info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Provide for the General Welfare ...
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Ray Keller
Feb 7, 2012, 9:08:05 PM2/7/12
to
Provide for the General Welfare ...
There is much confusion about what is or is not in the Constitution and how
it applies to those in service to We the People. Frankly I attribute this to
the public education of this countries youth since at least the 1950's.
Many have queried this writer on the context of the following quote;
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but
only those specifically enumerated."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Unfortunately too many people believe that "promote the general welfare"
gives Congress unlimited power to enact any legislation they want too. There
were even in Jefferson's day those that felt that way. The reason he issued
the above quoted text was to remind them it was not so.
To understand what he meant, and why, one only has to read the Constitution
and actually be able to comprehend what it says. I know that may be hard for
some that were not home-schooled, but try. It should be a fairly simple
process for the common person since it was not written by lawyers. Heck even
I can understand it!
In the Preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America.
Article I
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a
Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives.
How much more simple can that be?
Our elected representatives have only those powers granted them by We the
People in the Constitution.
If a power is not specifically enumerated then they are violating their oath
of office if, as they have been doing, assume any power without the approval
of We the People. That approval can only be granted by We the People as a
change to the Constitution its self.
Understand this;
The only powers that Congress has are specified in Sections eight and nine
of the Constitution and in some of the amendments that have been enacted.
The ".. promote the general welfare .." phrase is embodied in the PREAMBLE
to the Constitution. Provide for the general welfare is one of the reasons
for the document, not a power granted by it.
There is no power given to "promote the general welfare".
Instead of relying on public educated acquaintances to tell you what they
heard it means, get a copy of the Constitution and read it for yourself. If
you have a problem understanding it find a home-schooled student to explain
it to you.
If We the People had been vigilant and held those we elected to serve us
accountable for the last 100 years we would not be in the situation we are
today. If we really want to see who is to blame for the fix our country is
in all we have to do is look in the mirror and see our apathetic reflection
staring back at us.
There is much confusion about what is or is not in the Constitution and how
it applies to those in service to We the People. Frankly I attribute this to
the public education of this countries youth since at least the 1950's.
Many have queried this writer on the context of the following quote;
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but
only those specifically enumerated."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Unfortunately too many people believe that "promote the general welfare"
gives Congress unlimited power to enact any legislation they want too. There
were even in Jefferson's day those that felt that way. The reason he issued
the above quoted text was to remind them it was not so.
To understand what he meant, and why, one only has to read the Constitution
and actually be able to comprehend what it says. I know that may be hard for
some that were not home-schooled, but try. It should be a fairly simple
process for the common person since it was not written by lawyers. Heck even
I can understand it!
In the Preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America.
Article I
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a
Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives.
How much more simple can that be?
Our elected representatives have only those powers granted them by We the
People in the Constitution.
If a power is not specifically enumerated then they are violating their oath
of office if, as they have been doing, assume any power without the approval
of We the People. That approval can only be granted by We the People as a
change to the Constitution its self.
Understand this;
The only powers that Congress has are specified in Sections eight and nine
of the Constitution and in some of the amendments that have been enacted.
The ".. promote the general welfare .." phrase is embodied in the PREAMBLE
to the Constitution. Provide for the general welfare is one of the reasons
for the document, not a power granted by it.
There is no power given to "promote the general welfare".
Instead of relying on public educated acquaintances to tell you what they
heard it means, get a copy of the Constitution and read it for yourself. If
you have a problem understanding it find a home-schooled student to explain
it to you.
If We the People had been vigilant and held those we elected to serve us
accountable for the last 100 years we would not be in the situation we are
today. If we really want to see who is to blame for the fix our country is
in all we have to do is look in the mirror and see our apathetic reflection
staring back at us.
Sid9
Feb 7, 2012, 9:13:27 PM2/7/12
to
"Ray Keller" <LEFTARD TROLLS ARE DESPERATE> wrote in message
news:4f31d903$0$14459$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
"Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises
shall be uniform throughout the United States;..."
The USSC says that's where congress' power for general welfare comes from.
DogDiesel
Feb 7, 2012, 9:24:01 PM2/7/12
to
"Ray Keller" <LEFTARD TROLLS ARE DESPERATE> wrote in message
news:4f31d903$0$14459$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
> Provide for the General Welfare ...
> There is much confusion about what is or is not in the Constitution and
> how it applies to those in service to We the People. Frankly I attribute
> this to the public education of this countries youth since at least the
> 1950's.
>
> Many have queried this writer on the context of the following quote;
>
>
> "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but
> only those specifically enumerated."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
>
> Unfortunately too many people believe that "promote the general welfare"
> gives Congress unlimited power to enact any legislation they want too.
No the 16th and 17th ammendment did that.
> There is much confusion about what is or is not in the Constitution and
> how it applies to those in service to We the People. Frankly I attribute
> this to the public education of this countries youth since at least the
> 1950's.
>
> Many have queried this writer on the context of the following quote;
>
>
> "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but
> only those specifically enumerated."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
>
> Unfortunately too many people believe that "promote the general welfare"
> gives Congress unlimited power to enact any legislation they want too.
designed to override the Constitution. And eliminate the States 10
ammendment rights. And nearly 100 years of Liberal power grabbing Scotus
has declared that we decide what Constitutional is. Not the Constitution
itself .
>
> The only powers that Congress has are specified in Sections eight and nine
> of the Constitution and in some of the amendments that have been enacted.
>
> The ".. promote the general welfare .." phrase is embodied in the PREAMBLE
> to the Constitution. Provide for the general welfare is one of the reasons
> for the document, not a power granted by it.
>
>
> There is no power given to "promote the general welfare".
country . Hence. Social security. ok. Roads ok, Welfare . not ok.
But..... The 16th and 17th gives Congress the right to do whatever the hell
it wants.
And raise taxes that were previously ruled UNConstitutional . By Scotus.
The ammendments and Scotus fucked over the Constitutution.
The only possible solution is to created a States board that will make
sure the Scotus rules correctly.
Scotus is susposed to NOT overide the states.
Ever.
But it has.
Scout
Feb 7, 2012, 9:58:34 PM2/7/12
to
"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:jgslod$13i$1...@dont-email.me...
whole.
After all, I hardly think that any individual is "the United States".
Josh
Feb 7, 2012, 10:08:48 PM2/7/12
to
On 2/7/2012 9:58 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>>
>> Article 8 Clause 1 about general welfare:
>>
>> "Section. 8.
>> Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
>> Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
>> common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all
>> Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
>> States;..."
>>
>>
>> The USSC says that's where congress' power for general welfare comes
>> from.
>
> So, then such welfare can't apply to individuals but only to the nation
> as a whole.
>
> After all, I hardly think that any individual is "the United States".
If it is Necessary and Proper to apply to an individual as the means for
>
>>
>> Article 8 Clause 1 about general welfare:
>>
>> "Section. 8.
>> Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
>> Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
>> common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all
>> Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
>> States;..."
>>
>>
>> The USSC says that's where congress' power for general welfare comes
>> from.
>
> So, then such welfare can't apply to individuals but only to the nation
> as a whole.
>
> After all, I hardly think that any individual is "the United States".
the general welfare of the nation, that would make it constitutional.
For example, spending on education for individuals would likely benefit
the nation.
Sid9
Feb 7, 2012, 10:30:45 PM2/7/12
to
"Josh" <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:jgsp07$d8j$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
Fortunately people like scout and other RRRs don't get to make those
decisions.
It's "settled law"
It needs no further discussion. It's the law of the land
Scout
Feb 7, 2012, 10:33:28 PM2/7/12
to
news:jgsq9b$it4$1...@dont-email.me...
I see...so in the 60's there was no reason to revisit racial discrimination
because it was "settled law"?
Interesting.
because it was "settled law"?
Interesting.
F. George McDuffee
Feb 7, 2012, 11:44:31 PM2/7/12
to
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 19:08:05 -0700, "Ray Keller" <LEFTARD
TROLLS ARE DESPERATE> wrote:
>Provide for the General Welfare ...
>There is much confusion about what is or is not in the Constitution and how
>it applies to those in service to We the People. Frankly I attribute this to
>the public education of this countries youth since at least the 1950's.
>
>Many have queried this writer on the context of the following quote;
>
>
>"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but
>only those specifically enumerated."
>-- Thomas Jefferson
>
<snip>
TROLLS ARE DESPERATE> wrote:
>Provide for the General Welfare ...
>There is much confusion about what is or is not in the Constitution and how
>it applies to those in service to We the People. Frankly I attribute this to
>the public education of this countries youth since at least the 1950's.
>
>Many have queried this writer on the context of the following quote;
>
>
>"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but
>only those specifically enumerated."
>-- Thomas Jefferson
>
You can argue and cite all you want but 5 of the 9 geezers,
aka SCOTUS, determines what the Constitution means...
--
Unka' George
"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"
-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"
JohnJohnsn
Feb 7, 2012, 11:51:51 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 8:13 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> The USSC says that's where congress' power for general welfare comes from.
OK, numbnuts; explain just _where_ the United States Sentencing
>
> The USSC says that's where congress' power for general welfare comes from.
Commission (http://www.ussc.gov) "says that."
DogDiesel
Feb 8, 2012, 3:49:46 AM2/8/12
to
"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
news:jav3j7hjpo6vkr3mp...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 19:08:05 -0700, "Ray Keller" <LEFTARD
> TROLLS ARE DESPERATE> wrote:
>
>>Provide for the General Welfare ...
>>There is much confusion about what is or is not in the Constitution and
>>how
>>it applies to those in service to We the People. Frankly I attribute this
>>to
>>the public education of this countries youth since at least the 1950's.
>>
>>Many have queried this writer on the context of the following quote;
>>
>>
>>"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but
>>only those specifically enumerated."
>>-- Thomas Jefferson
>>
> <snip>
>
> You can argue and cite all you want but 5 of the 9 geezers,
> aka SCOTUS, determines what the Constitution means...
No they dont. They interpret it to comply with their agenda. Of overriding
> TROLLS ARE DESPERATE> wrote:
>
>>Provide for the General Welfare ...
>>There is much confusion about what is or is not in the Constitution and
>>how
>>it applies to those in service to We the People. Frankly I attribute this
>>to
>>the public education of this countries youth since at least the 1950's.
>>
>>Many have queried this writer on the context of the following quote;
>>
>>
>>"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but
>>only those specifically enumerated."
