Anti-Obamacare blowhard blown away!

[Robo]

What part of "the general welfare" do you not get, bunky? You keep repeating the amendments, but you lack comprehension as to their interaction and implementation in this instance.

I do believe “Bunkey” I comprehend the articles and amendments of the Constitution far, far better than you “Bunkey.”

The following is Thomas Jefferson’s and James Madison’s, (author of the Constitution) and my understanding and comprehension of the “General Welfare” clause.

"The Real Meaning Of The General Welfare Clause."



“To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, to lay taxes of providing for the general welfare. For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” (Thomas Jefferson to George Washington)

The full clause reads: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States[.]” The clause is clearly about taxes. It mentions “duties, imposts and excises” both before and after it’s reference to the “general welfare.” Taxes are the "what" of the clause, to provide for the general welfare is merely the "why." The clause gives Congress power to levy various taxes, nothing more.

The enumerations of congressional powers are as follows.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” (Article One, Section Eight, United States Constitution)

“And all other powers” are those powers granted to the federal government by constitutional ”amendments.

So now Bunkey what part of the “General Welfare” do you not understand?

Please submit the constitutional article or amendment that authorizes the federal government to establish a national healthcare program, mandate the buying of healthcare insurance or establish federal insurance exchanges or subsidize anybody’s healthcare insurance. I’ll wait!!!!!

 

[patriot66]

READ the decision, you moron! And the President cannot "write law". Know the process....congress, senate and then afterwards the SCOTUS. You don't like it, lobby your reps to change the law. (How many times have the GOP wasted money trying for a repeal they KNOW they don't have the votes for?)

Stop all this BS about your "freedom"...because simpletons like you sure as hell defend the Citizens United decision and the Patriot Act!

All this because a video makes a fool out of some right wing simpleton spewing rhetoric. Jeez!

Well Obama supports the Patriot act also, how many times has Obama circumvented the law by changing the date to sign up arbitrarily simply for political purposes. He is breaking his own law

 

[Taichiliberal]

I do believe “Bunkey” I comprehend the articles and amendments of the Constitution far, far better than you “Bunkey.”

The following is Thomas Jefferson’s and James Madison’s, (author of the Constitution) and my understanding and comprehension of the “General Welfare” clause.

"The Real Meaning Of The General Welfare Clause."



“To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, to lay taxes of providing for the general welfare. For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” (Thomas Jefferson to George Washington)

The full clause reads: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States[.]” The clause is clearly about taxes. It mentions “duties, imposts and excises” both before and after it’s reference to the “general welfare.” Taxes are the "what" of the clause, to provide for the general welfare is merely the "why." The clause gives Congress power to levy various taxes, nothing more.

The enumerations of congressional powers are as follows.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” (Article One, Section Eight, United States Constitution)

“And all other powers” are those powers granted to the federal government by constitutional ”amendments.

So now Bunkey what part of the “General Welfare” do you not understand?

Please submit the constitutional article or amendment that authorizes the federal government to establish a national healthcare program, mandate the buying of healthcare insurance or establish federal insurance exchanges or subsidize anybody’s healthcare insurance. I’ll wait!!!!!

You need to divorce yourself of all those right wing websites that essentially just parrot paragraphs while attaching their opinions, suppositions and conjecture (like you consistently do) and then ignore the current case as it applies (i.e., the SCOTUS Decision).

You keep asking a question that the SCOTUS already answered a'la' Reid. You don't like the vote, decision and ruling, so you just ignore what is said.

But since you like long versions of things, here is a more direct explanation/analysis (based on historical case) that explains (in addition) to the recent court ruling. Note that I provide links:


General Welfare

The concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens.

Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of government. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution cites promotion of the general welfare as a primary reason for the creation of the Constitution. Promotion of the general welfare is also a stated purpose in state constitutions and statutes. The concept has sparked controversy only as a result of its inclusion in the body of the U.S. Constitution.

The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinction—the limitation of federal power—eventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.

According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years.

