The Constitution Mandates That The Federal Government Be A Fraction Of What It is.

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Founding Fodder Gave Us Oats, Not Votes

Bullshit! That shows what you know about the Constitution! The government I blame bears little to resemblance to the one set up by the Constitution.










.

More self-contradiction by Constitutionazis. Your statement is an admission that the Constitution was weakly designed if it could so easily be perverted. But doublethink (cognitive dissonance) is common with bossy totalitarians. You won't debate unless we first genuflect before your Framers' altar and kiss their sacred-cow document.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

No Matter What Fascists Say, a Constitution Is What Put the Crack in the Liberty Bell

Says who? According to you anything that Congress says is in the general welfare and can pass into law in the name of the general welfare is constitutional.

Actually, you nor the Congress gets to say what's in the general welfare, the Constitution enumerates what's in the general welfare.

Again, I'll give you the observations and opinions of Jefferson and Madison on the general welfare.

Thomas Jefferson Opinion on Constitutional Interpretation Date: February 15, 1791

“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 may be good for 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 sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please . . . . Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America." (James Madison)

Jefferson, like all great Presidents, knew better when taking action. The Louisiana Purchase was not for the general welfare, but only for those in a position to settle those territories. Without the obstacle of a Constitution, those other states could also get benefits, just as everybody can get specific earmarks, thereby making them general.

Of course, the Louisiana Purchase violated the Constitution's ignorant decree against Executive Action on treaties also. The Constitution has always been an obstruction to our Manifest Destiny and we're suffering from the aftereffects of 200 years of its crippling minimalism.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Selfists Get Banished From Society Unless They Control Its Mind

So you hate the Constitution. Your last statement proves that you also don't understand it.

If you say so. But you don't understand what you're saying; you're mindlessly parroting your indoctrination by the few self-obsessed elitists who benefit from that anti-democratic manifesto. Such squawking makes you feel like you're as powerful as they are, but they are playing you for a sucker. Fly free from the cage they've put you in.

 

[Zake]

Earmarks are taxpayer's loot that the Congress assigns to particular NOUNDS!

Now, tell the class WHY Congress cannot EARMARK particular money to particular places constitutionally.

Then Tell the class WHAT by your interpretation of the general welfare clause Congress CAN'T do in the name of the general welfare. So far you've seriously failed at that request.

I'll pass if you want to ask the question being a dick. If it's a serious question, try again. Also, I don't know what your "nounds" comment means

 

[Robo]

You quote that bitter squirt Jemmy Madison as if his word were final and infallible. Again, that's theocratic. We don't have to accept a Constitution written by an anti-democratic snob like him, so his fatcat fatwas are irrelevant.

Actually, I think you're irrelevant! I'll take Madison over you every day and twice on Sundays.

 

[Robo]

More self-contradiction by Constitutionazis. Your statement is an admission that the Constitution was weakly designed if it could so easily be perverted.

Judging by the majoritie's cluelessness, apathy and lack of political attention, I'd say that any gang of ideological partisans in majority in government can easily violate any Constitution or principle of honest government.

But doublethink (cognitive dissonance) is common with bossy totalitarians. You won't debate unless we first genuflect before your Framers' altar and kiss their sacred-cow document.

What's to debate? I provide constitutional text to back my arguments, and you provide hogwash, accusations and just plain garbage! You don't have a rational argument in you! You're a phony bullshitter!

 

[Robo]

Jefferson, like all great Presidents, knew better when taking action. The Louisiana Purchase was not for the general welfare, but only for those in a position to settle those territories. Without the obstacle of a Constitution, those other states could also get benefits, just as everybody can get specific earmarks, thereby making them general.

Jefferson knew full well he needed a constitutional amendment to make the Louisiana Purchase and privately said so to his closes comrades but used the excuse that time was not available for such as the deal was too good to ignore haste.

Of course, the Louisiana Purchase violated the Constitution's ignorant decree against Executive Action on treaties also. The Constitution has always been an obstruction to our Manifest Destiny and we're suffering from the aftereffects of 200 years of its crippling minimalism.

We are suffering from 200 plus years of constitutional violations that installed a huge bloated incompetent federal government a nation of bribery for the bribed, by the bribery and of the bribery!

 

[Robo]

I'll pass if you want to ask the question being a dick. If it's a serious question, try again. Also, I don't know what your "nounds" comment means

You'll pass because to attempt to answer the question is an exercise in futility! An exercise in futility because you assertion does exactly what Jefferson said it would do. It would allow the Congress to pass any law they chose in the name of the general welfare and reduce the intire Constitution to a single clause, the "general welfare clause." Your opinion is absurd!

 

[Zake]

You'll pass because to attempt to answer the question is an exercise in futility! An exercise in futility because you assertion does exactly what Jefferson said it would do. It would allow the Congress to pass any law they chose in the name of the general welfare and reduce the intire Constitution to a single clause, the "general welfare clause." Your opinion is absurd!

I'll pass because you insisted on asking the question being a dick. I offered if you wanted to ask the question without being a dick to answer it. You self identified what you are

 

[Robo]

I'll pass because you insisted on asking the question being a dick. I offered if you wanted to ask the question without being a dick to answer it. You self identified what you are

Yeah Right! You can't answer the question because there is no rational excuse for a general welfare clause that whenever Congress can get a majority to pass anything they want in the name of the general welfare makes everything else in the Constitution null and void. They could pass a law to repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate every gun in America in the name of the general welfare. They could pass a law to ship every black and Hispanic back to Africa and Mexico in the name of the general welfare.

