Just what IS conservativism?

[Kamala Trump]

So damn yankee, see how there is a general welfare clause?

This means that trade agreements that put americans in a labor competition with captive slaves is wrong.

 

[Kamala Trump]

So damn yankee, see how there is a general welfare clause?

This means that trade agreements that put americans in a labor competition with captive slaves is wrong.

 

[Damocles]

DY can't answer, at least for several weeks.

 

[Kamala Trump]

DY can't answer, at least for several weeks.

Yeah, because he's just that slow at thinking.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes, there is a general welfare clause.

With all due respect to DY, there is indeed a clause which includes the phrase "general welfare," and this phrase has indeed been controversial in understood meaning through the years. The social liberal interpretation is not what the Founding Fathers would have logically intended, and I will explain why. The "general welfare" as understood and articulated by a liberal, could conceivably encompass virtually anything and everything, without an exception, which contributed to the well-being of any individual. If this were what the FF intended, why enumerate specific powers to the Federal government, and indicate the remaining powers be delegated to the states and people? If the Federal government is responsible for everything, how can the states or people be responsible for anything? It directly contradicts logic, to presume "general welfare" was ever intended in such a broad sense. When virtually anything you can dream up, can be covered under the guise of "general welfare," this grants the Federal government universal power and control over everything, and limits the power of the individual or the state in anything. Therefore, there is no need for much of the rest of the Constitution. Since the rest of the Constitution exists, we must conclude, this was never what was meant by "general welfare" as written by the Founding Fathers.

First, we must evaluate the context. The Constitution establishes a very limited role of Federal government. Specifically enumerated powers are clearly established and outlined, and it is clearly stated, if the power is not exclusively enumerated to the Federal government, it belongs to the states and the people. This means, "general welfare" was intended to convey a meaning which is much less broad than the liberal interpretations.

The actual "clause" in question:
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.

Now let me ask you something... Where is my personal National Guard unit? I don't mean the NG unit of my local town, but my PERSONAL unit! Doesn't the Constitution say the government is supposed to provide me with "Defense?" Where are they? I need protecting when I go to the store, or on my way to work and stuff! I demand that I get my own personal National Guard unit! The Constitution guarantees that, doesn't it? Of course, you realize how absurd my suggestion is, and the same is true with regard to your demands for the government to provide you with personal welfare. It is simply not the responsibility of the Federal government to provide you with anything personally. The text reads: to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. The Constitutional delegation of power to the Federal government, is to provide for the STATE you live in, not to YOU personally.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes, there is a general welfare clause.

With all due respect to DY, there is indeed a clause which includes the phrase "general welfare," and this phrase has indeed been controversial in understood meaning through the years. The social liberal interpretation is not what the Founding Fathers would have logically intended, and I will explain why. The "general welfare" as understood and articulated by a liberal, could conceivably encompass virtually anything and everything, without an exception, which contributed to the well-being of any individual. If this were what the FF intended, why enumerate specific powers to the Federal government, and indicate the remaining powers be delegated to the states and people? If the Federal government is responsible for everything, how can the states or people be responsible for anything? It directly contradicts logic, to presume "general welfare" was ever intended in such a broad sense. When virtually anything you can dream up, can be covered under the guise of "general welfare," this grants the Federal government universal power and control over everything, and limits the power of the individual or the state in anything. Therefore, there is no need for much of the rest of the Constitution. Since the rest of the Constitution exists, we must conclude, this was never what was meant by "general welfare" as written by the Founding Fathers.

First, we must evaluate the context. The Constitution establishes a very limited role of Federal government. Specifically enumerated powers are clearly established and outlined, and it is clearly stated, if the power is not exclusively enumerated to the Federal government, it belongs to the states and the people. This means, "general welfare" was intended to convey a meaning which is much less broad than the liberal interpretations.

The actual "clause" in question:
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.

Now let me ask you something... Where is my personal National Guard unit? I don't mean the NG unit of my local town, but my PERSONAL unit! Doesn't the Constitution say the government is supposed to provide me with "Defense?" Where are they? I need protecting when I go to the store, or on my way to work and stuff! I demand that I get my own personal National Guard unit! The Constitution guarantees that, doesn't it? Of course, you realize how absurd my suggestion is, and the same is true with regard to your demands for the government to provide you with personal welfare. It is simply not the responsibility of the Federal government to provide you with anything personally. The text reads: to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. The Constitutional delegation of power to the Federal government, is to provide for the STATE you live in, not to YOU personally.