In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

Though the Court decided that Butler was consistent with Madison's philosophy of limited federal government, it adopted Hamilton's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, which gave Congress broad powers to spend federal money. It also established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress. In its opinion, the Court warned that to challenge a federal expense on the ground that it did not promote the general welfare would "naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress." The Court then obliquely confided,"[H]ow great is the extent of that range … we need hardly remark." "[D]espite the breadth of the legislative discretion," the Court continued, "our duty to hear and to render judgment remains." The Court then rendered the federal agricultural spending program at issue invalid under the Tenth Amendment.

With Butler as precedent, the Supreme Court's interest in determining whether congressional spending promotes the general welfare has withered. In South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 107 S. Ct. 2793, 97 L. Ed. 2d 171 (1987), the Court reviewed legislation allowing the secretary of transportation to withhold a percentage of federal highway funds from states that did not raise their legal drinking age to twenty-one. In holding that the statute was a valid use of congressional spending power, the Court in Dole questioned "whether 'general welfare' is a judicially enforceable restriction at all."

Congress appropriates money for a seemingly endless number of national interests, ranging from federal courts, policing, imprisonment, and national security to social programs, environmental protection, and education. No federal court has struck down a spending program on the ground that it failed to promote the general welfare. However, federal spending programs have been struck down on other constitutional grounds.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/General+Welfare


ALL THIS BS FROM THE BOGUS CLASSIC LIBERAL BECAUSE SOME RIGHT WING BLOW HARD WAS MADE A FOOL OF ON THE OPENING VIDEO OF THIS POST....SOMETHING CL JUST DOESN'T HAVE THE COJONES TO ACKNOWLEDGE.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
READ the decision, you moron! And the President cannot "write law". Know the process....congress, senate and then afterwards the SCOTUS. You don't like it, lobby your reps to change the law. (How many times have the GOP wasted money trying for a repeal they KNOW they don't have the votes for?)

Stop all this BS about your "freedom"...because simpletons like you sure as hell defend the Citizens United decision and the Patriot Act!

All this because a video makes a fool out of some right wing simpleton spewing rhetoric. Jeez!

Well Obama supports the Patriot act also, how many times has Obama circumvented the law by changing the date to sign up arbitrarily simply for political purposes. He is breaking his own law

Obama is a right of center Democrat, so it's no revelation that he supports the Patriot Act....or more to the point he has made no move to nullify some of it's more heinous attributes. One of several things that I don't agree with his administration.

And once again, you display your utter stupidity regarding how things work. Changing a deadline for admission does NOT "change the law", you simpleton. You would actually have to change the CONTENT of the law for that.

That's TWO ignorant statements you've made so far. Care for three?

 

[Robo]

You need to divorce yourself of all those right wing websites that essentially just parrot paragraphs while attaching their opinions, suppositions and conjecture (like you consistently do) and then ignore the current case as it applies (i.e., the SCOTUS Decision).

You keep asking a question that the SCOTUS already answered a'la' Reid. You don't like the vote, decision and ruling, so you just ignore what is said.

But since you like long versions of things, here is a more direct explanation/analysis (based on historical case) that explains (in addition) to the recent court ruling. Note that I provide links:


General Welfare

The concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens.

Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of government. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution cites promotion of the general welfare as a primary reason for the creation of the Constitution. Promotion of the general welfare is also a stated purpose in state constitutions and statutes. The concept has sparked controversy only as a result of its inclusion in the body of the U.S. Constitution.

The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinction—the limitation of federal power—eventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.

According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years.

In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

Though the Court decided that Butler was consistent with Madison's philosophy of limited federal government, it adopted Hamilton's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, which gave Congress broad powers to spend federal money. It also established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress. In its opinion, the Court warned that to challenge a federal expense on the ground that it did not promote the general welfare would "naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress." The Court then obliquely confided,"[H]ow great is the extent of that range … we need hardly remark." "[D]espite the breadth of the legislative discretion," the Court continued, "our duty to hear and to render judgment remains." The Court then rendered the federal agricultural spending program at issue invalid under the Tenth Amendment.