>>-- Thomas Jefferson
>>
> <snip>
>
> You can argue and cite all you want but 5 of the 9 geezers,
> aka SCOTUS, determines what the Constitution means...
the Constitution .
For their social engineering.
Which has nothing to do with determining what the Constitutrion means.
Everyone knows what it means.
And they are wrong.
DogDiesel
Feb 8, 2012, 4:12:40 AM2/8/12
to
> On 2/7/2012 9:58 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Article 8 Clause 1 about general welfare:
>>>
>>> "Section. 8.
>>> Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
>>> Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
>>> common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all
>>> Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
>>> States;..."
>>>
>>>
>>> The USSC says that's where congress' power for general welfare comes
>>> from.
>>
>> So, then such welfare can't apply to individuals but only to the nation
>> as a whole.
That is correct.
>>
>>>
>>> Article 8 Clause 1 about general welfare:
>>>
>>> "Section. 8.
>>> Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
>>> Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
>>> common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all
>>> Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
>>> States;..."
>>>
>>>
>>> The USSC says that's where congress' power for general welfare comes
>>> from.
>>
>> So, then such welfare can't apply to individuals but only to the nation
>> as a whole.
>>
>> After all, I hardly think that any individual is "the United States".
>
> If it is Necessary and Proper to apply to an individual as the means for
> the general welfare of the nation,
that would make it constitutional.
> For example, spending on education for individuals would likely benefit
> the nation.
DogDiesel
Feb 8, 2012, 4:13:44 AM2/8/12
to
news:jgsq9b$it4$1...@dont-email.me...
It is not. The Constitution is the law of the land.
Not USSC.
Not USSC.
Peter Franks
Feb 8, 2012, 1:36:24 PM2/8/12
to
The clause is:
"...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare..."
Note the key word "AND" (emphasis added).
That means that the power, if granted, is for defense and welfare. You
can't parse it into two separate powers.
There is no General Welfare clause.
If there were, it would have been worded as:
'...provide for the common Defence OR general Welfare...'
Jeff Strickland
Feb 8, 2012, 1:38:14 PM2/8/12
to
"Ray Keller" <LEFTARD TROLLS ARE DESPERATE> wrote in message
news:4f31d903$0$14459$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
> Provide for the General Welfare ...
It is not, "provide" the general welfare, it is PROMOTE. Provide for the
common defence, promote the general welfare.
Peter Franks
Feb 8, 2012, 1:39:07 PM2/8/12
to
Under your reading, the clause is equivalent to:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect
Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the
Debts and provide for the common Defence and
Are you suggesting that the founders were literary morons?
Peter Franks
Feb 8, 2012, 1:39:28 PM2/8/12
to
Peter Franks
Feb 8, 2012, 1:42:14 PM2/8/12
to
On 2/7/2012 8:44 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 19:08:05 -0700, "Ray Keller"<LEFTARD
> TROLLS ARE DESPERATE> wrote:
>
>> Provide for the General Welfare ...
>> There is much confusion about what is or is not in the Constitution and how
>> it applies to those in service to We the People. Frankly I attribute this to
>> the public education of this countries youth since at least the 1950's.
>>
>> Many have queried this writer on the context of the following quote;
>>
>>
>> "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but
>> only those specifically enumerated."
>> -- Thomas Jefferson
>>
> <snip>
>
> You can argue and cite all you want but 5 of the 9 geezers,
> aka SCOTUS, determines what the Constitution means...
No, they determine if it is applicable in a given situation.
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 19:08:05 -0700, "Ray Keller"<LEFTARD
> TROLLS ARE DESPERATE> wrote:
>
>> Provide for the General Welfare ...
>> There is much confusion about what is or is not in the Constitution and how
>> it applies to those in service to We the People. Frankly I attribute this to
>> the public education of this countries youth since at least the 1950's.
>>
>> Many have queried this writer on the context of the following quote;
>>
>>
>> "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but
>> only those specifically enumerated."
>> -- Thomas Jefferson
>>
> <snip>
>
> You can argue and cite all you want but 5 of the 9 geezers,
> aka SCOTUS, determines what the Constitution means...
They don't define what it means. It means what it means, and the
supreme Court is pretty dense when it comes to actually /understanding/
what it means. Just look at historical cases that are routinely
overturned based on what? /political persuasion/.
I can find no justification for such in the document.
Peter Franks
Feb 8, 2012, 1:45:07 PM2/8/12
to
On 2/8/2012 12:49 AM, DogDiesel wrote:
> "F. George McDuffee"<gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
> news:jav3j7hjpo6vkr3mp...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 19:08:05 -0700, "Ray Keller"<LEFTARD
>> TROLLS ARE DESPERATE> wrote:
>>
>>> Provide for the General Welfare ...
>>> There is much confusion about what is or is not in the Constitution and
>>> how
>>> it applies to those in service to We the People. Frankly I attribute this
>>> to
>>> the public education of this countries youth since at least the 1950's.
>>>
>>> Many have queried this writer on the context of the following quote;
>>>
>>>
>>> "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but
>>> only those specifically enumerated."
>>> -- Thomas Jefferson
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> You can argue and cite all you want but 5 of the 9 geezers,
>> aka SCOTUS, determines what the Constitution means...
>
> No they dont. They interpret it to comply with their agenda. Of overriding
> the Constitution .
They have no authority to interpret. Their authority is limited
> "F. George McDuffee"<gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
> news:jav3j7hjpo6vkr3mp...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 19:08:05 -0700, "Ray Keller"<LEFTARD
>> TROLLS ARE DESPERATE> wrote:
>>
>>> Provide for the General Welfare ...
>>> There is much confusion about what is or is not in the Constitution and
>>> how
>>> it applies to those in service to We the People. Frankly I attribute this
>>> to
>>> the public education of this countries youth since at least the 1950's.
>>>
>>> Many have queried this writer on the context of the following quote;
>>>
>>>
>>> "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but
>>> only those specifically enumerated."
>>> -- Thomas Jefferson
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> You can argue and cite all you want but 5 of the 9 geezers,
>> aka SCOTUS, determines what the Constitution means...
>
> No they dont. They interpret it to comply with their agenda. Of overriding
> the Constitution .
strictly to: adjudicating.
"Interpretation" and "dicta" are merely blather from self-serving
power-hungry old fools.
BeamMeUpScotty
Feb 8, 2012, 2:06:05 PM2/8/12
to
*foregoing powers* it doesn't create NEW powers.
That clause can not expand "who" gets welfare, when it is already
defined by the words "United States" they can use necessary and proper
to make laws for existing powers. And there is NO power to give welfare
to "the people" or to "the States"
N&P clause
["To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers"]
--
When it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there is NO
moderation. To do so is to lose the battle before it has begun.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
BeamMeUpScotty
Feb 8, 2012, 2:39:07 PM2/8/12
to
Was that settled law?
You are liable to see a civil war/revolution to stop the abuse of the
constitution by the government and Supreme Court. Progressives will be
on one side with government shills and the rest of us will probably be
forced to read up on the French Revolution to see the best way to put
the Progressive aristocratic elites on trial for their crimes against
the people, the constitution, and the nation.
It is NEVER SETTLED.
*The thing that never changes, is that everything changes*
pyjamarama
Feb 8, 2012, 2:35:38 PM2/8/12
to
On Feb 8, 2:26 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
> There is no immoral or irrational reason why the goal of a government
> wouldn't be to protect ALL citizens, under most all circumstances.
"Immoral?"
Since when did "morality" figure into the US Constitution, asshole?
And what is the source of this "morality'?
The same "morality" that compelled you to write THIS shit?
Goddamn, you're a goofy fucker, Roselles....
The Amazing Usenet Intellect of Gary 'Yoorggot" Roselles -- left-wing
sociopath and author of the following “views” on race, homosexuality
and killing government officials and teenage girls:
"She (Katherine Harris) should be at least shot" -- Gary Roselles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/msg/9448fa9e79d03c83?dmode=source
"I call Kathering[sic] Harris a nazi/fascist right wing ideologue
whore. What did we do to German nazis right wing whores?" -- Gary
Roselles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.clinton/msg/9431827dde9eb727?dmode=source
“May a real american someday have the honor of putting a bullet
between her eyes." -- Gary Roselles on B. Robertson's teenage
daughter.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/msg/346a12114c9884ee?hl=en&dmode=source
What the fuck would a dumb cocksucker like (Distinguished African-
American Scholar, Thomas) Sowell, who sits out at Stanford, never
having worked a day in his Uncle Tom life, know anything?" -- Gary
Roselles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/652f875e53203e8e?hl=en&
"Both are traitors to their race" -- Race Purist Gary Roselles on the
importance of Race Loyalty
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/90646e9b4da37793
"You actually think that placing blackskinned, white thinking people
is going to gain anything with real minorities?" -- Gary Roselles,
Racist
“Bush’s Uncle Tom Cabinet A Good Move For GOP” – Gary Roselles, Racist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/msg/1b116fa0999182fb
(see header)
"Them brown niggers need to be taken out" -- Gary Roselles, Racist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg/421a0f9263435ca4
(see header)
"He (African-American scholar Thomas Sowell) goes against his own
kind." Race loyalist Gary Roselles, insisting once again that “them
blacks” should "stick to their own kind"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/17fcf97abe2e4ee2?dmode=source
"His appointment will bridge nothing. It's apparant he's being an
uncle tom to appease voters." -- White trash, racist asshole Gary
Roselles slurs African-American Hero General Colin Powell
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/msg/3bdf04c3586323ed?dmode=source
"Group Negro Poster Pyjamarma admits to being a coconut headed coon"
-- Gary Roselles, pathetic racist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/d9ccfefc35328516?dmode=source
(see header)
"Say "yes Massa", Uncle Tom." – Vile racist Gary Roselles pathetically
mocks and slurs prominent African-American man-of-the-cloth Jesse Lee
Peterson
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/msg/ecc4d1339f7a1c79?hl=en&dmode=source
"How does a pampered, Stanford based, Scaife funded, Uncle Tom make
judgements on "the bottom", McFly?" -- Another day, another racial
slur on an educated, successful, independent black man from Gary
Roselles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/msg/67c195d05ad55e39?hl=en&dmode=source
"I consider hating RIGHT WING nazi/fascist fucks like you a God
inspired emotion."
