Founders And The General Welfare

[Robo]

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?

Both! The Declaration is the reasoned principles that make the Constitution possible. Without the Declaration the Constitution as we know it would not exist.

2) How did the Bill of Rights come about? From a creator or by ratification by the states?

Both! The Bill Of Rights was “created” by the men that “created” it, i.e. its “creators” and it was ratified by the States. That’s how the Bill Of Rights “came about” commie!

3) Can you name a single case ruled on by SCOTUS where the Declaration, rather than the Constitution, was the basis for their decision?

Most every case decided by the Supreme Court has been decided by a majority of politically ideological partisan hacks appointed by other politically ideological partisan hacks and confirmed by more politically partisan ideological hacks, who are supposed to be deciding cases of written law to decide if the laws concerned meet constitutional muster as guaranteed by the fact that the Declaration assured that the Constitution exist.

4) Do the words "General Welfare" appear in the Constitution or not?

Only as a representation of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government. The general welfare clause in the Constitution is NOT a single separate enumerated power of the federal government because if it were it alone would reduce the entire Constitution to a single clause which is insane and would have been a ridiculous and totally absurd waste of ink and paper as common sense and honesty dictates. And furthermore commie, you cannot refute those facts.

5) Do the words "unalienable rights", "Natural Rights" or "creator" appear in the Constitution or not?

All rights are declared Unalienable by the original document, The Declaration Of Independence which is the first chapter of the founding documents that made all other following founding documents possible and sanctified by all honest honorable patriotic Americans as the first chapter in Independence, Freedom, Personal Responsibility life and the pursuit of happiness and the rule of all American law.

6) Are any rights not subject to limitation?

I can wait

Only when overruled by the committing of a crime.

You're a stupid low-life asshole commie!

 

[domer76]

Both! The Declaration is the reasoned principles that make the Constitution possible. Without the Declaration the Constitution as we know it would not exist.




Both! The Bill Of Rights was “created” by the men that “created” it, i.e. its “creators” and it was ratified by the States. That’s how the Bill Of Rights “came about” commie!




Most every case decided by the Supreme Court has been decided by a majority of politically ideological partisan hacks appointed by other politically ideological partisan hacks and confirmed by more politically partisan ideological hacks, who are supposed to be deciding cases of written law to decide if the laws concerned meet constitutional muster as guaranteed by the fact that the Declaration assured that the Constitution exist.




Only as a representation of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government. The general welfare clause in the Constitution is NOT a single separate enumerated power of the federal government because if it were it alone would reduce the entire Constitution to a single clause which is insane and would have been a ridiculous and totally absurd waste of ink and paper as common sense and honesty dictates. And furthermore commie, you cannot refute those facts.




All rights are declared Unalienable by the original document, The Declaration Of Independence which is the first chapter of the founding documents that made all other following founding documents possible and sanctified by all honest honorable patriotic Americans as the first chapter in Independence, Freedom, Personal Responsibility life and the pursuit of happiness and the rule of all American law.




Only when overruled by the committing of a crime.

You're a stupid low-life asshole commie!

1) WRONG. The Declaration is NOT law. It's a document written to outline why we told the Brits we are no longer one of them.
2) RIGHT. The Bill of Rights was written by men and passed by legislative means. Nothing "pre-existing", "natural" or "God-given" about them.
3) WRONG. A non-answer is a WRONG answer. Diversion tactics don't cut it.
4) WRONG. "General Welfare" is in the same sentence as "Common Defence" and nobody argues the latter. Nor, as proven before, does it reduce the Constitution to a single clause.
5) WRONG. Because the Declaration says so, does not make it true. The Rights you refer to were not enjoyed by a significant portion of the population, which made them lies when the ink was wet.
6) RIGHT. Rights can be alienated and abrogated by law. None are unalienable.

Congrats, cretin! Two correct. Two more than I expected, you McCarthyist moron!

 

[canceled.2021.1]

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]

Is there a point you would like to make?