With Butler as precedent, the Supreme Court's interest in determining whether congressional spending promotes the general welfare has withered. In South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 107 S. Ct. 2793, 97 L. Ed. 2d 171 (1987), the Court reviewed legislation allowing the secretary of transportation to withhold a percentage of federal highway funds from states that did not raise their legal drinking age to twenty-one. In holding that the statute was a valid use of congressional spending power, the Court in Dole questioned "whether 'general welfare' is a judicially enforceable restriction at all."

Congress appropriates money for a seemingly endless number of national interests, ranging from federal courts, policing, imprisonment, and national security to social programs, environmental protection, and education. No federal court has struck down a spending program on the ground that it failed to promote the general welfare. However, federal spending programs have been struck down on other constitutional grounds.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/General+Welfare


ALL THIS BS FROM THE BOGUS CLASSIC LIBERAL BECAUSE SOME RIGHT WING BLOW HARD WAS MADE A FOOL OF ON THE OPENING VIDEO OF THIS POST....SOMETHING CL JUST DOESN'T HAVE THE COJONES TO ACKNOWLEDGE.

So in your world web sites and court decisions trump actual text of Constitutional articles and amendments, right?

Actually most of what you posted here in this response backs up my constitutional argument. Madison’s “General Welfare” definition is the only sane and accurate definition. Hamilton was a BIG government progressive central planner. His wishful interpretation of the General Welfare clause didn’t make any sense at all and still doesn’t today. It’s only promoted by BIG government progressives and central planners, socialist/communist and fascist authoritarians who worship BIG government and despise individual rights.

So here again we see your only response to my presenting actual constitutional text, articles and amendments, and interpretations buy our founders is to respond with court decisions rendered by political ideologues, appointed by other political ideologues and confirmed by more political ideologues.

So here’s some questions for you.

If Madison’s and Jefferson’s defining of the General Welfare clause is correct, (and it is), then by your and Hamilton’s broad definition what can’t the federal government do in the name of the General Welfare?

What does the General Welfare include and what does it exclude and where in the Constitution can we find article or amendment to back up your answer to this question?

If the federal government can do whatever it wants in the name of the General Welfare why did our founders bother to write the rest of the Constitution? Doesn’t the General Welfare clause trump anything and everything else in the Constitution as Jefferson observed if Hamilton’s broad definition were to be accepted? Please explain.

Give us your interpretation of the 10th amendment. What does it mean to you?

Let’s see if you have any rational answers to those challenges. I’ll wait!!!!!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
You need to divorce yourself of all those right wing websites that essentially just parrot paragraphs while attaching their opinions, suppositions and conjecture (like you consistently do) and then ignore the current case as it applies (i.e., the SCOTUS Decision).

You keep asking a question that the SCOTUS already answered a'la' Reid. You don't like the vote, decision and ruling, so you just ignore what is said.

But since you like long versions of things, here is a more direct explanation/analysis (based on historical case) that explains (in addition) to the recent court ruling. Note that I provide links:


General Welfare

The concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens.

Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of government. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution cites promotion of the general welfare as a primary reason for the creation of the Constitution. Promotion of the general welfare is also a stated purpose in state constitutions and statutes. The concept has sparked controversy only as a result of its inclusion in the body of the U.S. Constitution.

The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinction—the limitation of federal power—eventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.

According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years.

In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

Though the Court decided that Butler was consistent with Madison's philosophy of limited federal government, it adopted Hamilton's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, which gave Congress broad powers to spend federal money. It also established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress. In its opinion, the Court warned that to challenge a federal expense on the ground that it did not promote the general welfare would "naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress." The Court then obliquely confided,"[H]ow great is the extent of that range … we need hardly remark." "[D]espite the breadth of the legislative discretion," the Court continued, "our duty to hear and to render judgment remains." The Court then rendered the federal agricultural spending program at issue invalid under the Tenth Amendment.