"Hating RIGHT WINGERS is doing God's work, Dumbapropyl" -- Pure,
venomous hate-speech from "god-inspired" whackjob Gary Roselles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.clinton/msg/9431827dde9eb727?dmode=source
Yeah, there's a real fucking credible authority----Hitchens a faggot
socialist." -- Gary Roselles, “f”-bomb droppin’ rabid homophobe
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.conservatism/msg/d2ab5e412f7ed8e7?dmode=source
"You're like that kid that has just been told that's not a hot-dog
he's sucking on" -- Gary Roselles, Pedophile, admits forcing oral
copulation on a child
http://groups.google.com/group/seattle.politics/msg/fcf8198215ac03f2?as_ums
>
> Times when it did not---the nation suffered.
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:39:28 -0800, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> It needs no further discussion. It's the law of the land
>
> >But that doesn't make it RIGHT, now does it.
>
> It does.
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> It needs no further discussion. It's the law of the land
>
> >But that doesn't make it RIGHT, now does it.
>
>
> There is no immoral or irrational reason why the goal of a government
> wouldn't be to protect ALL citizens, under most all circumstances.
"Immoral?"
Since when did "morality" figure into the US Constitution, asshole?
And what is the source of this "morality'?
The same "morality" that compelled you to write THIS shit?
Goddamn, you're a goofy fucker, Roselles....
The Amazing Usenet Intellect of Gary 'Yoorggot" Roselles -- left-wing
sociopath and author of the following “views” on race, homosexuality
and killing government officials and teenage girls:
"She (Katherine Harris) should be at least shot" -- Gary Roselles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/msg/9448fa9e79d03c83?dmode=source
"I call Kathering[sic] Harris a nazi/fascist right wing ideologue
whore. What did we do to German nazis right wing whores?" -- Gary
Roselles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.clinton/msg/9431827dde9eb727?dmode=source
“May a real american someday have the honor of putting a bullet
between her eyes." -- Gary Roselles on B. Robertson's teenage
daughter.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/msg/346a12114c9884ee?hl=en&dmode=source
What the fuck would a dumb cocksucker like (Distinguished African-
American Scholar, Thomas) Sowell, who sits out at Stanford, never
having worked a day in his Uncle Tom life, know anything?" -- Gary
Roselles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/652f875e53203e8e?hl=en&
"Both are traitors to their race" -- Race Purist Gary Roselles on the
importance of Race Loyalty
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/90646e9b4da37793
"You actually think that placing blackskinned, white thinking people
is going to gain anything with real minorities?" -- Gary Roselles,
Racist
“Bush’s Uncle Tom Cabinet A Good Move For GOP” – Gary Roselles, Racist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/msg/1b116fa0999182fb
(see header)
"Them brown niggers need to be taken out" -- Gary Roselles, Racist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg/421a0f9263435ca4
(see header)
"He (African-American scholar Thomas Sowell) goes against his own
kind." Race loyalist Gary Roselles, insisting once again that “them
blacks” should "stick to their own kind"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/17fcf97abe2e4ee2?dmode=source
"His appointment will bridge nothing. It's apparant he's being an
uncle tom to appease voters." -- White trash, racist asshole Gary
Roselles slurs African-American Hero General Colin Powell
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/msg/3bdf04c3586323ed?dmode=source
"Group Negro Poster Pyjamarma admits to being a coconut headed coon"
-- Gary Roselles, pathetic racist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/d9ccfefc35328516?dmode=source
(see header)
"Say "yes Massa", Uncle Tom." – Vile racist Gary Roselles pathetically
mocks and slurs prominent African-American man-of-the-cloth Jesse Lee
Peterson
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/msg/ecc4d1339f7a1c79?hl=en&dmode=source
"How does a pampered, Stanford based, Scaife funded, Uncle Tom make
judgements on "the bottom", McFly?" -- Another day, another racial
slur on an educated, successful, independent black man from Gary
Roselles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/msg/67c195d05ad55e39?hl=en&dmode=source
"I consider hating RIGHT WING nazi/fascist fucks like you a God
inspired emotion."
"Hating RIGHT WINGERS is doing God's work, Dumbapropyl" -- Pure,
venomous hate-speech from "god-inspired" whackjob Gary Roselles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.clinton/msg/9431827dde9eb727?dmode=source
Yeah, there's a real fucking credible authority----Hitchens a faggot
socialist." -- Gary Roselles, “f”-bomb droppin’ rabid homophobe
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.conservatism/msg/d2ab5e412f7ed8e7?dmode=source
"You're like that kid that has just been told that's not a hot-dog
he's sucking on" -- Gary Roselles, Pedophile, admits forcing oral
copulation on a child
http://groups.google.com/group/seattle.politics/msg/fcf8198215ac03f2?as_ums
>
> Times when it did not---the nation suffered.
Josh Rosenbluth
Feb 8, 2012, 3:22:52 PM2/8/12
to
On Feb 8, 4:12 am, "DogDiesel" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote:
> "Josh" <u...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
nation as a whole, that strikes me as sufficient.
> "Josh" <u...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:jgsp07$d8j$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/7/2012 9:58 PM, Scout wrote:
>
> >>> Article 8 Clause 1 about general welfare:
>
> >>> "Section. 8.
> >>> Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
> >>> Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
> >>> common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all
> >>> Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
> >>> States;..."
>
> >>> The USSC says that's where congress' power for general welfare comes
> >>> from.
>
> >> So, then such welfare can't apply to individuals but only to the nation
> >> as a whole.
>
> That is correct.
>
>
>
> >> After all, I hardly think that any individual is "the United States".
>
> > If it is Necessary and Proper to apply to an individual as the means for
> > the general welfare of the nation,
>
> Then it has to be applied to ALL individuals.
I don't see why. If application to some individuals benefits the
> news:jgsp07$d8j$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/7/2012 9:58 PM, Scout wrote:
>
> >>> Article 8 Clause 1 about general welfare:
>
> >>> "Section. 8.
> >>> Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
> >>> Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
> >>> common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all
> >>> Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
> >>> States;..."
>
> >>> The USSC says that's where congress' power for general welfare comes
> >>> from.
>
> >> So, then such welfare can't apply to individuals but only to the nation
> >> as a whole.
>
> That is correct.
>
>
>
> >> After all, I hardly think that any individual is "the United States".
>
> > If it is Necessary and Proper to apply to an individual as the means for
> > the general welfare of the nation,
>
> Then it has to be applied to ALL individuals.
nation as a whole, that strikes me as sufficient.
Jeff M
Feb 8, 2012, 3:25:02 PM2/8/12
to
On 2/8/2012 1:39 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
[snip]
upset by their inability to impose their will upon the entire nation on
these sorts of issues that they would be attracted to the idea of
violent revolutionary action. Of that tiny handful, an even tinier
handful would have the will the means and the courage to engage in armed
treason, and they are doomed to fail.
What is more likely, by far, is that a tiny handful of extremists will
get enough corrupt politicians and stupid voters to think that another
constitutional convention is a way to succeed when the soap box and the
ballot box have proved unsuccessful for them and their faulty ideas.
That unique opportunity to somehow tweak or modify the system without
having to bother with more conventional means will, in term, draw the
interest of extremists of every flavor, fanatics of all kinds, religious
and other sorts of nutcases, anyone with an axe to grind over some
particular grievance, most all of whom will have nothing whatsoever in
common and no bases for any sort rational agreement or reasoned
compromise, but they will be stoked with enough money and support from
corporate and big money interests cynically hoping to manipulate the
process to their own advantage to keep the whole thing snowballing into
God knows what kind of disaster. I'm not worried at all by the
miniscule threat of violent revolution, but the idea of another
constitutional convention scares me half to death.
However, there is a path to revolution in this country. But it won't be
over anything as obscure to most people as constitutional questions; it
will have to be over issues of socioeconomic and political
disenfranchisement. A critical mass of the populace, across a wide
enough spectrum of society, may just become too alienated from our
political and economic institutions and processes to keep the whole
thing going any longer, and this may occur far faster then most people
realize is possible. It could be precipitated by any number of, or
combination of, seemingly not too significant unforeseen events, or just
by the continuation and maybe the acceleration of current trends.
Just how large and diverse that critical mass of people needs to be,
just what kinds of events may trigger popular resistance to or rejection
of governing economic and political structures, and result in
revolution, upheaval or massive reformation, and what outcomes may
emerge are interesting questions for speculation.
[snip]
> You are liable to see a civil war/revolution to stop the abuse of the
> constitution by the government and Supreme Court. Progressives will be
> on one side with government shills and the rest of us will probably be
> forced to read up on the French Revolution to see the best way to put
> the Progressive aristocratic elites on trial for their crimes against
> the people, the constitution, and the nation.
There is no "rest of us." Only a tiny handful of extremists are so
> constitution by the government and Supreme Court. Progressives will be
> on one side with government shills and the rest of us will probably be
> forced to read up on the French Revolution to see the best way to put
> the Progressive aristocratic elites on trial for their crimes against
> the people, the constitution, and the nation.
upset by their inability to impose their will upon the entire nation on
these sorts of issues that they would be attracted to the idea of
violent revolutionary action. Of that tiny handful, an even tinier
handful would have the will the means and the courage to engage in armed
treason, and they are doomed to fail.
What is more likely, by far, is that a tiny handful of extremists will
get enough corrupt politicians and stupid voters to think that another
constitutional convention is a way to succeed when the soap box and the
ballot box have proved unsuccessful for them and their faulty ideas.
That unique opportunity to somehow tweak or modify the system without
having to bother with more conventional means will, in term, draw the
interest of extremists of every flavor, fanatics of all kinds, religious
and other sorts of nutcases, anyone with an axe to grind over some
particular grievance, most all of whom will have nothing whatsoever in
common and no bases for any sort rational agreement or reasoned
compromise, but they will be stoked with enough money and support from
corporate and big money interests cynically hoping to manipulate the
process to their own advantage to keep the whole thing snowballing into
God knows what kind of disaster. I'm not worried at all by the
miniscule threat of violent revolution, but the idea of another
constitutional convention scares me half to death.
However, there is a path to revolution in this country. But it won't be
over anything as obscure to most people as constitutional questions; it
will have to be over issues of socioeconomic and political
disenfranchisement. A critical mass of the populace, across a wide
enough spectrum of society, may just become too alienated from our
political and economic institutions and processes to keep the whole
thing going any longer, and this may occur far faster then most people
realize is possible. It could be precipitated by any number of, or
combination of, seemingly not too significant unforeseen events, or just
by the continuation and maybe the acceleration of current trends.
