Article 1, Section 8 - Question for Conservatives

You may want to ask the republicans who cannot seem to bear true witness to their own doctrine; who's fault is that?

 

That's pretty stupid right there. Don't know if its crack, or adult beverage. But you exceeded your limit.

 

Well the hypothetical Constitution in my head for one. Yes, it takes ability and will to enforce laws. Wouldn't it be easier, though if you didn't have to debate what those laws are? I think you're right about the intent of the authors, but the other side will always have recourse to guys like Hamilton. We shouldn't have to rely on specially robed priests to tell us what the sacred document means. A document this important should be unambiguous. There should be no question of what it means. All possibly ambiguous terminology should be defined within the document. It should be redundant rather than unclear. It's authors should have assumed that wicked men would sit in their seats in the future. And it should provide penalties for the legislator who would overstep its bounds.

 

People forget that this is a government "of the people" and not of the government "of the elitists" as the progressives beleive. We provide everything, not government.

 

I disagree. The Founders wrote at lenght as to what they intended, which is why I already stated Madison's response as to what he meant by "welfare" of the nation. People are free to reject it, which some will, however, instead of rejecting it out right they will try to twist his words. This is because they know that if they reject the Constitution out right, they have no real grounds to subvert it legally. The only other oprion would be a revolution.

 

So, if I say that the general welfare clause should have been omitted, or clarified within the Constitution, you would say no, it's perfect the way it is? If I say "regulate commerce" should have been defined within the Constitution, you would say no, it should not? If I say there should be penalties for legislators who violate the Constitution, you would say no, there should be no such penalties?

 

It wasn't an omission of convenience, and it doesn't help your argument. Providing for the general welfare has everything to do with the powers vested by the Constitution as a whole, and nothing to do with taxing for the purpose of charitable redistribution of wealth.

You're becoming a broken record. I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you again, because you obviously have no interest in what the Constitution really provides.

 

This is BS. You're giving us your commentary and interpretation of what you think the text of the Constitution means. And your interpretation is wrong. Just because you can quote the actual text, that clearly doesn't mean you understand it.

 

Why do you believe our elected representatives can't tell the difference between the common defense and the common offense?

 

I will continue quoting the actual words of the document, thank you.

Making (*)(*)(*)(*) up like you and like Conservatives do only reveals your/their stupidity.

 

The question you pose essentially boils down to whether or not you think that the restrictions imposes on congress' power to tax constitute grants of power on their own. The text in question says, "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;" It grants congress the power to tax, but then goes on to stipulate why this taxing power is necessary.

I think you have to consider why the remaining powers were debated and enumerated. If congress has the power to collect taxes to provide for the common defense, why would this be immediately followed by specific powers relating to the raising of army and navy? If congress had the power to enact any law necessary to provide for the common defense, why would it have been necessary list the other specific powers.

Personally, I agree with Madison's position, that the specific powers listed are those that are intended to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the united States, and the taxing clause is referring to these powers generally.

 

Actually, those specific enumerations are merely examples and qualifications of what was meant by the common defense and general welfare.

 

The Federal laws on immigration are plain enough, but they are ignored. In fact, when states try to implement them they get sued by the Federal government. Then Obama passes Executive Orders that violate Federal illegal immigration laws.

From this example we can see that laws matter little. It is all about what the will of the lawmakers are in regard to enforcing the laws on the books. And lastly, lawmakers are the ones that make the rules, so to think that they can be held accountable is pure folly. I suppose Nixon comes the closest to being held accountable, but even he avoided jail time. In short, they are above the law and there is no one to hold them accountable.

 

Um...wat?

Specific enumerations are 'only examples'????

 

I think you're right. It follows that the idea that we are a nation ruled by laws is a myth. If elections are the sham that they appear to be, then what kind of government do we have, if not an oligarchy? Now we should ask if a just government is even possible.

 

Yes you quote the actual words......and then you just make up whatever meaning you want....like most Constituion hating Democrats do.....

I will continue quoting the Founders....ie. the AUTHORS.... who describe in detail what the actual words mean........and dont mean.....

“to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the U.S.” that is to say “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” for the laying of taxes is the power and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. they are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. in like manner they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. to consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct & independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding & subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. it would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased.

--Thomas Jefferson--Conservative--Founder--Hater of Liberals--Great American
.
.
.
Here you can see Tom (Mr Jefferson to you) describing the lunacy of your interpretation.

would render all the preceding & subsequent enumerations of power completely useless

.....like I said before.....if General Welfare meant what you believe.....listing the enumerated powers wouldnt have been necessary......as they were all already covered under your two word Constitution.

to do whatever evil they pleased

....which would describe all the actions and programs of today's 100% Unconstitutional Democrat Party
.
.
.

 

So the constitutional delegates debated and voted for weeks on what to include in this section simply to provide examples? What is your source for this?

 

It is clear that the Founders established the national government/Constitution for the purpose of providing military protection(which each state or individuals could not provide themselves), protect property rights, regulate interstate commerse(so that states would have to play fair with each other) and defend liberty.

You liberals have done nothing but bastardize it ever since.

 

Of course, why do you believe our Founding Fathers included them when they already enumerated the general powers.

 

We are not for our conservative, War on Drugs.

 

Yes, they are examples and qualifications of what was meant by the common defense and general welfare. It is in the Federalist Papers in number 41.

 

Where is there any specific enumeration for a War on Drugs or Terror?

 

lol..

yeah, i would like to know why repiblicans think it's okay to invade Iraq but not help the poor (which in some cases have been kept poor by the rich who just want more millions)

neocons in particular are exquisite creatures aren't they?

 

I agree that conservatives would rather deny and disparage individual liberty and lower taxes for the wealthy rather than actually solve poverty in our republic.

 

..either you're intellectually dishonest or stupid...
Standard tactic for teenagers playing amateur lawyer...Scouring a document for a word he can purposely take out of context and distort.
Weak..very weak.