Your absurd proposition that Congress can spend money on education and healthcare in the name of the general welfare "constitutionally" is simply a blank check for a federal government dictatorship and willful ignorance of the Constitution and that's exactly what's going on today. The federal Department Of Education has no constitutional authorization to mandate anything educational or spend taxpayer's money on education. Obama-Care has no constitutional authority to be involved in, and spend taxpayer's money on healthcare insurance. The Constitution makes it perfectly clear that those powers are reserved to the States and the people.

 

[MAGA MAN]

The point is, in order for the feds to finance the nation's infrastructure constitutionally, they'd have to designate even your driveway as being a post road and Madison didn't agree with that. He feared that Congress would spend money on any roads as post roads in the name of the general welfare. If he thought the post roads clause already covered every road, he'd never bothered to argue Congress would spend on every road, bridge and tunnel in the name of the general welfare, now would he?

Now you're being obtuse. Madison would have argued that a post road is one that is necessary for trade bteween the states. That includes the current federal road system.

 

[Zake]

Where in the Constitution are "earmarks" prohibited?

Did someone say you're Canadian? That would be make sense as to why you don't understand our Constitution. The 10th Amendment is the answer to your question. Earmarking money to any citizen is not authorized, therefore it is prohibited.

Only programs like education that benefit all Americans are authorized by the "general" welfare. General means everyone, the "general" public

 

[Robo]

Now you're being obtuse. Madison would have argued that a post road is one that is necessary for trade bteween the states. That includes the current federal road system.

Actually Madison questioned Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase without a constitutional amendment that Jefferson admitted needed an amendment. As author of the Constitution Madison's prime agenda was to assure that the Central Government was limited to only those things that the States and or the people couldn't do for themselves. Certainly, Madison would have never agreed that the feds could justify constructing or repairing national infrastructure in the name of the "post roads" clause. I believe he would have argued that the States had sole authority to construct all roads and that Congress had only the power to designate which roads would be post roads, in my opinion.

 

[Robo]

Did someone say you're Canadian? That would be make sense as to why you don't understand our Constitution. The 10th Amendment is the answer to your question. Earmarking money to any citizen is not authorized, therefore it is prohibited.

Only programs like education that benefit all Americans are authorized by the "general" welfare. General means everyone, the "general" public

Then surely you'll explain "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, Duties, Impost and Excises to pay the Debts, and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States," right? You'll tell the class how Congress would do that without "earmarking" the funds for the National Defense and the general Welfare, right?

Actually it's the job of the Congress to "EARMARK" funds for those powers designated to the Congress by the Constitution.

Apparently you believe that an "earmark" is only those things the feds spend money on trhat ARE NOT delegated to the Congress by the Constitution.

You prove without a doubt that your understanding of earmarks and the Constitution in general is severely limited.

 

[stoned]

Who's responsibility do you say infrastructure is? Make a constitutional argument.

From the preamble - ....................." promote the general Welfare..................."

Article 1, Section 8....................".......................... [FONT=&quot]and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;.................."

You will notice that the words "promote" and "provide" are used and it is right along side of defense. Covers a lot of ground.

But what did those 18th century dudes know anyay?[/FONT]

 

[Zake]

Then surely you'll explain "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, Duties, Impost and Excises to pay the Debts, and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States," right? You'll tell the class how Congress would do that without "earmarking" the funds for the National Defense and the general Welfare, right?

Actually it's the job of the Congress to "EARMARK" funds for those powers designated to the Congress by the Constitution.

Apparently you believe that an "earmark" is only those things the feds spend money on trhat ARE NOT delegated to the Congress by the Constitution.

You prove without a doubt that your understanding of earmarks and the Constitution in general is severely limited.

Ask again without saying dick commentary like "tell the class." I'm glad to have a debate with you. Not interested in helping you puff up your penis

 

[MAGA MAN]

Then surely you'll explain "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, Duties, Impost and Excises to pay the Debts, and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States," right? You'll tell the class how Congress would do that without "earmarking" the funds for the National Defense and the general Welfare, right?

Actually it's the job of the Congress to "EARMARK" funds for those powers designated to the Congress by the Constitution.

Apparently you believe that an "earmark" is only those things the feds spend money on trhat ARE NOT delegated to the Congress by the Constitution.

You prove without a doubt that your understanding of earmarks and the Constitution in general is severely limited.

My opinion is different, as already stated.

 

[Robo]

Ask again without saying dick commentary like "tell the class." I'm glad to have a debate with you. Not interested in helping you puff up your penis

Complaining about my style isn't answering the questions or making a rational argument. Just be honest, tell the truth and admit you have no rational arguments. You don't know what an "earmark" is even after I defined it for you several times. An earmark is a constitutional power of the Congress to pay the debts of the United States and provide for the constitutional powers designated by the Constitution as a power of the federal government. i.e. an earmark is a "designated" amount of money designated by law for a specific purpose.

 

[Robo]

From the preamble - ....................." promote the general Welfare..................."

Article 1, Section 8....................".......................... [FONT="]and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;.................."

You will notice that the words "promote" and "provide" are used and it is right along side of defense. Covers a lot of ground.

But what did those 18th century dudes know anyay?[/FONT]

Read Amendment 10. Infrastructure is the power and responsibility of the States. There's no constitutional authority for the feds to spend federal taxpayer dollars on building and or repairing roads and bridges.

 

[Robo]

My opinion is different, as already stated.

I know, you don't believe as Madison did that the feds should be limited and only have the powers to do what the States and or the people couldn't do for themselves. SAD!