T1B

BSmack wrote: A very brief perusal of the Constitution yields Article I, Section 8. You know, the part about giving Congress the power to, amongst other things, "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States".

Ahhh yes, good ole general welfare.

Do you have a clue what it means? Maybe, just maybe, they are saying set up a civilization in which there is rule of law so we don't end up like mexico? It doesn't mean make sure some dumbfukk doesn't freeze because that crack rock is more important than rent or food or showing up for a job.

This hits particularly close to home for me. My youngest brother is the poster child for this discussion. He has been in and out of jail, shelters, you name it. Gubmint, along with family, friends and a sucker girl friend who took him in for 5 years, tried to give him a hand up. All they ever got in return is that hand spit upon. He quite frankly just needs to be put down like a rabid dog. He's had his chance at help, but, refuses to help himself.

And for the first mutherfukker that says "he has a disease", go fukk yourself. My wife's 17 year old nephew has a disease, you might have heard of it. It's called leukemia. He is fighting for his life, in the middle of his second go-round with chemo. Tell him he is in the same boat with my worthless brother.

I say the gubmint should provide some help for young adults who were guilty of being stupid in their teen years. Beyond that, go fukk yourself. Lifelong parasites on society need to be either shot or locked into forced labor camps where they get shot if they don't get to laborin'. Yeah, call it slavery if you want. I don't give a fukk.

Tell him to move to CA. The "three strikes" law should put him right where he belongs. :D

Best of luck to your nephew, BTW.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:IMNSHO, it is most definitely NOT the role of the federal government to care for the destitute, handicapped, ill, aged, etc. It's just another sign of Americans' piss-poor grasp of government's proper role (and their own frigging laziness) that they think that shuffling off the messy problem off to the federal government is the answer. No number of emotional appeals featuring weepy vignettes of elderly invalids doesn't change the argument.

Yet public welfare and entitlement programs have long been ruled Constitutional. Care to address that paradox? How is it that so many distinguished and presumably patriotic jurists have consistently upheld the Congressional right to appropriate monies for the general welfare?

It is not the role of federal government to "take care of us," save us from our own stupidity, or micromanage every frigging aspect of our lives (health care, education, etc.). Citing the Constitution's "general welfare" bit to rationalize government's meddling in "well-meaning" ventures is a dangerous opening for increasing government power and contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers (whose status as slave owners or "dead white guys" is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand).

The barn door's been long open. Citing the "general welfare" clause is about as revolutionary as citing the commerce clause.

As for the status of the Founders as dead, slave holding white guys, I simply pointed that out to illuminate the gigantic differences in all areas of political thought between the late 18th Century and the early 21st. Even you yourself have said that you view certain functions relating to the general public welfare as best performed by the Federal Government (meat inspections and drug approval come to mind). Are we not, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, simply bickering over price?

mvscal wrote:Meat inspections and drug approval

RACK any and all Irie resets.

BSmack wrote:The barn door's been long open.

By now, your 'barn door' must be as wide as the Suez Canal.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote: Even you yourself have said that you view certain functions relating to the general public welfare as best performed by the Federal Government (meat inspections and drug approval come to mind).

Meat inspections and drug approval are "general public" welfare concerns. Giving some loser money because he or she is a fucked up failure does not benefit the general public. It is an "individual private" welfare concern and, as such, is not the responsibility of the government.

100% concur.

As far as the "patriotic jurists," they've made mistakes before (e.g. Dred Scoot case, Plessy vs. Ferguson, and IMNSHO, the Kelo case). Their interpreting the "general welfare" clause to include personal welfare is contrary to the intent of the Founders and cannot be rationalized by claiming "18th century context," They had poor, infirmed, elderly folks in the 18th century and at no point during their construction of the Constitution made care for these indivduals a federal issue. The decision by others to do so later was unfortunate and wrong-headed.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

mvscal wrote:Meat inspections and drug approval

RACK any and all Irie resets.

Well played.

when did the discussion devolve from "assisting the helpless"

to "fucking wino's"....

I don't think there are many here advocating support for people that are able bodied and choose to live as freeloaders....

fuck those assholes.....

mvscal wrote:
Last time I checked, the road to hell was paved with good intentions.

you don't believe in hell so peddle that horseshit somewhere else......

Welfare does more to keep the negroes down than any amount of racism could ever hope to.

Props to the libs for taking care of the dirty work.

mvscal wrote:I don't believe in an afterlife. Big difference.

mv, what exactly does that mean? That you actually believe in "Hell"?

Just for the sake of curiosity, all smack aside, what is your definition of hell?

Jay in Phoenix wrote:

Just for the sake of curiosity, all smack aside, what is your definition of hell?

My name isn't mvscal, but I'll throw in my $0.02...

My definition -- Fallon, Nevada.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:what is your definition of hell?

Any time spent with JACK, JSC810, Teresa from Crapchester, Bitch Smacked, or Bushice.

mvscal wrote:

Felix wrote:when did the discussion devolve from "assisting the helpless"

to "fucking wino's"....

