Founders And The General Welfare

[evince]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Road

The National Road (also known as the Cumberland Road)[1] was the first major improved highway in the United States built by the federal government. Built between 1811 and 1837, the 620-mile (1,000*km) road connected the Potomac and Ohio Rivers and was a main transport path to the West for thousands of settlers. When rebuilt in the 1830s, it became the second U.S. road surfaced with the macadam process pioneered by Scotsman John Loudon McAdam.[2]
Construction began heading west in 1811 at Cumberland, Maryland, on the Potomac River.[3] After the Financial Panic of 1837 and the resulting economic depression, congressional funding ran dry and construction was stopped at Vandalia, Illinois, the territorial capital of the Illinois Territory, 63 miles (101*km)[4] northeast of St. Louis across the Mississippi River.
The road has also been referred to as the Cumberland Turnpike, the Cumberland–Brownsville Turnpike (or Road or Pike), the Cumberland Pike, the National Pike, and the National Turnpike.[citation needed]
Today, much of the alignment is followed by U.S. Route 40, with various portions bearing the Alternate U.S. Route 40 designation, or various state-road numbers (such as Maryland Route 144 for several sections between Baltimore and Cumberland).
In 2002, the full road, including extensions east to Baltimore and west to St. Louis, was designated the Historic National Road, an All-American Road.[5]

 

[Abatis]

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.

It is forced now to argue against SCOTUS . . . It asked for a legitimate statement that unalienable rights are represented in the Bill of Rights, I gave it one from an entity that possesses much more expertise and authority than me.

(I do not know how dormer76 gender identifies; I do not want to insult it by using the wrong pronoun)

 

[evince]

keep in mind clowns many of the founders were still alive back then

 

[evince]

hey douchebags


I just murdered your agreement with FACTS


poor bots

 

[SmarterthanYou]

it is the height of absolute stupidity to believe that the founders would create a LIMITED federal government and then give them a clause that lets them do anything they want.

 

[evince]

accept that those quotes you smucks use from then founders were selectively fed to your stupid ass from your handlers


they are part of the ARGUEMENTS the founders made while deciding how to form our constitution.



the end result is not in your stupid ass interpitations


which makes you dumb fucks anti constitutionalists

 

[Ralph]

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??

Its more likely that SCOTUS is controlled by extreme radicals, the very reason for the dog and phony show every time a seat opens up. SCOTUS is filled with the best extremist lawyers that money can purchase. SCOTUS does not comply with the Constitution, and its been that way since the Roosevelt Court of the 30s. that used the Court to bybass congress in order to implement his New Communist Deal. This nation is no longer a Constitutional Republic its a Oligarchical Totalitarian State ruled by "non-elected" lawyers with life time appointments that self confess to have the authority to change/amend the constitution via opinion void of representation.

 

[domer76]

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)

Sorry to inform you that every right has its limitations and has been alienated at one time or another. So, no. Not fully retained. Original? Whatever that means.

My allegiance to 20th century communication? Holy shit, that's hilarious! It appears you wish to remain in the 18th Century.

 

[domer76]

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.

Hey, you finally got it right! Find a SCOTUS decision based on the Declaration, pal.

Which right do you want to discuss, idiot? Your "natural ones"?. (laughing) Give me a list of your natural and inalienable rights, moron, and I'll show you how the're neither natural nor unalienable.

If you can.

 

[domer76]

It is forced now to argue against SCOTUS . . . It asked for a legitimate statement that unalienable rights are represented in the Bill of Rights, I gave it one from an entity that possesses much more expertise and authority than me.

(I do not know how dormer76 gender identifies; I do not want to insult it by using the wrong pronoun)

Identify one right that has not been alienated.

 

[domer76]

it is the height of absolute stupidity to believe that the founders would create a LIMITED federal government and then give them a clause that lets them do anything they want.

Ignorant fucktard. They can't do "anything they want"? Have you missed everything in this thread?

 

[Ralph]

Hey, you finally got it right! Find a SCOTUS decision based on the Declaration, pal.

Which right do you want to discuss, idiot? Your "natural ones"?. (laughing) Give me a list of your natural and inalienable rights, moron, and I'll show you how the're neither natural nor unalienable.

If you can.

"If" the Declaration is not a precedence establishing "legal document"....then, We the People are still living under the thumb of Common British Law.....and the Constitution and any opinion from SCOTUS is moot when compared to British Law. When representatives of the English Government signed the Treaty of Paris in 1783....that act made the Declaration of Independence not only a legal document but established it as legal precedence.

Since when is a Judge not allowed to use established law as a precedent? As far as the Declaration of Independence not being used as "precedence"....apparently you have never read the 3rd, 4th, and 6th Article's of the States Bill of Rights commonly known as Constitutional Amendments. And.....the question remains, if the declaration can be used as precedence in drafting amendments to the Constitution, why can't it be used as precedence used to defend the Constitution itself as the 3rd, 4th, and 6th amendments are a part of the Constitution?

https://www.billofrightsinstitue.org/founding-documents/declaration-of-independence/

 

[evince]

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

this proves what the founders meant asshole


it meant they didnt agree with your in sane theories

 

[domer76]

"If" the Declaration is not a precedence establishing "legal document"....then, We the People are still living under the thumb of Common British Law.....and the Constitution and any opinion from SCOTUS is moot when compared to British Law. When representatives of the English Government signed the Treaty of Paris in 1783....that act made the Declaration of Independence not only a legal document but established it as legal precedence.

Since when is a Judge not allowed to use established law as a precedent?