Just how large and diverse that critical mass of people needs to be,
just what kinds of events may trigger popular resistance to or rejection
of governing economic and political structures, and result in
revolution, upheaval or massive reformation, and what outcomes may
emerge are interesting questions for speculation.
Josh Rosenbluth
Feb 8, 2012, 3:24:51 PM2/8/12
to
unless in doing so you help the nation as a whole because the words
"United States" have meaning.
Jeff M
Feb 8, 2012, 3:36:33 PM2/8/12
to
On 2/8/2012 1:35 PM, pyjamarama wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2:26 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:39:28 -0800, Peter Franks<n...@none.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> It needs no further discussion. It's the law of the land
>>
>>> But that doesn't make it RIGHT, now does it.
>>
>> It does.
>>
>> There is no immoral or irrational reason why the goal of a government
>> wouldn't be to protect ALL citizens, under most all circumstances.
>
> "Immoral?"
>
> Since when did "morality" figure into the US Constitution, asshole?
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is
> On Feb 8, 2:26 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:39:28 -0800, Peter Franks<n...@none.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> It needs no further discussion. It's the law of the land
>>
>>> But that doesn't make it RIGHT, now does it.
>>
>> It does.
>>
>> There is no immoral or irrational reason why the goal of a government
>> wouldn't be to protect ALL citizens, under most all circumstances.
>
> "Immoral?"
>
> Since when did "morality" figure into the US Constitution, asshole?
wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become
corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.""
- Benjamin Franklin
Josh Rosenbluth
Feb 8, 2012, 3:31:35 PM2/8/12
to
On Feb 8, 2:06 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
and proper) *means* and the nation is the *end* recipient of the
welfare. So, I have not expanded the power - just provided a means to
a previously delegated power.
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/2012 10:08 PM, Josh wrote:
>
>
> > On 2/7/2012 9:58 PM, Scout wrote:
>
> >>> Article 8 Clause 1 about general welfare:
>
> >>> "Section. 8.
> >>> Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
> >>> Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
> >>> common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all
> >>> Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
> >>> States;..."
>
> >>> The USSC says that's where congress' power for general welfare comes
> >>> from.
>
> >> So, then such welfare can't apply to individuals but only to the nation
> >> as a whole.
>
> >> After all, I hardly think that any individual is "the United States".
>
> > If it is Necessary and Proper to apply to an individual as the means for
> > the general welfare of the nation, that would make it constitutional.
> > For example, spending on education for individuals would likely benefit
> > the nation.
>
> Necessary and proper clause applies ONLY to previously delegated
> *foregoing powers* it doesn't create NEW powers.
>
> That clause can not expand "who" gets welfare, when it is already
> defined by the words "United States"
When we spend on education for individuals, that is only a (necessary
> On 2/7/2012 10:08 PM, Josh wrote:
>
>
> > On 2/7/2012 9:58 PM, Scout wrote:
>
> >>> Article 8 Clause 1 about general welfare:
>
> >>> "Section. 8.
> >>> Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
> >>> Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
> >>> common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all
> >>> Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
> >>> States;..."
>
> >>> The USSC says that's where congress' power for general welfare comes
> >>> from.
>
> >> So, then such welfare can't apply to individuals but only to the nation
> >> as a whole.
>
> >> After all, I hardly think that any individual is "the United States".
>
> > If it is Necessary and Proper to apply to an individual as the means for
> > the general welfare of the nation, that would make it constitutional.
> > For example, spending on education for individuals would likely benefit
> > the nation.
>
> Necessary and proper clause applies ONLY to previously delegated
> *foregoing powers* it doesn't create NEW powers.
>
> That clause can not expand "who" gets welfare, when it is already
> defined by the words "United States"
and proper) *means* and the nation is the *end* recipient of the
welfare. So, I have not expanded the power - just provided a means to
a previously delegated power.
Jeff M
Feb 8, 2012, 4:00:06 PM2/8/12
to
Peter Franks
Feb 8, 2012, 4:42:08 PM2/8/12
to
Peter Franks
Feb 8, 2012, 4:43:26 PM2/8/12
to
> that is only a (necessary
> and proper) *means* and the nation is the *end* recipient of the
> welfare. So, I have not expanded the power - just provided a means to
> a previously delegated power.
Powers are delegated /specifically/.
Sid9
Feb 8, 2012, 5:07:44 PM2/8/12
to
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:jguq9u$qq4$2...@dont-email.me...
lifetime than uneducated Americans.
That means that educated Americans will pay more money into the treasury in
the form of taxes than those who earn less.
Further, educated Americans make a greater contribution to American society
as a whole.
Therefore, spending on the education of individuals is beneficial to the
general welfare of all Americans.
Two examples are our public schools and the WWII GI bill.
Peter Franks
Feb 8, 2012, 5:19:06 PM2/8/12
to
> Further, educated Americans make a greater contribution to American
> society as a whole.
> Therefore, spending on the education of individuals is beneficial to the
> general welfare of all Americans.
And it isn't general, it is specific.
And it has nothing to do with the common defense.
Josh Rosenbluth
Feb 8, 2012, 5:30:46 PM2/8/12
to
Josh Rosenbluth
Feb 8, 2012, 5:31:45 PM2/8/12
to
why I would personally help the nation would fail.
Sid9
Feb 8, 2012, 5:42:28 PM2/8/12
to
news:jguscs$bv1$1...@dont-email.me...
It says "welfare" Can't you read?
The USSC says it means "welfare"
Therefore it means "welfare" regardless of what mean spirited backward
looking people like you think.
It's the law of the land.
It's "settled law"
End of subject.
The USSC says it means "welfare"
Therefore it means "welfare" regardless of what mean spirited backward
looking people like you think.
It's the law of the land.
It's "settled law"
End of subject.
Peter Franks
Feb 8, 2012, 6:24:57 PM2/8/12
to
Peter Franks
Feb 8, 2012, 6:25:28 PM2/8/12
to
You lose.
Peter Franks
Feb 8, 2012, 6:26:16 PM2/8/12
to
Message has been deleted
Scout
Feb 8, 2012, 8:43:51 PM2/8/12
to
"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:jgsq9b$it4$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 2/7/2012 9:58 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Article 8 Clause 1 about general welfare:
>>>>
>>>> "Section. 8.
>>>> Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
>>>> Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
>>>> common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all
>>>> Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
>>>> States;..."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The USSC says that's where congress' power for general welfare comes
>>>> from.
>>>
>>> So, then such welfare can't apply to individuals but only to the nation
>>> as a whole.
>>>
>>> After all, I hardly think that any individual is "the United States".
>>
>> If it is Necessary and Proper to apply to an individual as the means for
>> the general welfare of the nation, that would make it constitutional. For
>> example, spending on education for individuals would likely benefit the
>> nation.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Article 8 Clause 1 about general welfare:
>>>>
>>>> "Section. 8.
>>>> Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
>>>> Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
>>>> common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all
>>>> Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
>>>> States;..."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The USSC says that's where congress' power for general welfare comes
>>>> from.
>>>
>>> So, then such welfare can't apply to individuals but only to the nation
>>> as a whole.
>>>
>>> After all, I hardly think that any individual is "the United States".
>>
>> If it is Necessary and Proper to apply to an individual as the means for
>> the general welfare of the nation, that would make it constitutional. For
>> example, spending on education for individuals would likely benefit the
>> nation.
>
> The USSC has decided that, fortunately for us.
> Fortunately people like scout and other RRRs don't get to make those
> decisions.
>
> It's "settled law"
>
> It needs no further discussion. It's the law of the land
> Fortunately people like scout and other RRRs don't get to make those
> decisions.
>
> It's "settled law"
>
I note the use of the logical fallacy Argumentum ad antiquitatem
Message has been deleted
BeamMeUpScotty
Feb 9, 2012, 11:40:47 AM2/9/12
to
On 2/8/2012 2:30 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:42:14 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> You can argue and cite all you want but 5 of the 9 geezers,
>>> aka SCOTUS, determines what the Constitution means...
>>
>> No, they determine if it is applicable in a given situation.
>>
>> They don't define what it means.
>
> They do
>
> Most generally, the USSC determines how the constittution applies when
> it hears cases it CHOOSES to hear is needed to determine what the
> intent and scope of enacted law is in relation to constittutional
> questions.
>
WRONG... they can decide on the jurisdiction of the law/power.
They don't decide what the law says they decide whether the constitution
allows them jurisdiction, they and you are unconstitutionally expanding
that to interpreting and filling in the white space.
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:42:14 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> You can argue and cite all you want but 5 of the 9 geezers,
>>> aka SCOTUS, determines what the Constitution means...
>>
>> No, they determine if it is applicable in a given situation.
>>
>> They don't define what it means.
>
> They do
>
> Most generally, the USSC determines how the constittution applies when
> it hears cases it CHOOSES to hear is needed to determine what the
> intent and scope of enacted law is in relation to constittutional
> questions.
>
WRONG... they can decide on the jurisdiction of the law/power.
They don't decide what the law says they decide whether the constitution
allows them jurisdiction, they and you are unconstitutionally expanding
that to interpreting and filling in the white space.
BeamMeUpScotty
Feb 9, 2012, 12:01:09 PM2/9/12
to
poor is OK because the laws are necessary and proper to kill poor
children, to eradicate poverty in the United States?
You say we can ignore what is written in the constitution because the
"welfare" trumps any other limitations written in the constitution?
And how you get to that general welfare is NOT important, only that you
get to that welfare is important.
That did work well in pre WWII Germany.
The truth is that *United States* is NOT the Nation and NOT "the people"
or the "States".
SO *general welfare* is also NOT to be distributed to "the people" or
the "States"
Amendment 10 tells you what the "United States" is *NOT* and it is NOT
the "States" or the "People"....
All that is left is for United States to be the Federal Government.
Jeff Strickland
Feb 9, 2012, 12:10:36 PM2/9/12
to
news:jgslod$13i$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "Ray Keller" <LEFTARD TROLLS ARE DESPERATE> wrote in message
> news:4f31d903$0$14459$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>> Provide for the General Welfare ...
>> There is much confusion about what is or is not in the Constitution and
>> how it applies to those in service to We the People. Frankly I attribute
>> this to the public education of this countries youth since at least the
>> 1950's.
>>
>> Many have queried this writer on the context of the following quote;
>>
>>
>> "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but
>> only those specifically enumerated."
>> -- Thomas Jefferson
>>
>> Unfortunately too many people believe that "promote the general welfare"
>> gives Congress unlimited power to enact any legislation they want too.