 

[Ralph]

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.

Wrong....THE PEOPLE/STATES are the SUPREME law of the land, as it was THE PEOPLE who drafted and ratified the Constitution that holds the only authority that can LEGALLY change or add words to the Constitution.

And how does the constitution prohibit the Declaration from being a legal document that was used as legal precedence in drafting other legal acts...such as some of the Bill of the Rights themselves...as you are suggesting? The Declaration is of historical importance because it was the very first legal act legislated by the United States of America (the US preexisted the US CONSTITUTION by at least a decade)....and nothing in the constitution prohibits that first legal document from establishing the very essence of the rule of law to be followed in establishing the United States as a free, independent self governed REPUBLIC....that looks to the transcending authority of a universal Governor (GOD) as the ultimate authority for its very existence.

Words like a Wall of Separation, Freedom FROM religion instead of Freedom OF religion...etc., Have been added or changed with no authority to do as much. If that authority exists....show us that authority in the Constitution itself, as its you that declares it to be SUPREME. That authority to change the constitution void of representation does not exist within the text of the Constitution. If it does...show us the Article, Section and Clause. FYI: Welfare does not rescind other clear unambiguous text found within the constitution that grants THE PEOPLE the right to change or amend the Constitution itself....nor does it grant to the court the authority to circumvent the process of republican representation.

FYI: The constitution is not some "magic" document, it was made to change and adapt to a changing society...but that change was not authorized to be engaged by non-elected civil servants via a self professed OPINION....the constitution was designed to be changed by a 3/4 ratification process by THE PEOPLE..i.e., the STATES which drafted and ratified the CONSTITUTION in the first place and only THE PEOPLE through republican representation can AMEND or CHANGE words...or add words to the Constitution.

To suggest that the Federal Government....a branch thereof....the Supreme Court holds the authority to change a legal document that has placed limits upon the power and scope of a Central Federalist Government...by a simple opinion based more on politics than the actual words found within that document is more than absurd, its treasonous to the core....its SOCIAL RADICALISM....and totally ignores the words found in the Constitution that guarantees this nation remain a Republic at every level of government. Article 4 Section 4 Clause 1.

Have you ever read or studied the Federalist Papers.....before offering an opinion in direct contradiction of those who actually drafted the Constitution and following Amendments?

 

[domer76]

And how does the constitution prohibit the Declaration from being a legal document that was used as legal precedence in drafting other legal acts...such as the Bill of the Rights themselves...as you are suggesting? The Declaration is of historical importance because it was the very first legal act legislated by the United States of America....and nothing in the constitution prohibits that first legal document from establishing the very essence of the rule of law to be followed in establishing the United States as a free, independent self governed REPUBLIC....that looks to the transcending authority of a universal Governor as the ultimate authority for its very existence.

What prevents the Declaration from being law? Because it's NOT LAW, moron!

Historical significance? Yep. So what? So was the Northwest Ordinance.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You've not refuted a single claim I've made

you've not proven yours. you've got an idea about the constitution that is so foreign from what the framers intended it to be, that you can't be taken seriously on the subject anymore.

 

[domer76]

Wrong....THE PEOPLE/STATES are the SUPREME law of the land, as it was THE PEOPLE who drafted and ratified the Constitution that holds the only authority that can LEGALLY change or add words to the Constitution.

And how does the constitution prohibit the Declaration from being a legal document that was used as legal precedence in drafting other legal acts...such as some of the Bill of the Rights themselves...as you are suggesting? The Declaration is of historical importance because it was the very first legal act legislated by the United States of America (the US preexisted the US CONSTITUTION by at least a decade)....and nothing in the constitution prohibits that first legal document from establishing the very essence of the rule of law to be followed in establishing the United States as a free, independent self governed REPUBLIC....that looks to the transcending authority of a universal Governor (GOD) as the ultimate authority for its very existence.