With Butler as precedent, the Supreme Court's interest in determining whether congressional spending promotes the general welfare has withered. In South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 107 S. Ct. 2793, 97 L. Ed. 2d 171 (1987), the Court reviewed legislation allowing the secretary of transportation to withhold a percentage of federal highway funds from states that did not raise their legal drinking age to twenty-one. In holding that the statute was a valid use of congressional spending power, the Court in Dole questioned "whether 'general welfare' is a judicially enforceable restriction at all."

Congress appropriates money for a seemingly endless number of national interests, ranging from federal courts, policing, imprisonment, and national security to social programs, environmental protection, and education. No federal court has struck down a spending program on the ground that it failed to promote the general welfare. However, federal spending programs have been struck down on other constitutional grounds.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...eneral+Welfare


ALL THIS BS FROM THE BOGUS CLASSIC LIBERAL BECAUSE SOME RIGHT WING BLOW HARD WAS MADE A FOOL OF ON THE OPENING VIDEO OF THIS POST....SOMETHING CL JUST DOESN'T HAVE THE COJONES TO ACKNOWLEDGE.

So in your world web sites and court decisions trump actual text of Constitutional articles and amendments, right?



NO STUPID, IN THE REAL WORLD RATIONAL PEOPLE READ WHAT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION AND HOW IT HAS BEEN APPLIED BY THE VARIOUS STATES, AND WHEN CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS ARISE, HOW THEY ARE RESOLVED BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND LEGISLATION. ALL YOU DO IS JUST KEEP REGURGITATING YOUR MYOPIC OPINIONS, SUPPOSITION AND CONJECTURE INSTEAD OF WHAT ACTUALLY IS A MATTER OF HISTORY AND FACT.

Actually most of what you posted here in this response backs up my constitutional argument. Madison’s “General Welfare” definition is the only sane and accurate definition. Hamilton was a BIG government progressive central planner. His wishful interpretation of the General Welfare clause didn’t make any sense at all and still doesn’t today. It’s only promoted by BIG government progressives and central planners, socialist/communist and fascist authoritarians who worship BIG government and despise individual rights.

So here again we see your only response to my presenting actual constitutional text, articles and amendments, and interpretations buy our founders is to respond with court decisions rendered by political ideologues, appointed by other political ideologues and confirmed by more political ideologues.

So here’s some questions for you.

If Madison’s and Jefferson’s defining of the General Welfare clause is correct, (and it is), then by your and Hamilton’s broad definition what can’t the federal government do in the name of the General Welfare?

What does the General Welfare include and what does it exclude and where in the Constitution can we find article or amendment to back up your answer to this question?

If the federal government can do whatever it wants in the name of the General Welfare why did our founders bother to write the rest of the Constitution? Doesn’t the General Welfare clause trump anything and everything else in the Constitution as Jefferson observed if Hamilton’s broad definition were to be accepted? Please explain.

Give us your interpretation of the 10th amendment. What does it mean to you?

Let’s see if you have any rational answers to those challenges. I’ll wait!!!!!

You keep ignoring historical fact by creating these SILLY challenges based on nothing but your opinion and some like minded right wing libertarian wonk's blog.

Obviously, you didn't comprehend the FULL context of the link I provided....no surprise there. The post gave an OBJECTIVE review, and concluded;
Congress appropriates money for a seemingly endless number of national interests, ranging from federal courts, policing, imprisonment, and national security to social programs, environmental protection, and education. No federal court has struck down a spending program on the ground that it failed to promote the general welfare. However, federal spending programs have been struck down on other constitutional grounds.


Now run-a-long and blather your blinder wearing ideology. I've already exposed your silly self-contradiction, and anything else is just your simplistic crowing about my not following you down (yet another) dodge to avoid the simple truth that an anti-Obamacare wonk was humiliated on national television with a simple truth bearing video. Carry on.

 

[Robo]

You keep ignoring historical fact by creating these SILLY challenges based on nothing but your opinion and some like minded right wing libertarian wonk's blog.