 

[Kamala Trump]

With all due respect to DY, there is indeed a clause which includes the phrase "general welfare," and this phrase has indeed been controversial in understood meaning through the years. The social liberal interpretation is not what the Founding Fathers would have logically intended, and I will explain why. The "general welfare" as understood and articulated by a liberal, could conceivably encompass virtually anything and everything, without an exception, which contributed to the well-being of any individual. If this were what the FF intended, why enumerate specific powers to the Federal government, and indicate the remaining powers be delegated to the states and people? If the Federal government is responsible for everything, how can the states or people be responsible for anything? It directly contradicts logic, to presume "general welfare" was ever intended in such a broad sense. When virtually anything you can dream up, can be covered under the guise of "general welfare," this grants the Federal government universal power and control over everything, and limits the power of the individual or the state in anything. Therefore, there is no need for much of the rest of the Constitution. Since the rest of the Constitution exists, we must conclude, this was never what was meant by "general welfare" as written by the Founding Fathers.

First, we must evaluate the context. The Constitution establishes a very limited role of Federal government. Specifically enumerated powers are clearly established and outlined, and it is clearly stated, if the power is not exclusively enumerated to the Federal government, it belongs to the states and the people. This means, "general welfare" was intended to convey a meaning which is much less broad than the liberal interpretations.

The actual "clause" in question:
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.

Now let me ask you something... Where is my personal National Guard unit? I don't mean the NG unit of my local town, but my PERSONAL unit! Doesn't the Constitution say the government is supposed to provide me with "Defense?" Where are they? I need protecting when I go to the store, or on my way to work and stuff! I demand that I get my own personal National Guard unit! The Constitution guarantees that, doesn't it? Of course, you realize how absurd my suggestion is, and the same is true with regard to your demands for the government to provide you with personal welfare. It is simply not the responsibility of the Federal government to provide you with anything personally. The text reads: to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. The Constitutional delegation of power to the Federal government, is to provide for the STATE you live in, not to YOU personally.

SO what does it mean, mr. talky bullshit head?

 

[Kamala Trump]

I think it definitely includes sculpting trade policy which doesn't actively diminish the quality of life for a majority of individuals. What do you think, Dickshe?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I think it definitely includes sculpting trade policy which doesn't actively diminish the quality of life for a majority of individuals. What do you think, Dickshe?

I think you are stupid to believe we are ever going to become isolationists and not trade with the outside world. First thing that would happen, should we ever adopt your "trade policies", is the countries holding our national debt, would call in their loans and bankrupt us immediately. Your dollar would become worthless for anything other than burning to stay warm.

We've been through this about a gazillion times already, and apparently, you are either too stubborn to get it, or too stupid... I really don't know which. Cutting our trade with China, is not going to ever result in a 'better way of life' for the individuals in China. It may result in massive genocide, but that isn't generally considered "better" by any stretch of the imagination. Now, China is not exactly the hallmark of human rights, but in recent years, the Chinese government has made monumental strides in this area, adopting more and more capitalist policies and democratic solutions. Things are becoming law in China, that 100 years ago, were un-thought of. Change is happening as a direct result of our influence, which until 1972, didn't exist at all.

 

[Kamala Trump]

I think you are stupid to believe we are ever going to become isolationists and not trade with the outside world. First thing that would happen, should we ever adopt your "trade policies", is the countries holding our national debt, would call in their loans and bankrupt us immediately. Your dollar would become worthless for anything other than burning to stay warm.

We've been through this about a gazillion times already, and apparently, you are either too stubborn to get it, or too stupid... I really don't know which. Cutting our trade with China, is not going to ever result in a 'better way of life' for the individuals in China. It may result in massive genocide, but that isn't generally considered "better" by any stretch of the imagination. Now, China is not exactly the hallmark of human rights, but in recent years, the Chinese government has made monumental strides in this area, adopting more and more capitalist policies and democratic solutions. Things are becoming law in China, that 100 years ago, were un-thought of. Change is happening as a direct result of our influence, which until 1972, didn't exist at all.

We've been through it for sure, but your argument is just based on your brainwashed idiocy and irrational love of internationalist fascism.

Our trade with china has only made the regime stronger, but that fact aside, the general welfare clause regards the general welfare of americans, not the chinese. And the impact of globalization on american lives is crystal clear; it makes their lives worse. If you love china so much, why don't you marry it?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

We've been through it for sure, but your argument is just based on your brainwashed idiocy and irrational love of internationalist fascism.

Our trade with china has only made the regime stronger, but that fact aside, the general welfare clause regards the general welfare of americans, not the chinese. And the impact of globalization on american lives is crystal clear; it makes their lives worse. If you love china so much, why don't you marry it?

No, as I articulated earlier, the general welfare clause regards the general welfare of the states, not individual citizens. Trade with China has nothing to do with me loving China. Trade is a two-way street, you know? They buy things from us too. We stop buying from them, they stop buying from us, that's how it works in the real world. Now, mostly what they have been buying from us, is our monetary debt, by purchasing our bonds. If China no longer did that, and instead, cashed them all in... we'd go under financially. What part of that do you not understand? Our dollar would be essentially worthless overnight. If you think conditions for Americans are bad now, what would it be like in a country with worthless currency?