Words like a Wall of Separation, Freedom FROM religion instead of Freedom OF religion...etc., Have been added or changed with no authority to do as much. If that authority exists....show us that authority in the Constitution itself, as its you that declares it to be SUPREME. That authority to change the constitution void of representation does not exist within the text of the Constitution. If it does...show us the Article, Section and Clause. FYI: Welfare does not rescind other clear unambiguous text found within the constitution that grants THE PEOPLE the right to change or amend the Constitution itself....nor does it grant to the court the authority to circumvent the process of republican representation.

FYI: The constitution is not some "magic" document, it was made to change and adapt to a changing society...but that change was not authorized to be engaged by non-elected civil servants via a self professed OPINION....the constitution was designed to be changed by a 3/4 ratification process by THE PEOPLE..i.e., the STATES which drafted and ratified the CONSTITUTION in the first place and only THE PEOPLE through republican representation can AMEND or CHANGE words...or add words to the Constitution.

To suggest that the Federal Government....a branch thereof....the Supreme Court holds the authority to change a legal document that has placed limits upon the power and scope of a Central Federalist Government...by a simple opinion based more on politics than the actual words found within that document is more than absurd, its treasonous to the core....its SOCIAL RADICALISM....and totally ignores the words found in the Constitution that guarantees this nation remain a Republic at every level of government. Article 4 Section 4 Clause 1.

Article VI, Clause 2, cretin.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"

I schooled you on the other stuff, moron. Find where the Declaration has been used by SCOTUS to base any decision.

 

[domer76]

you've not proven yours. you've got an idea about the constitution that is so foreign from what the framers intended it to be, that you can't be taken seriously on the subject anymore.

I see you've avoided answering the 6 questions I posed.

From your posts, I can see you haven't a clue as to what the framers intended. You haven't a clue about the difference between the Declaration and the Constitution.

Unthinking robots like you keep invoking the 'unalienable rights', 'natural rights' or 'endowed by a creator' bullshit as if it's the same truth as a 'virgin birth'. I challenge you to identify those rights and you come up empty every time. Just your predictable ad hom "oh huh" crap.

Those rights you possess? This first 10 called the Bill of Rights? They were inventions by a legislative body of men and ratified by the states to become law. Nothing pre-existing, natural or something endowed by a creator.

That Declaration you seem to think is law? It was a statement to the Brits that we were now independent of them and why we were taking that action. It was signed, not ratified.

Go back and take a rudimentary history lesson so you can tell the difference between the two, which is the actual law and which is not. It gets wearisome to have to explain it to you time and again.

 

[Ralph]

Article VI, Clause 2, cretin.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"

I schooled you on the other stuff, moron. Find where the Declaration has been used by SCOTUS to base any decision.

BS. There is no authority in anything that you presented that declares or grants SCOTUS the authority to add or change words within the Constitution. What? does Article 2 ....CLAUSE "what" of what Section.....rescind the Fact that ALL LAW must come through republican representation found within that same Document, the Constitution? Of course it does not. You are attempting to deflect by blowing ignorant smoke out your ass as Article 5 still exists with its clear unambiguous text.

Congress through republican representation is the only body that can change or amend the US CONSTITUTION....and its authority stems from THE PEOPLE as the STATES can amend the Constitution via a 3/4 majority among them....the supposed Supreme law of the land is subject to the will of the PEOPLE...not the courts at any level. No law can be made from the bench...period.

The courts sole duty is to consider law (review) and compare that law to the Constitution itself...not add words that don't exist or change words by opinion only void of representation by the people et.al., The Constitution is the final arbitration....not those appointed (not elected) civil servants that adds words that have never existed. The court REVIEWS law....there is no authority to change/amend existing Constitutional text. The law that is under review is that law which is compared to the constitution...not the Constitution itself as it can come under review only via authority of a Republican Congress and its representative authority granted by THE STATES/PEOPLE.

