Can You Answer These Constitutional Questions?

Robo

Robo

Verified User
If the “general welfare” clause of Article One, Section Eight of our Constitution validates as constitutional federal socialist programs, i. e., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Obama-Care, what actions/laws doesn’t the general welfare clause validate the Congress/federal government doing in the name of the general welfare?

If the general welfare clause trumps everything else in the Constitution, why did the authors of the Constitution waste so much time, ink and paper to even bother writing the rest of the Constitution?

If the general welfare clause trumps everything else in the Constitution why didn’t the authors simply end up with a single sentence Constitution that stated something like this, “The Congress shall have all mighty power to make whatever laws they choose as long as they claim they are in the “general welfare” and the President signs them into law.”

If the general welfare clause trumps everything else in the Constitution, What’s with Amendment 10? What good is Amendment 10, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”??? What’s that all about anyhow???

If the general welfare clause doesn't trump everything else in the Constitution, what doesn't it trump?

Wonder how many leftist will tackle those questions? Seems the only thing in the Constitution the left believes in is the general welfare clause. They should at least explain it, don’t ya think?
 
Madison anticipated this argument, and not only rejected it, but mocked those who made it back then. From Federalist 41:
It has been urged and echoed, that the 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,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Click to expand...
 
Seems the liberals don't understand what the word 'general' means and doesn't mean.....and it certainly don't mean a special, particular, or chosen group of
citizens instead of the entire population....
 
Jefferson said it best.

“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)
 
Notice there's no comment from the left.

The answers to the questions are so perfectly apparent and rational that they leave the left speechless. The general welfare authorized in article one, section eight of the Constitution is simply everything enumerated in the following text of article one, section eight and all amendments that authorize a specific power of Congress. Amendment 10 authorizes all other actions that are not specifically denied to government at any level by the Constitution to the States or the people and denies those actions to the federal government.

Most 10 year old children of average intellect can understand the majority of our Constitution but that talent seems to have been lost for our leftist friends.
 
Does the left's willful ignorance of this thread tell us anything about the left?

Oh! That's right! Everybody should know by now that the left has no affiliation or respect for constitutional decorum, huh?
 
I learned long ago that threads with facts don't generally get a lot of attention, and usually go ignored. That's typically from either vantage point. It's hard sometimes to want to have a net positive on the outcome of a debate, only to have no real takers on a topic. I'm often willing to concede my viewpoint and drop my ego with it if necessary but unfortunately, fact based threads don't generally garner that attention they deserve. It's pretty obvious that the intention of the Constitution was not to provide giant federal programs to handle whatever some citizens think is a right or necessity, and that issues like that should be held at State levels. It's very easy to ignore that, and also very easy for people to just say 'the founders were slave owners', and then go on their merry way and pretend the founders had no relevance. It's a choice to be ignorant, and the choice to stay ignorant stems from a personal bias. A somewhat untested hypothesis in a person's mind that they rely on as truth.

Now, you'll get more response from the liberals if you were to argue that means tested government programs are not sustainable into the future, but I'm almost guaranteeing it turns into a rant war about nothing other than random insults to display who's ego is the largest.
 
Classic Liberal said:
If the “general welfare” clause of Article One, Section Eight of our Constitution validates as constitutional federal socialist programs, i. e., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Obama-Care, what actions/laws doesn’t the general welfare clause validate the Congress/federal government doing in the name of the general welfare?

If the general welfare clause trumps everything else in the Constitution, why did the authors of the Constitution waste so much time, ink and paper to even bother writing the rest of the Constitution?

If the general welfare clause trumps everything else in the Constitution why didn’t the authors simply end up with a single sentence Constitution that stated something like this, “The Congress shall have all mighty power to make whatever laws they choose as long as they claim they are in the “general welfare” and the President signs them into law.”

If the general welfare clause trumps everything else in the Constitution, What’s with Amendment 10? What good is Amendment 10, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”??? What’s that all about anyhow???

If the general welfare clause doesn't trump everything else in the Constitution, what doesn't it trump?

Wonder how many leftist will tackle those questions? Seems the only thing in the Constitution the left believes in is the general welfare clause. They should at least explain it, don’t ya think?
Click to expand...