A pretty good illustration of the kind of mission creep the welfare state has brought about and is exactly what Madison warned against.

Last time I checked, the road to hell was paved with good intentions.

Madison warned about no such thing. The San Marco program is a local and state funded program. Madison's concerns (wrongheaded as they were) were related to the Federal government funding "objects of benevolence".

Also, it should be noted that Madison's now famous objection to the appropriation of $15,000 for French refugees was rejected by his colleagues in Congress and by President Washington. Certainly many of those men were also delegates to the Constitutional Convention. So it can certainly be argued that Madison, irrespective of his role at the Convention, did not represent the mainstream views of the Founders.

PS: Hell is located in Laurel, MS.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:

mvscal wrote:I don't believe in an afterlife. Big difference.

mv, what exactly does that mean? That you actually believe in "Hell"?

Just for the sake of curiosity, all smack aside, what is your definition of hell?

I think he means he believes you cease to exist. I think that is the annihilation theory. Question though, if one believes you cease to exist after life, then why not do everything in your power to self-gratify whether it be through lies and manipulation, etc. to get your own way? Of course, if you want to stay out of jail you'll stay within the boundaries of the law. I know people that think that way and they are very unhappy and selfish pricks.

mvscal wrote:

Atomic Punk wrote:Question though, if one believes you cease to exist after life, then why not do everything in your power to self-gratify whether it be through lies and manipulation, etc. to get your own way?

Even animals regulate their behavior better than that.

So evolution taught animals how to self-regulate, but it didn't help the muslims or Nick Frisco?

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:Madison warned about no such thing.

Shut the fuck up, moron.

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."

" The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

Nice job of KYOA. Re-read the 3rd quote you just posted. You know, the one where Madison specifically states that he believes the powers of state governments to be more general.

Now go back to the article on the San Marco project. You know, the one that states that it is a state and local program?

Read slowly if you have to.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:what is your definition of hell?

Mud

you know what else isn't in the Constitution? ABORTION rights!!!!!

titlover wrote:you know what else isn't in the Constitution? ABORTION rights!!!!!

Don't you ever get tired of embarassing yourself?

titlover wrote:you know what else isn't in the Constitution? ABORTION rights!!!!!

You mean it isn't specifically adressed in the Constitution, nor does it fall under any of the stardardized "do's and don'ts"?


Which means...


It's up to the states to define their own morality laws, just like the Framers intended?


Gee, who woulda thunk it?


Just like any welfare/socialist programs should be strictly up to individual states/communities, since it's at the more local levels that representative democracy actually has a shot at working correctly?

Who woulda thunk it?

Regardless of what fatcat feds may make profit on, the intent of the Founding Fathers was quite clear, despite how badly some have perverted it for personal gain.

titlover wrote:you know what else isn't in the Constitution? ABORTION rights!!!!!

That power is reserved to the people thank you very much.

you know what else isn't in the Constitution? Any mention of BUILDING PERMITS!!!!!

Goober McTuber wrote:you know what else isn't in the Constitution? Any mention of BUILDING PERMITS!!!!!

Yeah, at least the fed got that one right.


Building permits are a local function, as they should be.

The Midwest doesn't have any need for the same seismic codes as the Western States. The Western states don't have the same requirements for building gutters that are resistant to the æfects of ice-damming, since that doesn't really happen anywhere in the West.


See how that works? The Constitution has no provision for establishment of federal building codes, therefore the states are left to decide on building codes for themselves.


Novel freaking concept, eh?

Ahhh Dins, I'm starting to see how it works now....

The West doesn't have any need abort any inbred redneck mongoloids, and we need as many strong young lettuce pickers as we can produce.

Dinsdale wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:you know what else isn't in the Constitution? Any mention of BUILDING PERMITS!!!!!

Yeah, at least the fed got that one right.

Building permits are a local function, as they should be.

The Midwest doesn't have any need for the same seismic codes as the Western States. The Western states don't have the same requirements for building gutters that are resistant to the æfects of ice-damming, since that doesn't really happen anywhere in the West.

See how that works? The Constitution has no provision for establishment of federal building codes, therefore the states are left to decide on building codes for themselves.

Novel freaking concept, eh?

Unless of course you want to build on a federally protected wetland. That's just one example. I assure you there are more.

Goober McTuber wrote:you know what else isn't in the Constitution? Any mention of BUILDING PERMITS!!!!!

Which is odd, considering they were all framers.

Mister Bushice wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:you know what else isn't in the Constitution? Any mention of BUILDING PERMITS!!!!!

Which is odd, considering they were all framers.

And some were even Masons.

Dinsdale wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:you know what else isn't in the Constitution? Any mention of BUILDING PERMITS!!!!!

Yeah, at least the fed got that one right.


Building permits are a local function, as they should be.

Yes, I know. We were all just making fun of twitlover. You didn't have to get all serious.

I sense a spin coming on.

Truman wrote: Now, if you would simply cite the Article in the Constitution that bestows Congress the authority to provide cradle-to-grave entitlements to the "less fortunate" at taxpayer expense (predating Madison, of course), then I will happily allow you to resume your daily role as the Board's town pump..