>> There were even in Jefferson's day those that felt that way. The reason
>> he issued the above quoted text was to remind them it was not so.
>>
>> To understand what he meant, and why, one only has to read the
>> Constitution and actually be able to comprehend what it says. I know that
>> may be hard for some that were not home-schooled, but try. It should be a
>> fairly simple process for the common person since it was not written by
>> lawyers. Heck even I can understand it!
>>
>> In the Preamble
>>
>> We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
>> union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
>> common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of
>> liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
>> Constitution for the United States of America.
>>
>> Article I
>> Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a
>> Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House
>> of Representatives.
>>
>>
>> How much more simple can that be?
>>
>> Our elected representatives have only those powers granted them by We the
>> People in the Constitution.
>>
>> If a power is not specifically enumerated then they are violating their
>> oath of office if, as they have been doing, assume any power without the
>> approval of We the People. That approval can only be granted by We the
>> People as a change to the Constitution its self.
>>
>> Understand this;
>>
>> The only powers that Congress has are specified in Sections eight and
>> nine of the Constitution and in some of the amendments that have been
>> enacted.
>>
>> The ".. promote the general welfare .." phrase is embodied in the
>> PREAMBLE to the Constitution. Provide for the general welfare is one of
>> the reasons for the document, not a power granted by it.
>>
>>
>> There is no power given to "promote the general welfare".
>>
>> Instead of relying on public educated acquaintances to tell you what they
>> heard it means, get a copy of the Constitution and read it for yourself.
>> If you have a problem understanding it find a home-schooled student to
>> explain it to you.
>>
>> If We the People had been vigilant and held those we elected to serve us
>> accountable for the last 100 years we would not be in the situation we
>> are today. If we really want to see who is to blame for the fix our
>> country is in all we have to do is look in the mirror and see our
>> apathetic reflection staring back at us.
welfare, and that is not the role of government. The actual verbiage is
PROMOTE the general welfare, which is an entirely different thing than
providing it.
Government's role is to get the f--- out of the way so the general welfare
can flourish. The general welfare suffers when the government sets out to
provide it.
>
> "Ray Keller" <LEFTARD TROLLS ARE DESPERATE> wrote in message
> news:4f31d903$0$14459$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>> Provide for the General Welfare ...
>> There is much confusion about what is or is not in the Constitution and
>> how it applies to those in service to We the People. Frankly I attribute
>> this to the public education of this countries youth since at least the
>> 1950's.
>>
>> Many have queried this writer on the context of the following quote;
>>
>>
>> "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but
>> only those specifically enumerated."
>> -- Thomas Jefferson
>>
>> Unfortunately too many people believe that "promote the general welfare"
>> gives Congress unlimited power to enact any legislation they want too.
>> There were even in Jefferson's day those that felt that way. The reason
>> he issued the above quoted text was to remind them it was not so.
>>
>> To understand what he meant, and why, one only has to read the
>> Constitution and actually be able to comprehend what it says. I know that
>> may be hard for some that were not home-schooled, but try. It should be a
>> fairly simple process for the common person since it was not written by
>> lawyers. Heck even I can understand it!
>>
>> In the Preamble
>>
>> We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
>> union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
>> common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of
>> liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
>> Constitution for the United States of America.
>>
>> Article I
>> Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a
>> Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House
>> of Representatives.
>>
>>
>> How much more simple can that be?
>>
>> Our elected representatives have only those powers granted them by We the
>> People in the Constitution.
>>
>> If a power is not specifically enumerated then they are violating their
>> oath of office if, as they have been doing, assume any power without the
>> approval of We the People. That approval can only be granted by We the
>> People as a change to the Constitution its self.
>>
>> Understand this;
>>
>> The only powers that Congress has are specified in Sections eight and
>> nine of the Constitution and in some of the amendments that have been
>> enacted.
>>
>> The ".. promote the general welfare .." phrase is embodied in the
>> PREAMBLE to the Constitution. Provide for the general welfare is one of
>> the reasons for the document, not a power granted by it.
>>
>>
>> There is no power given to "promote the general welfare".
>>
>> Instead of relying on public educated acquaintances to tell you what they
>> heard it means, get a copy of the Constitution and read it for yourself.
>> If you have a problem understanding it find a home-schooled student to
>> explain it to you.
>>
>> If We the People had been vigilant and held those we elected to serve us
>> accountable for the last 100 years we would not be in the situation we
>> are today. If we really want to see who is to blame for the fix our
>> country is in all we have to do is look in the mirror and see our
>> apathetic reflection staring back at us.
>
> Article 8 Clause 1 about general welfare:
>
> "Section. 8.
> Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
> Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence
> and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
> Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..."
>
>
>
>
> The USSC says that's where congress' power for general welfare comes from.
>
>
>
The problem here is that the Subject Line talks about PROVIDING the general
> Article 8 Clause 1 about general welfare:
>
> "Section. 8.
> Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
> Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence
> and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
> Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..."
>
>
>
>
> The USSC says that's where congress' power for general welfare comes from.
>
>
>
welfare, and that is not the role of government. The actual verbiage is
PROMOTE the general welfare, which is an entirely different thing than
providing it.
Government's role is to get the f--- out of the way so the general welfare
can flourish. The general welfare suffers when the government sets out to
provide it.
Peter Franks
Feb 9, 2012, 12:32:16 PM2/9/12
to
they aren't separable.
BeamMeUpScotty
Feb 9, 2012, 12:37:30 PM2/9/12
to
> That means that educated Americans will pay more money into the treasury
> in the form of taxes than those who earn less.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of *TAXES* ??????????????????????
> Further, educated Americans make a greater contribution to American
> society as a whole.
> Therefore, spending on the education of individuals is beneficial to the
> general welfare of all Americans.
taxation.
>
> Two examples are our public schools and the WWII GI bill.
Federal government to engage in.
>>> that is only a (necessary
>>> and proper) *means* and the nation is the *end* recipient of the
>>> welfare.
*end* recipient of the economic enhancement created by the executions.
>>> So, I have not expanded the power - just provided a means to
>>> a previously delegated power.
creating a superior power and claiming that you can violate anything you
want as long as it is for "General Welfare" of the Nation.
Saying that the Nation is the "ultimate" recipient of the welfare is
NOT the same as saying "to pay the Debts and provide for... general
Welfare of the United States;"
As I have said you are justifying the killing children in the streets
and saying that if it is for general welfare it's OK. That would also
go for abortion, it is OK because it's for general welfare.... Obama
wasting money is for general welfare, the Bush wars were for general
welfare. Next President can ignore the laws and drill ANWR Oil in Alaska
for the general welfare.
If the people are the Nation, why are the people NOT part of the "United
States" in amendment 10?
["Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people."]
pyjamarama
Feb 9, 2012, 12:59:47 PM2/9/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Indeed, but that morality speaks to individual responsibility and
personal character -- not to a justification for redistribution of
wealth by the State...
Hence the ironic quotation marks.
BeamMeUpScotty
Feb 9, 2012, 1:06:08 PM2/9/12
to
spent on the United States. What you suggest.... is what we call fraud
and, we put you in jail for doing such things. Misusing and misdirecting
funds and taxes is a serious felony.
"to pay the Debts.... and general Welfare of the United States;"
besides that, you ignore amendment 10 that says "giving tax dollars to
people for welfare" is not delegated by the constitution to the Federal
Government.
The United States is the *FEDERAL GOVERNMENT*
> So, I have not expanded the power - just provided a means to
> a previously delegated power.
the people is NOT legal. I can name other NOT legal things you could
do that would be good for "general welfare". Are you going to do those?
What if Slavery were an economic gain for the NATION, we could under
"YOUR" general welfare clause, bring back slavery.
Not a means but an unconstitutional interpretation.
de...@dudu.org
Feb 9, 2012, 2:13:48 PM2/9/12
to
were willing to divide the nation and fight a civil war over it. It
was the progressives who interpreted The Constitution as applying to
all people and were willing to protect The Republic to ensure such
rights.
BeamMeUpScotty
Feb 9, 2012, 2:44:33 PM2/9/12
to
You interpret the constitution today so that Slavery still exists. All
we need to implement it is for a HITLER type to come along and use "the
welfare" clause and "Necessary & Proper" clause to allow Slavery to be
started again. Why did they put the 13th amendment in if all that is
needed for slavery is to invoke the welfare clause to to return to
slavery? You Progressives aren't so bright are you?
That is all you.... You're saying slavery is constitutional in the
year 2012.
Nothing in the constitution is permanent it's all re-writable by the
courts and by the welfare clause, I like the way you interchange the
two, the "necessary & Proper" and the "General Welfare" clause so that
one or the other is the magic key to give you the outcome you seek at
that moment.
Jeff M
Feb 9, 2012, 4:49:40 PM2/9/12
to
the populace in its public and collective political character.
-- not to a justification for redistribution of
> wealth by the State...
wealth by the state. That cannot be avoided, ever. In other words,
somebody's gonna get your tax dollars, and it probably ain't you.
All that's left is the wrangling over who is to be burdened and who is
to be enriched, how, and by how much, and the questions of whether how
it's done is fair, reasonable, necessary and equitable, or not.
Josh
Feb 9, 2012, 6:21:39 PM2/9/12
to
Josh
Feb 9, 2012, 6:25:29 PM2/9/12
to
*************************************************************
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts
and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes;
[...]
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over
all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in
which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--********AND****** (my emphasis)
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof."
****************************************************************************
So, according to your logic every law passed by Congress must
simultaneously do everything specified in Article 1, Section 8."
I don't think so.
Peter Franks
Feb 9, 2012, 7:10:27 PM2/9/12
to
Josh
Feb 9, 2012, 7:28:44 PM2/9/12
to
Jeff Strickland
Feb 9, 2012, 7:34:07 PM2/9/12
to
news:jh0vv0$ji0$1...@dont-email.me...
That is a mistaken view. The preamble, the Very Basis, of the Constitution
is to provide the common defence and promote the general welfare. Cleary
these are two distinctly different roles of the federal government. It is
tasked, by the preamble, to provide for out defense, and step the hell out
of the way so that we can pursue our inalienable rights, which in turn
promotes the general welfare.
When one starts a discussion with "Provide for the General Welfare..." as a
constitutional provision, then the discussion is flawwed at the outset.
Government promotes the general welfare with stuff like labor law and
disease control, it does not provide general welfare until liberals come
around and say, "look, that person cannot do for himself, he needs us to
give to him."
