Discussion in 'United States' started by Professor Peabody, Dec 24, 2018.
You have a right to your misinformed opinion but that is NOT reality.
"General welfare," as it is in the constitution, has nothing to do with entitlements. "General welfare," is about the good of the country, like infrastructure, for example.
Thank! This inspired me to donate double and its thanks to you..so technically, you did your part to help build the wall...thank you foryour for your patriotism
Which is a complete misunderstanding by the left and many others. The "General Welfare Clause" of the Constitution was lifted from Article 3 of the Articles of Confederation, which read: " The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other for the common defense, the security of it's liberties and their mutual and general welfare; binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty trade, or any other pretense whatever." - Brion McClanahan - The Founding Fathers' Guide to the Constitution
Articles of Confederation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
General Welfare Clause - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause
In a nutshell the General Welfare Clause is an authorization to raise taxes to defend the country and raise money for the general welfare of the states like transportation.
We fought a civil war over those states that wished to secede from the Union. We would go to war if California tried to secede.
The Affordable Care Act has failed because it violates the Constitution General Welfare Clause. (John Conyers of Michigan had it completely wrong when he tried to say that the ACA was covered under the General Welfare Clause.
As I said in my post the GPS would only turn on once the end date comes.
Read the above post, the only GPS that would come on would be those that have overstayed.
That makes NO sense.
Then go visit Denmark.
$18 million in 13 days. Enough to buy one or two of the prototypes so far.
Maybe they could raise the $50 million or so the prototypes cost us, since they were a poorly thought out waste of taxpayer money.
So because someone has an opinion you don't agree with, that makes them un-American? I hope you realize that there are some people out there who may feel based on your viewpoint that it is un-American as well. Go ahead and keep your food if that's how you feel after all charity comes from within the heart; but take comfort in the fact that more of your tax dollars will go to help feed the needy only you won't be able to write off your contribution to it on your taxes.
So you'd have no problem with other countries tagging Americans like cattle upon entry to their territory?
Sorry couldn’t help it
I disagree with many on many topics but that does not make them un-American. Those who have a total disregard of the "Rule of Law" and the Constitution and believe in harboring illegal fugitives in Sanctuary Cities or hiring illegals over Americans I find to be un-American. If I donate food to help illegals then I am aiding and abetting a criminal and therefore I am breaking the law. I have plenty of other charities I give too and it really has nothing to do with a tax write off.
Your opinion is duly noted.
Not at all, maybe their vacation dollars will be spent here instead of there.
The SCOTUS ruled that the General Welfare clause of the Constitution INCLUDES entitlements.
SCOTUS has ruled that the GW clause is sufficiently broad in scope to include entitlements.
So someone must wear your criminal ankle bracelet for 6 long years before you decide to turn it on?
And you FAILED to address the FUNDING for tracking all of these devices. Obviously you don't understand that they only have a very limited range and once they are out of range they are effectively useless. Someone could go into a basement or a swimming pool and it would be null and void.
Your idea is irresponsible, unfeasible and a massive increase in SPENDING without any material benefit.
So a wall to defend our southern border would be safety for the people's general welfare.
You wish to supply that source?
Asinine conflation of two unrelated issues duly noted for the record.
It's covered under the general welfare clause. Tell me why Public Safety wouldn't be?
This is what happens when you stack the court with liberals. Bad case law does not make it Constitutional. As O'Conner said in Butler "If the spending power is to be limited only by Congress' notion of the general welfare, the reality, given the vast financial resources of the Federal Government, is that the Spending Clause gives "power to the Congress to tear down the barriers, to invade the states' jurisdiction, and to become a parliament of the whole people, subject to no restrictions save such as are self-imposed."... or as in South Dakota v. Dole
' When Congress appropriates money to build a highway, it is entitled to insist that the highway be a safe one. But it is not entitled to insist as a condition of the use of highway funds that the State impose or change regulations in other areas of the State's social and economic life.... Indeed, if the rule were otherwise, the Congress could effectively regulate almost any area of a State's social, political, or economic life.
The Supreme Court is full of bad case law that is against the original intent of the Constitution and through judicial activism has usurp the powers granted as in the Constitution.
You are entitled to your opinion but it does not alter what the SCOTUS has determined to be a Constitutional Power of Congress.
The Founding Fathers only intended that white males should have the vote. Does that mean that women and minorities should be deprived of their voting rights today?
Your fallacy regarding "original intent" always crashes and burns when it comes up against the FACT that the FF were prescient to INCLUDE the process for AMENDING the Constitution. The Constitution EVOLVES to meet changing societal conditions. Theocracies are based upon rigid dogma that cannot be altered and the societies that embraced those theocratic dogmas are well known for depriving their citizens of their individual rights.
There are certainly a few instances where the SCOTUS makes mistakes. The CONSERVATIVE decision to uphold Citizens United being the current one that is causing so much harm to hardworking Americans today.
The Butler decision is what has effectively lifted elderly Americans from spending their declining years in abject poverty via Social Security and Medicare. To argue otherwise means embracing our country becoming a 3rd world nation.
11 million in 4 days - sweet!
Reasonable estimates for the wall run as high as 70 billion.
Let's do the math: 11 million in 4 days is $2,750,000 per day. At that rate it will take until 2040 to get enough to build the wall.
They're all hypocrites. If everyone who voted for trump donated just a few bucks, they'd have enough for their wall. What's stopping them?
Separate names with a comma.