Force, last I checked, was no longer part of the Army, and NASA still hasn't been added to the Constitution in the last 45 minutes....according to the Constitution, the Federal Government has no right to explore Space. Mississippi does if they could figure out what dem-dare bright spots out yonder are but, unless you want to interpret the Constitution to suit your own arguments...the Feds don't have the right.

I would agree that the federal government has no right to explore space. However, the Air Force is as constitutional as the Navy, which isn't explicitly mentioned but has existed since the inception of the USA.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Of course the Constitution doesn't mention NASA, the Air Force, or approval of a pipeline either. Yet somehow if a certain demographic is not benefiting from obvious government over-reach...well it's unconstitutional. If the benefits are there, it's providing for the general welfare and fully within the document.

I've summed up 53 pages of argument in one paragraph...no?

Isn't that cute....a Leftist pretending they know the Constitution? The Keystone Pipeline falls under the treaty making power of Congress, the Air Force, which started as part of the Army, in defense powers, and NASA, because it doesn't impose itself against state's rights, falls under the spending and appropriations powers of Congress as well.

Any program that forces people to pay into it, forces people to buy "insurance" or forces people buy anything is unconstitutional. Bringing up NASA doesn't make that go away.

No more adorable than your equating Keystone Pipeline to the "treaty making power" of Congress. Can you quote the Constitution where Congress has the right to negotiate treaties? The Air Force, last I checked, was no longer part of the Army, and NASA still hasn't been added to the Constitution in the last 45 minutes....according to the Constitution, the Federal Government has no right to explore Space. Mississippi does if they could figure out what dem-dare bright spots out yonder are but, unless you want to interpret the Constitution to suit your own arguments...the Feds don't have the right.

I would agree that the federal government has no right to explore space. However, the Air Force is as constitutional as the Navy, which isn't explicitly mentioned but has existed since the inception of the USA.

Well the Army and Navy are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and the Marine Corps, which is older than the Constitution itself, was sired by the Navy, so it certainly sets a precedent for the Army to sire the Air Force.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Maybe I should have worded it another way:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Hmmmm . . . Where does it mention robbing Peter to pay Paul?

It mentions taxes, welfare and creates the framework for writing laws to deal with the ever changing needs of our nation, not to mention the process of amending the constitution itself... in order to form a more perfect union.

In other words, it doesn't mention robbing Peter to pay Paul.

When did the country pass the Constitutional Amendment allowing government to hand out welfare checks?

I guess you are arguing with yourself because nobody has mentioned robbing someone named peter.

We have euphemisms for it. We call it "welfare" or "social security."

Yes, welfare is an important role of government.

 

[bripat9643]

Hmmmm . . . Where does it mention robbing Peter to pay Paul?

It mentions taxes, welfare and creates the framework for writing laws to deal with the ever changing needs of our nation, not to mention the process of amending the constitution itself... in order to form a more perfect union.

In other words, it doesn't mention robbing Peter to pay Paul.

When did the country pass the Constitutional Amendment allowing government to hand out welfare checks?

I guess you are arguing with yourself because nobody has mentioned robbing someone named peter.

We have euphemisms for it. We call it "welfare" or "social security."

Yes, welfare is an important role of government.

Welfare is an illegitimate government function. It's nothing more than legalized plunder.

 

[candycorn]

No more adorable than your equating Keystone Pipeline to the "treaty making power" of Congress. Can you quote the Constitution where Congress has the right to negotiate treaties? The Air Force, last I checked, was no longer part of the Army, and NASA still hasn't been added to the Constitution in the last 45 minutes....according to the Constitution, the Federal Government has no right to explore Space. Mississippi does if they could figure out what dem-dare bright spots out yonder are but, unless you want to interpret the Constitution to suit your own arguments...the Feds don't have the right.

Your understanding of the Constitution is lacking in historical context. The first undiscovered country was the Louisiana Purchase and it's exploration was funded by Congress. Apparently there were no issues in the very generation that ratified the document.

Oh?

7. Many Americans likewise opposed the Louisiana Purchase.
Members of the Federalist Party, already a significant minority in both houses of Congress, worried that the Louisiana Purchase would further reduce their clout. In summing up the feelings of his cohorts, former congressman Fisher Ames wrote, “We are to give money of which we have too little for land of which we already have too much.” Only one Federalist senator supported ratification of the Louisiana Purchase treaty, which passed by a 24-7 vote. Jefferson himself had doubts about the legality of the Louisiana Purchase, saying he had “stretched the Constitution until it cracked.”

8 Things You May Not Know About the Louisiana Purchase History in the Headlines

We learned about it in 6th grade.