Obviously, you didn't comprehend the FULL context of the link I provided....no surprise there. The post gave an OBJECTIVE review, and concluded;
Congress appropriates money for a seemingly endless number of national interests, ranging from federal courts, policing, imprisonment, and national security to social programs, environmental protection, and education. No federal court has struck down a spending program on the ground that it failed to promote the general welfare. However, federal spending programs have been struck down on other constitutional grounds.

The problem I have with your so-called “objective review” paragraph is simply that it’s nothing but partisan judicial blather and the fact that it totally ignores that most of what Congress appropriates money for is blatantly unconstitutional to begin with thus it loans no rational or credible evidence for the constitutionality of Obama-Care.

There is no constitutional authority for federal environmental protection agency, federal social programs or a federally financed education department or program.

Of course I’m not at all surprised that you can’t defend your “General Welfare” presentation. All it takes is some simple honesty rational discovery and logical acceptance to understand that BIG government is out of “constitutional” control, including the courts. We can do that simply by honestly answering the questions I’ve presented. Here, try again!


If Madison’s and Jefferson’s defining of the General Welfare clause is correct, (and it is), then by your and Hamilton’s broad definition what can’t the federal government do in the name of the General Welfare?

What does the General Welfare include and what does it exclude and where in the Constitution can we find article or amendment to back up your answer to this question?

If the federal government can do whatever it wants in the name of the General Welfare why did our founders bother to write the rest of the Constitution? Doesn’t the General Welfare clause trump anything and everything else in the Constitution as Jefferson observed if Hamilton’s broad definition were to be accepted? Please explain.

Give us your interpretation of the 10th amendment. What does it mean to you?

I’ll Wait!!!!!

 

[Robo]

Still waiting!

 

[Robo]

Still waiting!!!

 

[Robo]

Still waiting!!!

 

[Robo]

What part of "the general welfare" do you not get, bunky? You keep repeating the amendments, but you lack comprehension as to their interaction and implementation in this instance.

What does the General Welfare include and what does it exclude and where in the Constitution can we find article or amendment to back up your answer to this question?

If the federal government can do whatever it wants in the name of the General Welfare why did our founders bother to write the rest of the Constitution? Doesn’t the General Welfare clause trump anything and everything else in the Constitution as Jefferson observed if Hamilton’s broad definition were to be accepted? Please explain.

Give us your interpretation of the 10th amendment. What does it mean to you?

Let’s see if you have any rational answers to those challenges. I’ll wait!!!!!

I'm still waiting!!!!!

 

[Taichiliberal]

See folks, the bogus Classic Liberal essentially is stuck on the erroneous premise that his personal opinion, supposition and conjecture takes precedence over historical, documented fact....which is why he is so hell bent wanting to discuss opinion and interpretation rather than the FACTS....because the FACTS CONTRADICT his beliefs.

I demonstrated this TWICE.....notice each time CL avoids and rejects the logical conclusion of the information provided in favor of his "would have" "should be" approach

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...re-blowhard-blown-away!&p=1477196#post1477196

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...re-blowhard-blown-away!&p=1477710#post1477710

That is the typical tactic of the defeated neocon/teabagger/silly libertarian, once soundly contradicted, they merely demand an argument based solely on opinion in a vain hope "winning".....if you don't indulge his nonsense, he "wins".

But as the chronology of the posts shows the folly of that ploy by CL. When all is said and done, he can't even honestly deal with the defeat of a like minded blowhard in the video of the opening post....hence the subsequent blathering.

I leave CL to his predictable next set of rants and declarations.

 

[Robo]

See folks, the bogus Classic Liberal essentially is stuck on the erroneous premise that his personal opinion, supposition and conjecture takes precedence over historical, documented fact....which is why he is so hell bent wanting to discuss opinion and interpretation rather than the FACTS....because the FACTS CONTRADICT his beliefs.
I demonstrated this TWICE.....notice each time CL avoids and rejects the logical conclusion of the information provided in favor of his "would have" "should be" approach

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...re-blowhard-blown-away!&p=1477196#post1477196

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...re-blowhard-blown-away!&p=1477710#post1477710

That is the typical tactic of the defeated neocon/teabagger/silly libertarian, once soundly contradicted, they merely demand an argument based solely on opinion in a vain hope "winning".....if you don't indulge his nonsense, he "wins".

