Founders And The General Welfare

Robo

Robo

Verified User
"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)


"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one....(James Madison)


"With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." (James Madison)


"Our tenet ever was . . . that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action." (Thomas Jefferson)


"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." (Thomas Jefferson)
 
Let's put your theory to the test.

Why don't you make a case to the Supreme Court that Social Security, Medicare, and NASA are unconstitutional and should thus be immediately abolished.
 
Cypress said:
Let's put your theory to the test.

Why don't you make a case to the Supreme Court that Social Security, Medicare, and NASA are unconstitutional and should thus be immediately abolished.
Click to expand...

An exercise in futility. America abolished the people's Warranty/Contract/Guarantee of "limited government" almost before the ink was dry on it. FDR instituted The Socialist States Of America. The black robed comrades in the alleged "courts," have made law and determined the feds can do whatever they want as long as they attach a tax to it. National bankruptcy and a Constitutional Convention of the States is the only solution short of America a Third World Country governed by war lords.

I simply offer truths and realities for the sake of entertainment. At 80 years old, soon to be 81, the feds have little time left to fuck me over, they'll have to stick it up your ass.
 
If your theory is so strong and so sound, why in the past half century have conservative legal groups never succeeded in taking your theory to the SCOTUS and winning?

Is it because for 50 years they simply have not thought up your awesome legal arguments?

Or, is it more likely that everyone knows your theories are laughable, and indeed they would go down in flames in front of any federal court??
 
Cypress said:
If your theory is so strong and so sound, why in the past half century have conservative legal groups never succeeded in taking your theory to the SCOTUS and winning?
Click to expand...

Why not ask me a hard question? This one is soooooooo easy. Nobody even knows what a "conservative" is these days. Its just a label thrown around to see where it will stick. A true traditional classical constitutional conservative would be one who strives to "conserve" the Bill Of Rights. Who the fuck do you know as a conservative today that does that? Hell today's alleged conservatives thumb their noses at most of the Bill Of Rights and only ardently defend the 2nd amendment. Most of them hate the 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 10th.

They don't petition the Court because they want their rightist share of the spoils of crony capitalism, militarism, religious authoritarianism, corporate welfare and world wide policing and nation building.

Is it because for 50 years they simply have not thought up your awesome legal arguments?
Click to expand...

No, the arguments are easily confirmed by the literal text of the Constitution. They ignore it because they're not true conservatives, they're right-wing authoritarians and simply the flip side of the left-wing authoritarian coin.

Or, is it more likely that everyone knows your theories are laughable, and indeed they would go down in flames in front of any federal court??
Click to expand...

So you're one of the elite that speaks for "everybody," right? If my "theories" are so laughable, why don't you attempt to debunk them with constitutional text to the contrary? Oh! I bet I know, you can't, huh?
 
I will take your diatribe as a tacit admission that your theories would never see the inside of a federal court, and if they did they would be laughed out of it.

I guess it is all a big conspiracy that your whacky theories are laughed out of the mainstream legal profession, and more importantly, the courts.

Why is it wingnuts always resort to conspiracy theories when cornered?

I think we're done here.
 
Cypress said:
I will take your diatribe as a tacit admission that your theories would never see the inside of a federal court, and if they did they would be laughed out of it.
Click to expand...

You can take whatever you want, opinions are like assholes and even you qualify.

I knew you couldn't actually use constitutional text to debunk anything I say. All you can do is insinuate and opine totally devoid of rational argument and facts.


I guess it is all a big conspiracy that your whacky theories are laughed out of the mainstream legal profession, and more importantly, the courts.
Click to expand...

"The Courts" are staffed by duopoly partisan ideologues, appointed by partisan ideologues and confirmed by partisan ideologues. It's a prerequisite for capturing, protecting and defending the racket. No others need apply!

Why is it wingnuts always resort to conspiracy theories when cornered?

I think we're done here.
Click to expand...

You never got started. Your only offerings were insinuation and opinions you cannot back up with anything resembling constitutional text. You sir. are a fucking failure!

Why don't you try explaining the 10th amendment, its purpose and its authority? Why don't you try explaining why Jefferson, Madison and I are totally wrong about the general welfare clause?

Have some balls and prove I'm just a "conspiracy freak."
 
Cypress said:
If your theory is so strong and so sound, why in the past half century have conservative legal groups never succeeded in taking your theory to the SCOTUS and winning?
Click to expand...

because the courts are full of statist power mongering federal junkies bent on ignoring the constitution. They should be irrelevant, except for those who are also begging for slavery.....like you apparently.
 
Robo said:
"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)


"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one....(James Madison)


"With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." (James Madison)


"Our tenet ever was . . . that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action." (Thomas Jefferson)


"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." (Thomas Jefferson)
Click to expand...

lol

It appears your buddies lost the battle, because "General Welfare" is right there, bigger than life.

BTW idiot, Madison's "if" is bullshit. Congress is not and has never been the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare.

You got your McCarthyist ass handed to you before. You're about to have a second go at it?

Blithering idiot. Have someone drain your drool cup and go back to bed.
 
Cypress said:
Let's put your theory to the test.

Why don't you make a case to the Supreme Court that Social Security, Medicare, and NASA are unconstitutional and should thus be immediately abolished.
Click to expand...

With these myopic idiots, EVERYTHING is unconstitutional if it's not SPECIFICALLY mentioned.
 
domer76 said:
lol

Idiot, you don't have any unalienable rights. Find a single one mentioned in the Bill of Rights or Constitution or drink a big cup of shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS recognizes the rights recognized and secured in the Bill of Right as being among our --original, fully retained, never surrendered or conferred-- unalienable rights*, why can't you?

Well, I would say that your statement above proves you don't know what the term means and have no understanding of the foundational principles the term speaks to, (conferred powers and retained rights), thus you are utterly blind and incapable of recognizing / understanding / discussing intelligently the tenets of the US system.

Your ignorance is compounded by your allegiance to 20th century communitarian political philosophy which is based on the extinguishment of individual liberty / rights, so you are forced to dismiss the legitimacy of "unalienable rights", upon which the US political system is founded.




* "The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights." UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)
 
and now you'll hear his argument that the declaration is not the constitution or bill of rights. he's one of the worst idiots on here, doesn't know jack shit about rights.
 
Robo said:
"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)


"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one....(James Madison)


"With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." (James Madison)


"Our tenet ever was . . . that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action." (Thomas Jefferson)


"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." (Thomas Jefferson)
Click to expand...

why did they then decide ( after having the long discussion on how to form this country which your quotations are part of ) to NOT force it to be General welfare free.



They wrote it in idiot


and then they wrote in a POST OFFICE right into the constitution proving they decided to shown how the general welfare should be used.




the constitution its self proves you wrong russo bot



BUT no matter how many times I tell you this you NEVER remember.



it proves your a bot not programed to remember
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause



The Postal Clause was added to the Constitution to facilitate interstate communication as well as to create a source of revenue for the early United States.[2][3] There were some early disagreements as to the boundaries of the Postal Power. John Jay, in a letter to George Washington, opined that the postal service should not be burdened with the responsibility for handling newspaper delivery, and also suggested that the Post Office be placed under the supervision of the executive branch (a suggestion which later led to the creation of the Post Office Department).[4] Thomas Jefferson feared that the postal service would become a source of patronage and a waste of money. Jefferson also expressed doubt at granting Congress the power to designate post roads, as he considered road building to be a state responsibility.[5]



Jefferson got out voted fools


the rest if the founders voted it in
 
then comes the Cumberland road bit huh clowns


raising funds to build postal roads


killing libertarians dead
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top