Moreover, the Senate advises and consents to treaties. The Keystone Pipeline is part law, part treaty since it involves an international transaction with Canada. Because it's also a spending bill, it's appropriate that the House of Representatives originates the bill and it is sent to the Senate. But if you're concerned that the Keystone Pipeline is not constitutional, you need to take a closer look at the Commerce Clause which applies readily to a project like this that goes through several states.

Nice fiction

While the advice is there...No provision forces the President to take the advice of one Senator over another or any advice at all.

As for historical context...why can't it be applied to the 2nd Amendment?

And the Air Force is part of defense, unless you really think the Constitution didn't foresee evolving technology in the instruments of warfare. In that era, there were already ballistic rockets used in artillery warfare. You're on shaky ground trying to make the case that the Air Force is not constitutional.

It's not mentioned explicitly so it is not constitutional. Sorry.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

creates the framework for writing laws to deal with the ever changing needs of our nation,

too stuipd!! The entire purpose of the Constitution is to enshrine freedom from big liberal govt. This is why our liberals spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb, and elected Obama.

Welcome to your first lesson in American history!

 

[kaz]

If the idiot calls social security "welfare" then he'd have to be a shiftless leech to accept it. Just making sure we know who we are dealing with.

How much money have you donated to government? Do you turn down tax refunds? You want government, and lots of it. Tell us how you support that.

And seriously, We oppose government, so we should give them more money. You love government, but it's OK you give nothing to them voluntarily. Yes, you're as stupid as you appear in the rear view mirror.

 

[kaz]

It amazes me how many drones don't understand this obvious fact.

I amazes me how many drones mistake absurd questions and comparing their checking account to the federal treasury as an obvious fact.

So you don't know what a G/L is, figures. We seriously need to teach economics in high school in this country. The knowledge of people who get out not knowing anything about money is just sad. Go back to insulting me, you're a moron. I can't help you.

I don't need your help fool.

If you seriously don't know how your checkbook to your family is like the General Fund to the government, you are seriously mind blowingly stupid. I think you're just playing dumb. Not sure why you want to look dumb. But whatever.

My checkbook has absolutely zero resemblance to the government general fund.

Sorry guy, you're just too dumb. After explaining simple concepts enough times to you there's a point I have to admit you cannot grasp it and I have to give up. We are at that point.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If the idiot calls social security "welfare" then he'd have to be a shiftless leech to accept it. Just making sure we know who we are dealing with.

How much money have you donated to government? Do you turn down tax refunds? You want government, and lots of it. Tell us how you support that.

And seriously, We oppose government, so we should give them more money. You love government, but it's OK you give nothing to them voluntarily. Yes, you're as stupid as you appear in the rear view mirror.

Come on man....let's raise the level of discourse here. You don't oppose government and I don't love government. I pay my taxes and I am not satisfied with what is done with the money. Younpaynuour taxes and are not satisfied with what is done with the money. We differ in what we'd like to see some with the money.

The dopey overblown rhetoric is a loser for you.

 

[TooTall]

I amazes me how many drones mistake absurd questions and comparing their checking account to the federal treasury as an obvious fact.

So you don't know what a G/L is, figures. We seriously need to teach economics in high school in this country. The knowledge of people who get out not knowing anything about money is just sad. Go back to insulting me, you're a moron. I can't help you.

I don't need your help fool.

If you seriously don't know how your checkbook to your family is like the General Fund to the government, you are seriously mind blowingly stupid. I think you're just playing dumb. Not sure why you want to look dumb. But whatever.

My checkbook has absolutely zero resemblance to the government general fund.

Sorry guy, you're just too dumb. After explaining simple concepts enough times to you there's a point I have to admit you cannot grasp it and I have to give up. We are at that point.

I consider anyone who equates someone's personal check book to the US Treasury a bumbling idiot. We definitely are at that point.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No more adorable than your equating Keystone Pipeline to the "treaty making power" of Congress. Can you quote the Constitution where Congress has the right to negotiate treaties? The Air Force, last I checked, was no longer part of the Army, and NASA still hasn't been added to the Constitution in the last 45 minutes....according to the Constitution, the Federal Government has no right to explore Space. Mississippi does if they could figure out what dem-dare bright spots out yonder are but, unless you want to interpret the Constitution to suit your own arguments...the Feds don't have the right.

Your understanding of the Constitution is lacking in historical context. The first undiscovered country was the Louisiana Purchase and it's exploration was funded by Congress. Apparently there were no issues in the very generation that ratified the document.

Oh?

7. Many Americans likewise opposed the Louisiana Purchase.
Members of the Federalist Party, already a significant minority in both houses of Congress, worried that the Louisiana Purchase would further reduce their clout. In summing up the feelings of his cohorts, former congressman Fisher Ames wrote, “We are to give money of which we have too little for land of which we already have too much.” Only one Federalist senator supported ratification of the Louisiana Purchase treaty, which passed by a 24-7 vote. Jefferson himself had doubts about the legality of the Louisiana Purchase, saying he had “stretched the Constitution until it cracked.”