Article IV, Section 3

Gee that was hard.

Moving Sale wrote:

Truman wrote: Now, if you would simply cite the Article in the Constitution that bestows Congress the authority to provide cradle-to-grave entitlements to the "less fortunate" at taxpayer expense (predating Madison, of course), then I will happily allow you to resume your daily role as the Board's town pump..

Article IV, Section 3

Gee that was hard.

Article IV


Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.


The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Nope. Don't see it. Nothing about "cradle to grave" care for citizens.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Article IV


Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.


The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Nope. Don't see it. Nothing about "cradle to grave" care for citizens.

Unless you consider the welfare state, which technically has been formed within the jurisdiction of states with the consent of the legislatures. :twisted:

BSmack wrote:

titlover wrote:you know what else isn't in the Constitution? ABORTION rights!!!!!

That power is reserved to the people thank you very much.

Unfortunately, titlover's parents didn't exercise that right.

Now there’s a surprise.

BSmack trounced – once again - by the Board’s General Populace.

Big Ups to mvscal for bolstering my initial quote of Madison; Labbie, for refuting the amateur interpretations of the Storied Document by misinformed individuals;

And… er, well… Buschice for challenging B’s strawman…

Rack you all.

Seriously, B, why do you persist? I would hope that you DO know that this cannot – and will not - end well for you….

I mean, what the fuck happened to you B? Did marriage temper your game? You’re like a bad Chumbawumba song anymore..:

I get knocked down
But I get up again
Ain’t nobody gonna keep me down….

But despite your clueless rhetoric, I DO understand the true issue you present with this thread… You hate “the Perfect Document written by Imperfect Men”.

We went round-and-round on this very topic in another World about 47,000 posts ago ( 400 for me; 46,600 for you) regarding the Electoral College.

You were wrong then…

And you’re wrong now.

Regardless of the dogma spewed by those who helped form your misguided political leanings… The Constitution IS NOT a “living and breathing” document, in spite of the brilliant efforts of the slave-holding Fathers

Now, I’m not a doctor, but I’m happy to play one on the InterWeb:

Seriously, dude, you are clearly suffering from occulis rectus liberalis

Which, in plain terms, means that you can only read with your left eye , thus giving you an incredibly shitty outlook on life….

BTW, I’m still waiting on that link to the Constitutional Amendment that clearly provides for oldcare entitlement….

Get me another beer while you're up, bitch….

Someone is deeply in someone else's dome.

Just sayin'.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:

Truman wrote: Now, if you would simply cite the Article in the Constitution that bestows Congress the authority to provide cradle-to-grave entitlements to the "less fortunate" at taxpayer expense (predating Madison, of course), then I will happily allow you to resume your daily role as the Board's town pump..

Article IV, Section 3

Gee that was hard.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Nope. Don't see it. Nothing about "cradle to grave" care for citizens.

4-3 gives Congress the right to dispose of U.S. property (read: money, cheese and the like) how it sees fit.

I am not a ‘cradle to graver’ myself, but that is the part of the USC that gives Congress the right to do it. Don’t like it? Vote for someone who won’t give our money away to the ‘needy’ or who will vote to change 4-3.

Truman wrote:Regardless of the dogma spewed by those who helped form your misguided political leanings… The Constitution IS NOT a “living and breathing” document, in spite of the brilliant efforts of the slave-holding Fathers

The Constitution became a living, breathing document the moment Marbury v. Madison was ruled upon. Big ups to John Marshall. You may not like it, but thems the breaks.

BTW, I’m still waiting on that link to the Constitutional Amendment that clearly provides for oldcare entitlement….

The Constitution doesn't clearly provide for a lot of things that the founders could have never possibly anticipated. For example, James Madison vetoed money for road, bridge and canal improvements. I'm sure that had he lived to the present day, even he would understand the necessity for the Interstate Highway System. Fortunately, as time passes, interpretations of the Constitution change to suit the needs of a society that has long since stopped using slaves for labor and horses as means of transport.

Sorry Tru, if you're looking for a strict constructionist answer, you're barking up the wrong tree. Maybe you, Lab Rat and Ron Paul can get together and found your own republic. I suggest you name it Fantasyland.

Truman wrote: BTW, I’m still waiting on that link to the Constitutional Amendment that clearly provides for oldcare entitlement….

It's not in an Amendment you fucking tard, it's in the body.

mvscal wrote:

Martyred wrote:Someone is deeply in someone else's dome.

Yes. Evidently, America is deep in Canaduh's dome. Don't you have your own "country" to worry about?

Canada is doing fine, thank you.

Hopefully, through our tireless efforts, we will have this place on a Bolivarian model in no time.
Then you will be surrounded, with frozen anarcho-syndicalists to the north, and my Zapatistsa comrades to the south,
you will drop to your knees in surrender as the pincer closes in on you.
We may show you the mercy you deprive the people in lands you currently occupy.

Viva La North American Soviet Socialist Republic!