 

[domer76]

BS. There is no authority in anything that you presented that declares or grants SCOTUS the authority to add or change words within the Constitution. What does Article 2 ....CLAUSE "what" of what Section.....rescind the Fact that ALL LAW must come through republican representation found with that same Article? Of course it does not. You are attempting to deflect by blowing ignorant smoke out your ass as Article 5 still exists with its clear unambiguous text.

Congress through republican representation is the only body that can change or amend the US CONSTITUTION....and its authority stems from THE PEOPLE as the STATES can amend the Constitution via a 3/4 majority among them....the supposed Supreme law of the land is subject to the will of the PEOPLE...not the courts at any level. No law can be made from the bench...period. The courts sole duty is to consider law and compare that law to the Constitution itself...not add words that don't exist or change words by opinion only void of representation by the people et.al.,

Your reading comprehension sucks, Ralphie. Stick to quoting scripture. You're better at that.

I never said they could change words, idiot. I challenged you to find a single SCOTUS decision based on the Declaration.

As usual, you have failed. At least you're consistent.

 

[Ralph]

Your reading comprehension sucks, Ralphie. Stick to quoting scripture. You're better at that.

I never said they could change words, idiot. I challenged you to find a single SCOTUS decision based on the Declaration.

As usual, you have failed. At least you're consistent.

Right....the Bill of Rights don't count as precedence? Really? And how does any modern opinion by any court prove that the Declaration of the United States is not a legal document that "can be" used as precedence? It does not, that's the false premise you are presenting in order to defend Social Radicalism. But if you insist Take the pursuit of personal happiness guaranteed in the Declaration....(US SUPREME COURT case 262 us 90 1923), Meyer v. Nebraska is one of many that stems from the STATE level in using the Declaration as legal precedence....hell, both Va. and Mass. used the declaration as precedence in drafting their respective constitutions. Read the closing Majority opinion based upon the pursuit of happiness of all free men.

Right....same old process.....that signals that you just lost your ass. The personal Ad Hominem attack. Shall we continue to wait on you to find what does not exist....the authority of a federal court at any level to change or amend the constitution via personal opinion? Where is the Article Section and Clause that grants any Federal Court the right to REVIEW THE CONSTITUTION and change it by adding or taking away words? If you can't present that information as evidence...then consider your ass kicked...I DO.

You have been visiting to many LEFT WING communist (ACLU) sites and presenting their propaganda as legal advise.

 

[domer76]

Right....the Bill of Rights don't count as precedence? Really? And how does any modern opinion by any court prove that the Declaration of the United States is not a legal document that "can be" used as precedence? It does not, that's the false premise you are presenting in order to defend Social Radicalism. But if you insist....1923, Meyer v. Nebraska is one of many that stems from the STATE level in using the Declaration as legal precedence....hell, both Va. and Mass. used the declaration as precedence in drafting their respective constitutions.

Right....same old process.....that signals that you just lost your ass. The personal Ad Hominem attack. Shall we continue to wait on you to find what does not exist....the authority of a federal court at any level to change or amend the constitution via personal opinion? Where is the Article Section and Clause that grants any Federal Court the right to REVIEW THE CONSTITUTION and change it by adding or taking away words? If you can't present that information as evidence...then consider your ass kicked...I DO.

Dismissed, moron. You post rambling bullshit.

 

[Ralph]

Dismissed, moron. You post rambling bullshit.

Right....there are no US SUPREME COURT majority decisions based upon the Declaration of Independence and its pursuit of happiness to all free men. US SUPREME COURT 262 US 90 in 1923, does not exist. Its rambling when your ass is proven WRONG and IGNORANT to history actual. Go figure. The left wing personal ad hominem attack once again sounds the final buzzer. LMAO

You can't defeat facts with Bull Shit. The truth is the truth whether or not you reject that truth. I never argue about anything that can't be documented and tested for truth. That's why I am here to point out the lengths that LIARS will go in spreading their lies as facts. When the facts are presented they always RUN shouting ad hominem insults over their left shoulder. I wonder why?