I don't know how many times or how many ways I have to repeat this:

The Constitution is the supreme LAW of the land. The Declaration is NOT.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

domer and evince are classic examples of those who are absolutely paralyzed with fear over the freedoms of others and the harm that it could potentially cause them. This is why they argue against unalienable, natural, and fundamental rights so that they can rely upon 'government' to tell them what they can and cannot do, and even more important, that they can use the force of government to make others act in as peaceful and non violent manner as makes them feel comfortable.

 

[domer76]

domer and evince are classic examples of those who are absolutely paralyzed with fear over the freedoms of others and the harm that it could potentially cause them. This is why they argue against unalienable, natural, and fundamental rights so that they can rely upon 'government' to tell them what they can and cannot do, and even more important, that they can use the force of government to make others act in as peaceful and non violent manner as makes them feel comfortable.

lol

When did you get your degree in psychiatry and psychology, cretin? And obtain your ability to read minds? You should sue to get your money back on those degrees. You haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about. Situation normal for you.

Still evading my challenge, I see.

Checkmate, impotent punk.

Dismissed, motherfucker.

 

[Abatis]

Sorry to inform you that every right has its limitations and has been alienated at one time or another. So, no. Not fully retained.

I will not disagree that the federal government has exceeded the powers granted to it . . . That doesn't mean that those interests were willingly conferred to government.

Rights are the "great residuum" of all we did not grant to government. That is one of the arguments presented in opposition to adding a bill of rights to the constitution; that it was dangerous and absurd to call out that things shall not be done when no power was ever conferred to allow the government to act in those areas / interests. So, without a doubt a wide range of rights are retained but as we have seen, a wide range of illegitimate government power has been claimed to exist and actually exercised. (e.g., the topic of this thread)

That illegitimate power is exercised is not an argument that unalienable rights do not exist.

Original? Whatever that means.

Original means existing and possessed by the people before the Constitution was established and having no aspect of that interest transferred to the care and control of government.

It means "pre-existing", not created, given, created or established by the Constitution thus not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.

Some are further deemed "fundamental" by SCOTUS and are enforced against all levels of government, federal, state and subordinate organs.

My allegiance to 20th century communication? Holy shit, that's hilarious! It appears you wish to remain in the 18th Century.

What's hilarious is your reading ability and comprehension.

Not '20th century communication" . . .

I said "20th century communitarian political philosophy".

The political philosophy that places the needs of the community over the individual and the advancement of positive rights (what government must do for you) and demands the negation of negative rights (what government is forbidden to do to you).

In plainer language, you are filtering the concepts and principles of the US Constitution through a lens crafted by Marx . . . Which begets you blabbering gibberish.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

lol

When did you get your degree in psychiatry and psychology, cretin? And obtain your ability to read minds?

the same damn time you got your law degree, fucktard.

 

[domer76]

I will not disagree that the federal government has exceeded the powers granted to it . . . That doesn't mean that those interests were willingly conferred to government.

Rights are the "great residuum" of all we did not grant to government. That is one of the arguments presented in opposition to adding a bill of rights to the constitution; that it was dangerous and absurd to call out that things shall not be done when no power was ever conferred to allow the government to act in those areas / interests. So, without a doubt a wide range of rights are retained but as we have seen, a wide range of illegitimate government power has been claimed to exist and actually exercised. (e.g., the topic of this thread)

That illegitimate power is exercised is not an argument that unalienable rights do not exist.



Original means existing and possessed by the people before the Constitution was established and having no aspect of that interest transferred to the care and control of government.

It means "pre-existing", not created, given, created or established by the Constitution thus not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.

Some are further deemed "fundamental" by SCOTUS and are enforced against all levels of government, federal, state and subordinate organs.



What's hilarious is your reading ability and comprehension.

Not '20th century communication" . . .

I said "20th century communitarian political philosophy".

The political philosophy that places the needs of the community over the individual and the advancement of positive rights (what government must do for you) and demands the negation of negative rights (what government is forbidden to do to you).

In plainer language, you are filtering the concepts and principles of the US Constitution through a lens crafted by Marx . . . Which begets you blabbering gibberish.

Fuck you and your absurd Marx claim. The predictable fallback by RW morons.

Our rights are nothing more than a result of legislative action at the founding. There was nothing "pre-existing" about them. Nor are they universal. They were submitted for ratification. Some made it, some didn't. Are those that didn't pass muster equally as "pre-existent"? Of course not.

Your hero, Scalia, even recognized that your precious Second has its limitations and that does not mean that government has overstepped its authority. Who are you to deem when they do or when they don't?

The Declaration has lovely language and was a great document. But the notion that all men are created equal and had unalienable rights was a lie when the ink was still wet. And T. Jefferson knew that. He owned propert that were not equal under the law and were deprived of their liberty and pursuit of happiness. By others, their lives, too.

But, keep flailing away at what you THINK I say rather than what I DO say. Very common on this forum.

 

[domer76]

the same damn time you got your law degree, fucktard.

You've not refuted a single claim I've made, moron. I've asked multiple times for examples from you idiots, but you avoid the issue every time. I'll try again.

1) Which is the supreme law of the land? Declaration or Constitution?
2) How did the Bill of Rights come about? From a creator or by ratification by the states?
3) Can you name a single case ruled on by SCOTUS where the Declaration, rather than the Constitution, was the basis for their decision?
4) Do the words "General Welfare" appear in the Constitution or not?
5) Do the words "unalienable rights", "Natural Rights" or "creator" appear in the Constitution or not?
6) Are any rights not subject to limitation?

I can wait