Eventually, and we are there already, there becomes a demand that government
move from providing a safety net for the fallen and helping them to land
slowly so they can get up tomorrow and start over for themselves to
capturing people in a net they can never hope to escape from. When we get to
the stage of the latter, then people start talking about "providing the
general welfare." When government provides the general wlefare, it usually
stops doing the stuff that promotes it.
is to provide the common defence and promote the general welfare. Cleary
these are two distinctly different roles of the federal government. It is
tasked, by the preamble, to provide for out defense, and step the hell out
of the way so that we can pursue our inalienable rights, which in turn
promotes the general welfare.
When one starts a discussion with "Provide for the General Welfare..." as a
constitutional provision, then the discussion is flawwed at the outset.
Government promotes the general welfare with stuff like labor law and
disease control, it does not provide general welfare until liberals come
around and say, "look, that person cannot do for himself, he needs us to
give to him."
Eventually, and we are there already, there becomes a demand that government
move from providing a safety net for the fallen and helping them to land
slowly so they can get up tomorrow and start over for themselves to
capturing people in a net they can never hope to escape from. When we get to
the stage of the latter, then people start talking about "providing the
general welfare." When government provides the general wlefare, it usually
stops doing the stuff that promotes it.
Peter Franks
Feb 9, 2012, 7:35:01 PM2/9/12
to
Scout
Feb 9, 2012, 7:37:15 PM2/9/12
to
news:jh1oc1$b36$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
And if it is, then it can be evicted from her property even if that requires
lethal force.
So pick your poison, in the end she STILL has rights over her own body.
lethal force.
So pick your poison, in the end she STILL has rights over her own body.
Peter Franks
Feb 9, 2012, 7:39:46 PM2/9/12
to
Where did I say anything about punctuation? I'm talking about sentence
/structure/, homes.
';' is a clause separator, you can generally consider the fragments
separately except when the latter modifies the former, as in "all Duties..."
You can't do that with 'and'.
Try again. This time put some effort into it.
Josh
Feb 9, 2012, 7:58:25 PM2/9/12
to
Josh
Feb 9, 2012, 8:01:11 PM2/9/12
to
On 2/9/2012 7:37 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>>>
>>> How does abortion not violate V and XIV?
>>
>> If a fetus is not a person, it would not violate either of those
>> amendments.
>
> And if it is, then it can be evicted from her property even if that
> requires lethal force.
I don't think so. Quoting from Blackmun's opinion in Roe:
>
>>>
>>> How does abortion not violate V and XIV?
>>
>> If a fetus is not a person, it would not violate either of those
>> amendments.
>
> And if it is, then it can be evicted from her property even if that
> requires lethal force.
"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person"
within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support
of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of
fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the
appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to
life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html
Scout
Feb 9, 2012, 8:08:28 PM2/9/12
to
news:jh1q8s$isq$2...@josh.motzarella.org...
Which negates what I said, how?
After all, a mugger or a rapist also has a right to life, but that doesn't
mean they can't end up dead for their crimes.
After all, a mugger or a rapist also has a right to life, but that doesn't
mean they can't end up dead for their crimes.
Josh
Feb 9, 2012, 8:18:34 PM2/9/12
to
provides for defense, and provides for welfare?
And can only fix the the standard for weights and measures simultaneously?
And can only punish counterfeiting of securities and coins simultaneously?
And can only establish post offices and postal roads simultaneously?
[and on and on]
Josh
Feb 9, 2012, 8:21:25 PM2/9/12
to
On 2/9/2012 8:08 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Josh" <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:jh1q8s$isq$2...@josh.motzarella.org...
>> On 2/9/2012 7:37 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How does abortion not violate V and XIV?
>>>>
>>>> If a fetus is not a person, it would not violate either of those
>>>> amendments.
>>>
>>> And if it is, then it can be evicted from her property even if that
>>> requires lethal force.
>>
>> I don't think so. Quoting from Blackmun's opinion in Roe:
>>
>> "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person"
>> within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In
>> support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known
>> facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is
>> established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for
>> the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the
>> Amendment."
>>
>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html
>
> Which negates what I said, how?
Blackmun said if the fetus is a person, the appellant (Wade) wins. If
>
>
> "Josh" <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:jh1q8s$isq$2...@josh.motzarella.org...
>> On 2/9/2012 7:37 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How does abortion not violate V and XIV?
>>>>
>>>> If a fetus is not a person, it would not violate either of those
>>>> amendments.
>>>
>>> And if it is, then it can be evicted from her property even if that
>>> requires lethal force.
>>
>> I don't think so. Quoting from Blackmun's opinion in Roe:
>>
>> "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person"
>> within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In
>> support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known
>> facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is
>> established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for
>> the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the
>> Amendment."
>>
>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html
>
> Which negates what I said, how?
Wade wins, that means abortion is illegal under Texas law.
> After all, a mugger or a rapist also has a right to life, but that
> doesn't mean they can't end up dead for their crimes.
Scout
Feb 9, 2012, 8:39:21 PM2/9/12
to
news:jh1rer$ooe$2...@josh.motzarella.org...
That hardly means that abortion would be illegal.
>> After all, a mugger or a rapist also has a right to life, but that
>> doesn't mean they can't end up dead for their crimes.
>
> Texas didn't view the fetus as a mugger or a rapist.
However, they could given the right argument.
So, my point is, and this whole discussion, that when boiled down to the
final analysis.....
Does an woman have the right over her own body?
Yes or no.
Everything else is just window dressing.
> On 2/9/2012 8:08 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Josh" <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:jh1q8s$isq$2...@josh.motzarella.org...
>>> On 2/9/2012 7:37 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How does abortion not violate V and XIV?
>>>>>
>>>>> If a fetus is not a person, it would not violate either of those
>>>>> amendments.
>>>>
>>>> And if it is, then it can be evicted from her property even if that
>>>> requires lethal force.
>>>
>>> I don't think so. Quoting from Blackmun's opinion in Roe:
>>>
>>> "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person"
>>> within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In
>>> support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known
>>> facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is
>>> established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for
>>> the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the
>>> Amendment."
>>>
>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html
>>
>> Which negates what I said, how?
>
> Blackmun said if the fetus is a person, the appellant (Wade) wins. If
> Wade wins, that means abortion is illegal under Texas law.
No, he didn't say that. He simply said the fetus would have a right to life.
>>
>>
>> "Josh" <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:jh1q8s$isq$2...@josh.motzarella.org...
>>> On 2/9/2012 7:37 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How does abortion not violate V and XIV?
>>>>>
>>>>> If a fetus is not a person, it would not violate either of those
>>>>> amendments.
>>>>
>>>> And if it is, then it can be evicted from her property even if that
>>>> requires lethal force.
>>>
>>> I don't think so. Quoting from Blackmun's opinion in Roe:
>>>
>>> "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person"
>>> within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In
>>> support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known
>>> facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is
>>> established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for
>>> the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the
>>> Amendment."
>>>
>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html
>>
>> Which negates what I said, how?
>
> Blackmun said if the fetus is a person, the appellant (Wade) wins. If
> Wade wins, that means abortion is illegal under Texas law.
That hardly means that abortion would be illegal.
>> After all, a mugger or a rapist also has a right to life, but that
>> doesn't mean they can't end up dead for their crimes.
>
> Texas didn't view the fetus as a mugger or a rapist.
So, my point is, and this whole discussion, that when boiled down to the
final analysis.....
Does an woman have the right over her own body?
Yes or no.
Everything else is just window dressing.
Josh
Feb 9, 2012, 8:46:35 PM2/9/12
to
the appellant was Roe, and her case to have a legal abortion collapses)
>>> After all, a mugger or a rapist also has a right to life, but that
>>> doesn't mean they can't end up dead for their crimes.
>>
>> Texas didn't view the fetus as a mugger or a rapist.
>
> However, they could given the right argument.
BeamMeUpScotty
Feb 9, 2012, 9:00:06 PM2/9/12
to
rest of the constitution, so it will also work on the 5th and the 14th.
You used it to ignore the 10th and Section 8.
Congress Spending money to pay welfare to the "states" and the "people"
is also against the 10th amendment and Article 1 Section 8 where it
specifies that money is to be used to "pay the debts of... and general
Welfare of the United States;"
You don't seem to grasp what *the United States* is.
Look to the tenth amendment to see what *United States* is, or actually
what Unites States is NOT. It clearly tells you the United States is
NOT the states and is NOT the people.
So congress spending money on the States to pay their debts and welfare
or the debts and welfare of the people is NOT a constitutional power.
Josh
Feb 9, 2012, 9:08:10 PM2/9/12
to
BeamMeUpScotty
Feb 9, 2012, 9:15:38 PM2/9/12
to
have been delegated the power to write laws on.
They have to write a law authorizing the spending and they can't write
laws on things that they have no powers over..... like education.
*But they are told to do these things*
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;
the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high
Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that
Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and
naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment
of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to
the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over
all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in
which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in
which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.
>
Department or Officer thereof.
>
> And can only fix the the standard for weights and measures simultaneously?
>
> And can only punish counterfeiting of securities and coins simultaneously?
>
> And can only establish post offices and postal roads simultaneously?
>
> [and on and on]
>
>
>
> And can only punish counterfeiting of securities and coins simultaneously?
>
> And can only establish post offices and postal roads simultaneously?
>
> [and on and on]
>
>
Scout
Feb 9, 2012, 9:19:52 PM2/9/12
to
news:jh1su1$vll$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
Yep, which doesn't mean she couldn't alter her case to show it would still
need to be legal.
Just means that as her case existed, it wouldn't hold up. Doesn't say that
abortion would be illegal no matter what case she made.
Because after all.....we don't allow rape do we?
What's that but another person using another's body against their will?
Are suggesting that rape should be legal because the rapist is a person?
>>>> After all, a mugger or a rapist also has a right to life, but that
>>>> doesn't mean they can't end up dead for their crimes.
>>>
>>> Texas didn't view the fetus as a mugger or a rapist.
>>
>> However, they could given the right argument.
>
> Apparently, Blackmun wasn't impressed with that argument.
Show that such an argument was even presented.
Oh, and I note how you don't want to answer my question.
But let me ask it again anyway, since it's the core issue at all of this.
Does a woman have the right over her own body?
Yes or no?
need to be legal.
Just means that as her case existed, it wouldn't hold up. Doesn't say that
abortion would be illegal no matter what case she made.