The general welfare clause doesn't trump everything else in the Constitution. It requires a balancing test when it conflicts with other rights or restrictions. The Supreme Court has identified that when the Constitution provides conflicting rights and restrictions they must balance those to come up with a result. R v. W. is one of the best examples of this. You should read it, I know you will disagree with the result, but you should understand the structure they used to analysis the issue. Or read Griswald v. Conn. Or Loving v. Virginia.
 
this is how I imagine liberals and conservatives discuss the constitution

image_2.png
 
DigitalDave said:
I learned long ago that threads with facts don't generally get a lot of attention, and usually go ignored. That's typically from either vantage point. It's hard sometimes to want to have a net positive on the outcome of a debate, only to have no real takers on a topic. I'm often willing to concede my viewpoint and drop my ego with it if necessary but unfortunately, fact based threads don't generally garner that attention they deserve. It's pretty obvious that the intention of the Constitution was not to provide giant federal programs to handle whatever some citizens think is a right or necessity, and that issues like that should be held at State levels. It's very easy to ignore that, and also very easy for people to just say 'the founders were slave owners', and then go on their merry way and pretend the founders had no relevance. It's a choice to be ignorant, and the choice to stay ignorant stems from a personal bias. A somewhat untested hypothesis in a person's mind that they rely on as truth.

Now, you'll get more response from the liberals if you were to argue that means tested government programs are not sustainable into the future, but I'm almost guaranteeing it turns into a rant war about nothing other than random insults to display who's ego is the largest.
Click to expand...

What up, Dave?
 
Jarod said:
The general welfare clause doesn't trump everything else in the Constitution. It requires a balancing test when it conflicts with other rights or restrictions. The Supreme Court has identified that when the Constitution provides conflicting rights and restrictions they must balance those to come up with a result. R v. W. is one of the best examples of this. You should read it, I know you will disagree with the result, but you should understand the structure they used to analysis the issue. Or read Griswald v. Conn. Or Loving v. Virginia.
Click to expand...
That's all bullshit. The SCOTUS has usurped the Constitution long ago because of liberal influences. Certain justices simply don't give a shit and want their agenda to be law. Others are confused as to when precedence is important.
 
Right said:
That's all bullshit. The SCOTUS has usurped the Constitution long ago because of liberal influences. Certain justices simply don't give a shit and want their agenda to be law. Others are confused as to when precedence is important.
Click to expand...


If you say so.
 
Right said:
That's all bullshit. The SCOTUS has usurped the Constitution long ago because of liberal influences. Certain justices simply don't give a shit and want their agenda to be law. Others are confused as to when precedence is important.
Click to expand...

I would venture to say that conservatives have done the same.
 
NOVA said:
Seems the liberals don't understand what the word 'general' means and doesn't mean.....and it certainly don't mean a special, particular, or chosen group of
citizens instead of the entire population....
Click to expand...

So you are going to give up your social security and Medicare?
 
DigitalDave said:
I learned long ago that threads with facts don't generally get a lot of attention, and usually go ignored. That's typically from either vantage point. It's hard sometimes to want to have a net positive on the outcome of a debate, only to have no real takers on a topic. I'm often willing to concede my viewpoint and drop my ego with it if necessary but unfortunately, fact based threads don't generally garner that attention they deserve. It's pretty obvious that the intention of the Constitution was not to provide giant federal programs to handle whatever some citizens think is a right or necessity, and that issues like that should be held at State levels. It's very easy to ignore that, and also very easy for people to just say 'the founders were slave owners', and then go on their merry way and pretend the founders had no relevance. It's a choice to be ignorant, and the choice to stay ignorant stems from a personal bias. A somewhat untested hypothesis in a person's mind that they rely on as truth.

Now, you'll get more response from the liberals if you were to argue that means tested government programs are not sustainable into the future, but I'm almost guaranteeing it turns into a rant war about nothing other than random insults to display who's ego is the largest.
Click to expand...

My experience has always been with left and right alike, they usually vanish when the rubber meets the road in the form of constitutional questions that totally debunk their partisan, ideological brainwashing. Most of them don't know squat about the Constitution, they usually only know what their partisan hacks have drilled into their heads. The reason there's always little response to constitutional questions is because they're woefully and willfully ignorant of their only written guarantee of rights and freedoms. Go figure!
 
Jarod said:
The general welfare clause doesn't trump everything else in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Is that your answer to what doesn’t the general welfare clause trump in the Constitution? OK, you’ve made the claim so again I’ll ask WHAT in the Constitution cannot be trumped in the name of the general welfare? WHERE in the Constitution do we find those things you claim can’t be trumped in the name of the general welfare?

It requires a balancing test when it conflicts with other rights or restrictions. The Supreme Court has identified that when the Constitution provides conflicting rights and restrictions they must balance those to come up with a result. R v. W. is one of the best examples of this. You should read it, I know you will disagree with the result, but you should understand the structure they used to analysis the issue. Or read Griswald v. Conn. Or Loving v. Virginia.
Click to expand...

WHERE in the Constitution did “The Courts” find the authority for the alleged “balancing test?”
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I would venture to say that conservatives have done the same.
Click to expand...

They would be "Neo-Conservatives, i. e. RINOs. No Child Left Behind, The Patriot Act, unconstitutional non-declared wars, Drugs For Senior Citizens, Nixon's unconstitutional Drug War and The Faith Based Initiative, just for openers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top