 

[Robo]

1) WRONG. The Declaration is NOT law. It's a document written to outline why we told the Brits we are no longer one of them.
2) RIGHT. The Bill of Rights was written by men and passed by legislative means. Nothing "pre-existing", "natural" or "God-given" about them.
3) WRONG. A non-answer is a WRONG answer. Diversion tactics don't cut it.
4) WRONG. "General Welfare" is in the same sentence as "Common Defence" and nobody argues the latter. Nor, as proven before, does it reduce the Constitution to a single clause.
5) WRONG. Because the Declaration says so, does not make it true. The Rights you refer to were not enjoyed by a significant portion of the population, which made them lies when the ink was wet.
6) RIGHT. Rights can be alienated and abrogated by law. None are unalienable.

Congrats, cretin! Two correct. Two more than I expected, you McCarthyist moron!

As with everything commie, you have zero comprehension, honesty or appreciation of inalienable rights. You're just another progressive neo-communist believing and promoting BIG government as your "CREATOR" and issuer of whatever rights you think you have. You imagine you are inferior to the likes of Donald Trump and the Republican Congress. You believe they tell you what rights you may exhibit. You're owned by the crooks in Washington. You have no written guarantee of anything because you believe the "welfare" clause gives the Republican controlled Congress the right over you to do anything they want to you in the name of the general welfare. You're a fucking pawn, a BIG government shill, a fucking looser moron.

 

[domer76]

As with everything commie, you have zero comprehension, honesty or appreciation of inalienable rights. You're just another progressive neo-communist believing and promoting BIG government as your "CREATOR" and issuer of whatever rights you think you have. You imagine you are inferior to the likes of Donald Trump and the Republican Congress. You believe they tell you what rights you may exhibit. You're owned by the crooks in Washington. You have no written guarantee of anything because you believe the "welfare" clause gives the Republican controlled Congress the right over you to do anything they want to you in the name of the general welfare. You're a fucking pawn, a BIG government shill, a fucking looser moron.

lol

Did they run out of tin foil at the supermarket?

 

[Robo]

lol

Did they run out of tin foil at the supermarket?

Another silly childish reply from the forum progressive neo-communist who is totally devoid of any rational arguments, opinions and honesty.

 

[domer76]

Another silly childish reply from the forum progressive neo-communist who is totally devoid of any rational arguments, opinions and honesty.

You're an outdated vestige of the 50s, you senile fuck. A McCarthyist has-been. Empty your drool cup, fucktard, and go back to bed. Commie? lol

 

[Robo]

You're an outdated vestige of the 50s, you senile fuck. A McCarthyist has-been. Empty your drool cup, fucktard, and go back to bed. Commie? lol

The general welfare clause is not a stand alone enumerated power of the Congress. If it were, it would reduce the entire Constitution to a single clause. The Constitution would have been a magnificent waste of paper and ink. Little neo-communist here YOU commie cannot refute that fact with any rationality or honesty. All you can do commie is puke childish laughable insults. You're a loser commie.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

The general welfare clause is not a stand alone enumerated power of the Congress. If it were, it would reduce the entire Constitution to a single clause. The Constitution would have been a magnificent waste of paper and ink. Little neo-communist here YOU commie cannot refute that fact with any rationality or honesty. All you can do commie is puke childish laughable insults. You're a loser commie.

This

 

[domer76]

The general welfare clause is not a stand alone enumerated power of the Congress. If it were, it would reduce the entire Constitution to a single clause. The Constitution would have been a magnificent waste of paper and ink. Little neo-communist here YOU commie cannot refute that fact with any rationality or honesty. All you can do commie is puke childish laughable insults. You're a loser commie.

You're a fucking idiot, McCarthyist. Nobody is saying what you claim. Your addled mind has twisted posts into something they are not.

Empty the drool cup and the bed pan, fool. Go back to bed.