But as the chronology of the posts shows the folly of that ploy by CL. When all is said and done, he can't even honestly deal with the defeat of a like minded blowhard in the video of the opening post....hence the subsequent blathering.

I leave CL to his predictable next set of rants and declarations.

RANT? You RANT then accuse others of ranting? How cute!!!

Here’s the questions again that you won’t answer because they totally destroy your bogus “general welfare” argument.

What does the General Welfare include and what does it exclude and where in the Constitution can we find article or amendment to back up your answer to this question?

If the federal government can do whatever it wants in the name of the General Welfare why did our founders bother to write the rest of the Constitution? Doesn’t the General Welfare clause trump anything and everything else in the Constitution as Jefferson observed if Hamilton’s broad definition were to be accepted? Please explain.

Give us your interpretation of the 10th amendment. What does it mean to you?

I'll wait!!!!!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
See folks, the bogus Classic Liberal essentially is stuck on the erroneous premise that his personal opinion, supposition and conjecture takes precedence over historical, documented fact....which is why he is so hell bent wanting to discuss opinion and interpretation rather than the FACTS....because the FACTS CONTRADICT his beliefs.
I demonstrated this TWICE.....notice each time CL avoids and rejects the logical conclusion of the information provided in favor of his "would have" "should be" approach

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...96#post1477196

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...10#post1477710

That is the typical tactic of the defeated neocon/teabagger/silly libertarian, once soundly contradicted, they merely demand an argument based solely on opinion in a vain hope "winning".....if you don't indulge his nonsense, he "wins".

But as the chronology of the posts shows the folly of that ploy by CL. When all is said and done, he can't even honestly deal with the defeat of a like minded blowhard in the video of the opening post....hence the subsequent blathering.

I leave CL to his predictable next set of rants and declarations.

RANT? You RANT then accuse others of ranting? How cute!!!

Here’s the questions again that you won’t answer because they totally destroy your bogus “general welfare” argument.

What does the General Welfare include and what does it exclude and where in the Constitution can we find article or amendment to back up your answer to this question?

If the federal government can do whatever it wants in the name of the General Welfare why did our founders bother to write the rest of the Constitution? Doesn’t the General Welfare clause trump anything and everything else in the Constitution as Jefferson observed if Hamilton’s broad definition were to be accepted? Please explain.

Give us your interpretation of the 10th amendment. What does it mean to you?

I'll wait!!!!!

And he's done EXACTLY as I predicted!

Say goodnight Gracie!

 

[Robo]

And he's done EXACTLY as I predicted!

Say goodnight Gracie!

Here’s the questions again that you won’t answer because they totally destroy your bogus “general welfare” argument.

What does the General Welfare include and what does it exclude and where in the Constitution can we find article or amendment to back up your answer to this question?

If the federal government can do whatever it wants in the name of the General Welfare why did our founders bother to write the rest of the Constitution? Doesn’t the General Welfare clause trump anything and everything else in the Constitution as Jefferson observed if Hamilton’s broad definition were to be accepted? Please explain.

Give us your interpretation of the 10th amendment. What does it mean to you?

I'll wait!!!!!

 

[Robo]

Here’s the questions again that you won’t answer because they totally destroy your bogus “general welfare” argument.

What does the General Welfare include and what does it exclude and where in the Constitution can we find article or amendment to back up your answer to this question?

If the federal government can do whatever it wants in the name of the General Welfare why did our founders bother to write the rest of the Constitution? Doesn’t the General Welfare clause trump anything and everything else in the Constitution as Jefferson observed if Hamilton’s broad definition were to be accepted? Please explain.

Give us your interpretation of the 10th amendment. What does it mean to you?

Still waiting!!!!!