Because after all.....we don't allow rape do we?
What's that but another person using another's body against their will?
Are suggesting that rape should be legal because the rapist is a person?
>>>> After all, a mugger or a rapist also has a right to life, but that
>>>> doesn't mean they can't end up dead for their crimes.
>>>
>>> Texas didn't view the fetus as a mugger or a rapist.
>>
>> However, they could given the right argument.
>
> Apparently, Blackmun wasn't impressed with that argument.
Oh, and I note how you don't want to answer my question.
But let me ask it again anyway, since it's the core issue at all of this.
Does a woman have the right over her own body?
Yes or no?
Scout
Feb 9, 2012, 9:21:20 PM2/9/12
to
news:jh1u6h$65j$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
Fine. Show us his interpretation is wrong given the language and meaning of
those two areas.
those two areas.
Peter Franks
Feb 9, 2012, 9:54:47 PM2/9/12
to
to the personhood of a fetus?
Peter Franks
Feb 9, 2012, 9:58:03 PM2/9/12
to
In an established and civilized society, that forfeiture is effected
through due process. Otherwise it can be effected immediately by the
victim, or at their leisure/convenience.
>, but that
> doesn't mean they can't end up dead for their crimes.
wards of the state, 'victims' of society.
Peter Franks
Feb 9, 2012, 9:59:34 PM2/9/12
to
substantially affects the rights of another.
This is the universal model that applies to all. Understand that, and
everything makes sense. Reject it, and you will forever live in confusion.
Peter Franks
Feb 9, 2012, 10:01:08 PM2/9/12
to
consent at the time of the (consensual) act.
Josh
Feb 9, 2012, 10:04:25 PM2/9/12
to
Peter Franks
Feb 9, 2012, 10:04:54 PM2/9/12
to
If you disagree, define the alternate parsing methodology.
Scout
Feb 9, 2012, 10:26:30 PM2/9/12
to
news:jh213r$ftr$2...@dont-email.me...
that meets the conditions you set.
Circular logic.
>>, but that
>> doesn't mean they can't end up dead for their crimes.
>
> In a liberal society, they never do end up dead, instead they become wards
> of the state, 'victims' of society.
Aah, circular logic once again in which you define something with itself.
I will simply note you can't address the points made.
> On 2/9/2012 5:08 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Josh" <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:jh1q8s$isq$2...@josh.motzarella.org...
>>> On 2/9/2012 7:37 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How does abortion not violate V and XIV?
>>>>>
>>>>> If a fetus is not a person, it would not violate either of those
>>>>> amendments.
>>>>
>>>> And if it is, then it can be evicted from her property even if that
>>>> requires lethal force.
>>>
>>> I don't think so. Quoting from Blackmun's opinion in Roe:
>>>
>>> "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person"
>>> within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In
>>> support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known
>>> facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is
>>> established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for
>>> the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the
>>> Amendment."
>>>
>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html
>>
>> Which negates what I said, how?
>>
>> After all, a mugger or a rapist also has a right to life
>
> No, at the point of commission they forfeit their right to life.
>
> In an established and civilized society, that forfeiture is effected
> through due process. Otherwise it can be effected immediately by the
> victim, or at their leisure/convenience.
An naturally you define this established and civilized society as only one
>>
>>
>> "Josh" <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:jh1q8s$isq$2...@josh.motzarella.org...
>>> On 2/9/2012 7:37 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How does abortion not violate V and XIV?
>>>>>
>>>>> If a fetus is not a person, it would not violate either of those
>>>>> amendments.
>>>>
>>>> And if it is, then it can be evicted from her property even if that
>>>> requires lethal force.
>>>
>>> I don't think so. Quoting from Blackmun's opinion in Roe:
>>>
>>> "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person"
>>> within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In
>>> support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known
>>> facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is
>>> established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for
>>> the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the
>>> Amendment."
>>>
>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html
>>
>> Which negates what I said, how?
>>
>> After all, a mugger or a rapist also has a right to life
>
> No, at the point of commission they forfeit their right to life.
>
> In an established and civilized society, that forfeiture is effected
> through due process. Otherwise it can be effected immediately by the
> victim, or at their leisure/convenience.
that meets the conditions you set.
Circular logic.
>>, but that
>> doesn't mean they can't end up dead for their crimes.
>
> In a liberal society, they never do end up dead, instead they become wards
> of the state, 'victims' of society.
I will simply note you can't address the points made.
Josh
Feb 9, 2012, 10:27:18 PM2/9/12
to
requires building a new road at the same time, really - and read the
rest of Section 8 for other doozies).
The correct parsing is that Congress has the power to do each of those
things individually, as in the state lets me drive a car (on public
roads) and vote (by registering). If instead the state lets me drive a
car or vote, it sounds like once I drive a car, I can never vote.
Scout
Feb 9, 2012, 10:30:34 PM2/9/12
to
news:jh216m$ftr$3...@dont-email.me...
Agreed. Now, speaking of rights and their extent what right do you think one
person has to use the body of another against their will?
Please, I would be most enlightened by your explanation of how one person
can have the right to use the body of another against their will.
Particularly given the 13th Amendment.
What right does the fetus or anyone else have to use her body?
> This is the universal model that applies to all. Understand that, and
> everything makes sense. Reject it, and you will forever live in
> confusion.
IOW, blindly accept your claims simply because you claim them to be "the
universal model"?
person has to use the body of another against their will?
Please, I would be most enlightened by your explanation of how one person
can have the right to use the body of another against their will.
Particularly given the 13th Amendment.
What right does the fetus or anyone else have to use her body?
> This is the universal model that applies to all. Understand that, and
> everything makes sense. Reject it, and you will forever live in
> confusion.
universal model"?
Scout
Feb 9, 2012, 11:02:31 PM2/9/12
to
news:jh219k$ftr$4...@dont-email.me...
Really? So then she wouldn't want an abortion and we don't have a problem.
>-- she gave consent at the time of the (consensual) act.
Contraceptives.....clearly consent was NOT given.
Besides, someone can ALWAYS change their mind. Look at the rape statutes.
>-- she gave consent at the time of the (consensual) act.
Besides, someone can ALWAYS change their mind. Look at the rape statutes.
Scout
Feb 9, 2012, 11:04:23 PM2/9/12
to
news:jh21g1$j23$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
Sorry, but that's putting the cart before the horse. The 14th only applies
to persons, it doesn't establish that a fetus is a person.
to persons, it doesn't establish that a fetus is a person.
Josh
Feb 9, 2012, 11:11:13 PM2/9/12
to
On 2/9/2012 11:04 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>>>
>>> And they are interpreting which part of the Constitution as it applies
>>> to the personhood of a fetus?
>>
>> The 14th Amendment.
>
> Sorry, but that's putting the cart before the horse. The 14th only
> applies to persons, it doesn't establish that a fetus is a person.
>
>
Start in Roe at the paragraph which begins:
>
>>>
>>> And they are interpreting which part of the Constitution as it applies
>>> to the personhood of a fetus?
>>
>> The 14th Amendment.
>
> Sorry, but that's putting the cart before the horse. The 14th only
> applies to persons, it doesn't establish that a fetus is a person.
>
>
"The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html
Scout
Feb 9, 2012, 11:21:42 PM2/9/12
to
news:jh25db$3uv$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
horse, because you first have to establish that a fetus is a person before
you can claim the 14th applies.
> On 2/9/2012 11:04 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> And they are interpreting which part of the Constitution as it applies
>>>> to the personhood of a fetus?
>>>
>>> The 14th Amendment.
>>
>> Sorry, but that's putting the cart before the horse. The 14th only
>> applies to persons, it doesn't establish that a fetus is a person.
>>
>>
>
> Start in Roe at the paragraph which begins:
>
> "The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words."
Exactly, thus the application of the 14th is putting the cart before the
>>
>>>>
>>>> And they are interpreting which part of the Constitution as it applies
>>>> to the personhood of a fetus?
>>>
>>> The 14th Amendment.
>>
>> Sorry, but that's putting the cart before the horse. The 14th only
>> applies to persons, it doesn't establish that a fetus is a person.
>>
>>
>
> Start in Roe at the paragraph which begins:
>
> "The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words."
horse, because you first have to establish that a fetus is a person before
you can claim the 14th applies.
Josh
Feb 10, 2012, 7:55:23 AM2/10/12
to
Amendment and elsewhere in the Constitution to conclude they only apply
after birth.
Also, in footnote 54 he explains why declaring the fetus to be a person
makes Texas law inconsistent with the 14th Amendment.
BeamMeUpScotty
Feb 10, 2012, 10:00:15 AM2/10/12
to
On 2/10/2012 7:55 AM, Josh wrote:
> On 2/9/2012 11:21 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Josh" <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:jh25db$3uv$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
>>> On 2/9/2012 11:04 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And they are interpreting which part of the Constitution as it
>>>>>> applies
>>>>>> to the personhood of a fetus?
>>>>>
>>>>> The 14th Amendment.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but that's putting the cart before the horse. The 14th only
>>>> applies to persons, it doesn't establish that a fetus is a person.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Start in Roe at the paragraph which begins:
>>>
>>> "The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words."
Persons are defined by the Creator who also defined their inalienable
> On 2/9/2012 11:21 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Josh" <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:jh25db$3uv$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
>>> On 2/9/2012 11:04 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And they are interpreting which part of the Constitution as it
>>>>>> applies
>>>>>> to the personhood of a fetus?
>>>>>
>>>>> The 14th Amendment.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but that's putting the cart before the horse. The 14th only
>>>> applies to persons, it doesn't establish that a fetus is a person.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Start in Roe at the paragraph which begins:
>>>
>>> "The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words."
RIGHTS so the person and their RIGHTS are inalienable.... That's why a
person has inalienable RIGHTS. And those RIGHTS start at conception
when the unique human LIFE begins.
The Supreme Court can't take away your inalienable RIGHTS and that
includes your person hood that allows you your inalienable RIGHTS.
The Liberals government power to declare abortions legal is against the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
But that has zero to do with the raping of the constitution by Liberals
and the first amendment freedom of religion that Obama is violating.
Peter Franks
Feb 10, 2012, 10:11:02 AM2/10/12
to
On 2/10/2012 4:55 AM, Josh wrote:
> On 2/9/2012 11:21 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Josh" <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:jh25db$3uv$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
>>> On 2/9/2012 11:04 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And they are interpreting which part of the Constitution as it
>>>>>> applies
>>>>>> to the personhood of a fetus?