8 Things You May Not Know About the Louisiana Purchase History in the Headlines

We learned about it in 6th grade.

Moreover, the Senate advises and consents to treaties. The Keystone Pipeline is part law, part treaty since it involves an international transaction with Canada. Because it's also a spending bill, it's appropriate that the House of Representatives originates the bill and it is sent to the Senate. But if you're concerned that the Keystone Pipeline is not constitutional, you need to take a closer look at the Commerce Clause which applies readily to a project like this that goes through several states.

Nice fiction

While the advice is there...No provision forces the President to take the advice of one Senator over another or any advice at all.

As for historical context...why can't it be applied to the 2nd Amendment?

And the Air Force is part of defense, unless you really think the Constitution didn't foresee evolving technology in the instruments of warfare. In that era, there were already ballistic rockets used in artillery warfare. You're on shaky ground trying to make the case that the Air Force is not constitutional.

It's not mentioned explicitly so it is not constitutional. Sorry.

1. The Louisiana Purchase destroys your argument about NASA. You only illustrate the point.

2. The Keystone Pipeline falls under the Commerce Clause. You haven't refuted it because you can't.

3. The Constitution contains explicit and implicit authorizations. The Air Force falls under defense. Your argument is dunderheaded on it's face, but typical of the brainless Left.

 

[candycorn]

No more adorable than your equating Keystone Pipeline to the "treaty making power" of Congress. Can you quote the Constitution where Congress has the right to negotiate treaties? The Air Force, last I checked, was no longer part of the Army, and NASA still hasn't been added to the Constitution in the last 45 minutes....according to the Constitution, the Federal Government has no right to explore Space. Mississippi does if they could figure out what dem-dare bright spots out yonder are but, unless you want to interpret the Constitution to suit your own arguments...the Feds don't have the right.

Your understanding of the Constitution is lacking in historical context. The first undiscovered country was the Louisiana Purchase and it's exploration was funded by Congress. Apparently there were no issues in the very generation that ratified the document.

Oh?

7. Many Americans likewise opposed the Louisiana Purchase.
Members of the Federalist Party, already a significant minority in both houses of Congress, worried that the Louisiana Purchase would further reduce their clout. In summing up the feelings of his cohorts, former congressman Fisher Ames wrote, “We are to give money of which we have too little for land of which we already have too much.” Only one Federalist senator supported ratification of the Louisiana Purchase treaty, which passed by a 24-7 vote. Jefferson himself had doubts about the legality of the Louisiana Purchase, saying he had “stretched the Constitution until it cracked.”

8 Things You May Not Know About the Louisiana Purchase History in the Headlines

We learned about it in 6th grade.

Moreover, the Senate advises and consents to treaties. The Keystone Pipeline is part law, part treaty since it involves an international transaction with Canada. Because it's also a spending bill, it's appropriate that the House of Representatives originates the bill and it is sent to the Senate. But if you're concerned that the Keystone Pipeline is not constitutional, you need to take a closer look at the Commerce Clause which applies readily to a project like this that goes through several states.

Nice fiction

While the advice is there...No provision forces the President to take the advice of one Senator over another or any advice at all.

As for historical context...why can't it be applied to the 2nd Amendment?

And the Air Force is part of defense, unless you really think the Constitution didn't foresee evolving technology in the instruments of warfare. In that era, there were already ballistic rockets used in artillery warfare. You're on shaky ground trying to make the case that the Air Force is not constitutional.

It's not mentioned explicitly so it is not constitutional. Sorry.

1. The Louisiana Purchase destroys your argument about NASA. You only illustrate the point.

Ahh child. You think this because you are ignorant (of a great many things such as Monroe's opposition to the LP) but most immediately to what my point is. The point I made (that you have endorsed twice now unknowingly) was that there are a great many things that are around today that are net benefits to our society that are not in the Constitution. The LP and NASA are both fine examples. Feel free to (gasp) take a few seconds and actually re-read the thread.

2. The Keystone Pipeline falls under the Commerce Clause. You haven't refuted it because you can't.

Hmmm...earlier you had it as a treaty; now it "falls under" the commerce clause.

3. The Constitution contains explicit and implicit authorizations. The Air Force falls under defense. Your argument is dunderheaded on it's face, but typical of the brainless Left.

The constitution limits the Federal Government's powers. If it is not mentioned, those rights fall back to the States. Sorry, the Air Force is unconstitutional.

I have no problem championing extra-constitutional aspects of our federal government. They are, in my view, some of the most necessary parts of the government and life today would not be the same without them. This includes the Department of Education, the Parks department, and the EPA.

I do relish the chance to point out to the "strict constitutionalist" on the right when they are full of crapolla and that is what I just did.