 

[Kamala Trump]

No, as I articulated earlier, the general welfare clause regards the general welfare of the states, not individual citizens. Trade with China has nothing to do with me loving China. Trade is a two-way street, you know? They buy things from us too. We stop buying from them, they stop buying from us, that's how it works in the real world. Now, mostly what they have been buying from us, is our monetary debt, by purchasing our bonds. If China no longer did that, and instead, cashed them all in... we'd go under financially. What part of that do you not understand? Our dollar would be essentially worthless overnight. If you think conditions for Americans are bad now, what would it be like in a country with worthless currency?

So you're saying the general welfare means the welfare of government? I don't think so.


The power to set trade agreements is a constitutional power of government.

How should the fitness of trade policy be assessed if not by it's impact on citizens?

 

[Damocles]

The Preamble is not the only area that the General Welfare clause is stated.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So you're saying the general welfare means the welfare of government? I don't think so.


The power to set trade agreements is a constitutional power of government.

How should the fitness of trade policy be assessed if not by it's impact on citizens?

Everything in the Constitution pertaining to Federal governmental powers, is pertaining to the relationship between the Federal government and the States. The Federal government has absolutely NO authority over the individual and no responsibility to the individual. Their power is strictly confined to power over the STATES, not the citizens. This is the cornerstone to ALL Constitutional Law.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The Preamble is not the only area that the General Welfare clause is stated.

Yes, Damo, we understand the phrase "general welfare" is found in both the Preamble and Article 1 Section 8. In neither case does it mean what Liberals claim it means.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Everything in the Constitution pertaining to Federal governmental powers, is pertaining to the relationship between the Federal government and the States. The Federal government has absolutely NO authority over the individual and no responsibility to the individual. Their power is strictly confined to power over the STATES, not the citizens. This is the cornerstone to ALL Constitutional Law.

This is made up neocon horse crap.

The first amerndment says CONGRESS shall make law infringing on the freedom of speech. This is the speech of individuals, not of "states". According to you, freedom of speech applies only to state governments? That's absurd. The freedom is for all individuals.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Yes, Damo, we understand the phrase "general welfare" is found in both the Preamble and Article 1 Section 8. In neither case does it mean what Liberals claim it means.

What does it mean? Does it mean anything, knucklehead?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

This is made up neocon horse crap.

The first amerndment says CONGRESS shall make law infringing on the freedom of speech. This is the speech of individuals, not of "states". According to you, freedom of speech applies only to state governments? That's absurd. The freedom is for all individuals.

http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-constitution

CONGRESS is not "the federal government" it is a body of elected representatives acting on behalf of the people, for the people. According to me (and the Constitution) the powers of the Federal government are limited and confined to relationship with the states, not individuals. If it weren't this way, there would be no need to have states or state sovereignty, nor a reason to elect state legislatures or even two branches of Congress. It would completely nullify the 10th Amendment, and the Federal Government would rule over every American citizen, instead of the American citizens controlling power over the government. You need to educate yourself in the Constitution, the Federal government, and the separation of powers. What you are saying is not only moronic and idiotic, but rather scary.

 

[Kamala Trump]

http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-constitution

CONGRESS is not "the federal government" it is a body of elected representatives acting on behalf of the people, for the people. According to me (and the Constitution) the powers of the Federal government are limited and confined to relationship with the states, not individuals. If it weren't this way, there would be no need to have states or state sovereignty, nor a reason to elect state legislatures or even two branches of Congress. It would completely nullify the 10th Amendment, and the Federal Government would rule over every American citizen, instead of the American citizens controlling power over the government. You need to educate yourself in the Constitution, the Federal government, and the separation of powers. What you are saying is not only moronic and idiotic, but rather scary.

Congress is the law making body of the federal government. It creates the policies of the federal government.

Are you saying the constitution doesn't protect the right of individual free speech?

I think your understanding of things is rather moronic, and rather terrifying, if you beleive that the constitution doesn't grant individuals the rights as detailed in the first ten amendments. Is that really what you believe? I doubt it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Congress is the law making body of the federal government. It creates the policies of the federal government.

Are you saying the constitution doesn't protect the right of individual free speech?

I think your understanding of things is rather moronic, and rather terrifying, if you beleive that the constitution doesn't grant individuals the rights as detailed in the first ten amendments. Is that really what you believe? I doubt it.

I'm saying the FEDERAL government does not have ANY authority over individual citizens. The FEDERAL government is fully controlled and operated by THE PEOPLE, not the other way around. WE tell the FED what it can and can't do, THEY don't tell US! The Federal government's only reason for existence, is to coordinate standards among the member states, pursuant to the guidelines WE set forth. They have absolutely NO POWER!

Again, The CONSTITUTION is NOT the Federal Government! Just as the CONGRESS is NOT the Federal Government. I have not said the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to individuals, that is just a stupid derivative from what I actually said. Your brain farts are stinking up this room, stop doing that!