>>>>>
>>>>> The 14th Amendment.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but that's putting the cart before the horse. The 14th only
>>>> applies to persons, it doesn't establish that a fetus is a person.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Start in Roe at the paragraph which begins:
>>>
>>> "The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words."
>>
>> Exactly, thus the application of the 14th is putting the cart before the
>> horse, because you first have to establish that a fetus is a person
>> before you can claim the 14th applies.
>
> Blackmun interpreted how the word "person" as used in the Fourteenth
> Amendment and elsewhere in the Constitution to conclude they only apply
> after birth.
Interpreted? Which part implies anything about a fetus?
> On 2/9/2012 11:21 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Josh" <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:jh25db$3uv$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
>>> On 2/9/2012 11:04 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And they are interpreting which part of the Constitution as it
>>>>>> applies
>>>>>> to the personhood of a fetus?
>>>>>
>>>>> The 14th Amendment.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but that's putting the cart before the horse. The 14th only
>>>> applies to persons, it doesn't establish that a fetus is a person.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Start in Roe at the paragraph which begins:
>>>
>>> "The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words."
>>
>> Exactly, thus the application of the 14th is putting the cart before the
>> horse, because you first have to establish that a fetus is a person
>> before you can claim the 14th applies.
>
> Blackmun interpreted how the word "person" as used in the Fourteenth
> Amendment and elsewhere in the Constitution to conclude they only apply
> after birth.
He didn't interpret anything, he made it up out of whole cloth!!!
> Also, in footnote 54 he explains why declaring the fetus to be a person
> makes Texas law inconsistent with the 14th Amendment.
Peter Franks
Feb 10, 2012, 10:11:30 AM2/10/12
to
Peter Franks
Feb 10, 2012, 10:13:09 AM2/10/12
to
conservative perspective.
Peter Franks
Feb 10, 2012, 10:18:49 AM2/10/12
to
She later changed her mind. She has to accept the terms of the original
consent.
If she can't accept the terms, do not engage in the act.
Same thing would apply to a 9-month lease. You can't enter into the
lease, and then part way through decide that the lessee is now using
your property against your will.
> Please, I would be most enlightened by your explanation of how one
> person can have the right to use the body of another against their will.
> Particularly given the 13th Amendment.
>
> What right does the fetus or anyone else have to use her body?
>
>> This is the universal model that applies to all. Understand that, and
>> everything makes sense. Reject it, and you will forever live in
>> confusion.
>
> IOW, blindly accept your claims simply because you claim them to be "the
> universal model"?
>
> I don't think so.
The fact of the matter is that the model I've described works
universally. Just apply it to any given situation and it always works
to the mutual and equal benefit of all.
If you don't like the model, propose an alternative and let's discuss.
If you don't have an alternative, describe why this model is
insufficient and/or breaks down.
BeamMeUpScotty
Feb 10, 2012, 10:20:36 AM2/10/12
to
On 2/9/2012 11:21 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
>
>
choice, every unique human life is a person.
A child an old a black a woman every unique human life that is "CREATED"
is a person.
The 14th does protect human life in the uterus.
The creator endowed all human life, with inalienable Rights to Life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The congress has NO POWER to
select what group of human lives will recieve inalienable RIGHTS.
Peter Franks
Feb 10, 2012, 10:22:26 AM2/10/12
to
society /will/ operate as I describe, but it is hardly the exclusive
condition of a civilized society, nor are other (uncivilized) societies
barred from effecting as I've described. I've merely chosen
well-defined limits so that the concepts can be understood w/o getting
mired up (as you did anyway) on irrelevant details.
Do you agree or disagree that a rapist, at the moment that they commit
their act lose their right to life?
Peter Franks
Feb 10, 2012, 10:25:29 AM2/10/12
to
Really? You think that it would be acceptable for the gov't to create a
post office in the middle of nowhere w/ no access?
Of course not!
>, really - and read the
> rest of Section 8 for other doozies).
>
> The correct parsing is that Congress has the power to do each of those
> things individually
I'll take your implication, though, and come up with the following:
Congress shall have power.
There, now they can do whatever they want.
>, as in the state lets me drive a car (on public
> roads) and vote (by registering). If instead the state lets me drive a
> car or vote, it sounds like once I drive a car, I can never vote.
it, you can't?
BeamMeUpScotty
Feb 10, 2012, 10:28:06 AM2/10/12
to
street from her, just to see someone die..... changed her mind and
told everyone she was sorry.
Does that mean we should let her go free?
We can't un-ring the bell. We can only move forward.... once someone
is pregnant there is only forward. If you kill the baby in the uterus
than you have moved forward by committing murder. I see no difference
between the two lost human lives, one being inside the uterus and one
outside the uterus but in both cases, we end up with a human life murdered.
Steve
Feb 10, 2012, 10:37:42 AM2/10/12
to
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 21:13:27 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>"Ray Keller" <LEFTARD TROLLS ARE DESPERATE> wrote in message
>news:4f31d903$0$14459$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>> Provide for the General Welfare ...
>> There is much confusion about what is or is not in the Constitution and
>> how it applies to those in service to We the People. Frankly I attribute
>> this to the public education of this countries youth since at least the
>> 1950's.
>>
>> Many have queried this writer on the context of the following quote;
>>
>>
>> "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but
>> only those specifically enumerated."
>> -- Thomas Jefferson
>>
>> Unfortunately too many people believe that "promote the general welfare"
>> gives Congress unlimited power to enact any legislation they want too.
>> There were even in Jefferson's day those that felt that way. The reason he
>> issued the above quoted text was to remind them it was not so.
>>
>> To understand what he meant, and why, one only has to read the
>> Constitution and actually be able to comprehend what it says. I know that
>> may be hard for some that were not home-schooled, but try. It should be a
>> fairly simple process for the common person since it was not written by
>> lawyers. Heck even I can understand it!
>>
>> In the Preamble
>>
>> We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
>> establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
>> defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty
>> to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
>> for the United States of America.
>>
>> Article I
>> Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a
>> Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House
>> of Representatives.
>>
>>
>> How much more simple can that be?
>>
>> Our elected representatives have only those powers granted them by We the
>> People in the Constitution.
>>
>> If a power is not specifically enumerated then they are violating their
>> oath of office if, as they have been doing, assume any power without the
>> approval of We the People. That approval can only be granted by We the
>> People as a change to the Constitution its self.
>>
>> Understand this;
>>
>> The only powers that Congress has are specified in Sections eight and nine
>> of the Constitution and in some of the amendments that have been enacted.
>>
>> The ".. promote the general welfare .." phrase is embodied in the PREAMBLE
>> to the Constitution. Provide for the general welfare is one of the reasons
>> for the document, not a power granted by it.
>>
>>
>> There is no power given to "promote the general welfare".
>>
>> Instead of relying on public educated acquaintances to tell you what they
>> heard it means, get a copy of the Constitution and read it for yourself.
>> If you have a problem understanding it find a home-schooled student to
>> explain it to you.
>>
>> If We the People had been vigilant and held those we elected to serve us
>> accountable for the last 100 years we would not be in the situation we are
>> today. If we really want to see who is to blame for the fix our country is
>> in all we have to do is look in the mirror and see our apathetic
>> reflection staring back at us.
themselves."
>
>"Ray Keller" <LEFTARD TROLLS ARE DESPERATE> wrote in message
>news:4f31d903$0$14459$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>> Provide for the General Welfare ...
>> There is much confusion about what is or is not in the Constitution and
>> how it applies to those in service to We the People. Frankly I attribute
>> this to the public education of this countries youth since at least the
>> 1950's.
>>
>> Many have queried this writer on the context of the following quote;
>>
>>
>> "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but
>> only those specifically enumerated."
>> -- Thomas Jefferson
>>
>> Unfortunately too many people believe that "promote the general welfare"
>> gives Congress unlimited power to enact any legislation they want too.
>> There were even in Jefferson's day those that felt that way. The reason he
>> issued the above quoted text was to remind them it was not so.
>>
>> To understand what he meant, and why, one only has to read the
>> Constitution and actually be able to comprehend what it says. I know that
>> may be hard for some that were not home-schooled, but try. It should be a
>> fairly simple process for the common person since it was not written by
>> lawyers. Heck even I can understand it!
>>
>> In the Preamble
>>
>> We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
>> establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
>> defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty
>> to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
>> for the United States of America.
>>
>> Article I
>> Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a
>> Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House
>> of Representatives.
>>
>>
>> How much more simple can that be?
>>
>> Our elected representatives have only those powers granted them by We the
>> People in the Constitution.
>>
>> If a power is not specifically enumerated then they are violating their
>> oath of office if, as they have been doing, assume any power without the
>> approval of We the People. That approval can only be granted by We the
>> People as a change to the Constitution its self.
>>
>> Understand this;
>>
>> The only powers that Congress has are specified in Sections eight and nine
>> of the Constitution and in some of the amendments that have been enacted.
>>
>> The ".. promote the general welfare .." phrase is embodied in the PREAMBLE
>> to the Constitution. Provide for the general welfare is one of the reasons
>> for the document, not a power granted by it.
>>
>>
>> There is no power given to "promote the general welfare".
>>
>> Instead of relying on public educated acquaintances to tell you what they
>> heard it means, get a copy of the Constitution and read it for yourself.
>> If you have a problem understanding it find a home-schooled student to
>> explain it to you.
>>
>> If We the People had been vigilant and held those we elected to serve us
>> accountable for the last 100 years we would not be in the situation we are
>> today. If we really want to see who is to blame for the fix our country is
>> in all we have to do is look in the mirror and see our apathetic
>> reflection staring back at us.
>
>Article 8 Clause 1 about general welfare:
>
>"Section. 8.
>Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
>Article 8 Clause 1 about general welfare:
>
>"Section. 8.
>Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
>general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises
>general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises
>shall be uniform throughout the United States;..."
>
>
>
>
>The USSC says that's where congress' power for general welfare comes from.
<chuckle> The complete phrase, put in the proper context says, "
>
>
>
>
>The USSC says that's where congress' power for general welfare comes from.
provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United
States"
That doesn't mean "provide welfare to people who cannot support
States"
themselves."
de...@dudu.org
Feb 10, 2012, 10:52:22 AM2/10/12
to
mr_antone
Feb 10, 2012, 11:07:38 AM2/10/12
to
--
A Libertarian society is an oxymoron.
mr_antone
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages