The Forgotten Founders

You should have quoted me directly, because your rewrite of my question totally changes the meaning.

Let's see... this is what I quoted...

...if the general welfare clause is a blank check for congressional power, then please tell me why the framers would have bothered to specify the powers given to congress. Why would they bother?​

and this is the full text...

They did, yes, but we have a very different interpretation of the meaning of the words "general welfare". My understanding of their meaning is supported by everything else in the constitution. Your definition requires that specific phrases be removed and considered entirely separately from the constitution as a whole. I'll ask you for the thousandth time, if the general welfare clause is a blank check for congressional power, then please tell me why the framers would have bothered to specify the powers given to congress. Why would they bother?

CP, it is word for word the same thing you said. Are you drunk? Or are you just stupid?

Right now, I can't begin to guess what condition rules you.
 
Werbung:
God, I hate this forum. It is populated by mouth-breathing idiots.

Not everyone who disagrees with your point of view is a "mouth breathing idiot." CP has brought up some good points. As for me, I don't totally agree with either one of you, but when you resort to questioning the intelligence of someone who doesn't buy your point of view, you have lost the debate.


Either knock off the personal insults, or find a forum where everyone agrees. Good luck with that.
 
Either knock off the personal insults, or find a forum where everyone agrees.

Just in case you haven't noticed, personal slurs are par for the course here at HOP. There's hardly a post addressed to me that doesn't include an insult or one kind, or the other.

Thanks for being so observant.
 
God, I hate this forum. It is populated by mouth-breathing idiots.

Not nice zen.

It looks like to me that your arguments have been consistently destroyed. So, you lash out against all here out of frustration.

I am certain you did not mean to make such a hateful statement.

Yes?
 
God, I hate this forum. It is populated by mouth-breathing idiots.


Well, you certainly are an example of such.

BTW, when one mentioned your name, and how it should be correctly spelled, one assumes that you think of yourself as a master of Zen. Thus a correct spelling would be CitizenZen. Of course, if it was meant to be as a child does such as a "vroom, vroom", then you would be correct.

However, seeing as how you have provided no proof for your opinion of the general welfare clause, here is another example of how you are in error.

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/07/29/exploiting_public_ignorance (I would emphasize public ignorance)

Thinking about today's massive deficits, we might ask: Where in the U.S. Constitution is Congress given the authority to do anything about the economy? Between 1787 and 1930, we have had both mild and severe economic downturns that have ranged from one to seven years. During that time there was no thought that Congress should enact New Deal legislation or stimulus packages along with massive corporate handouts. It took the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations to massively intervene in the economy. As a result, they turned what might have been a two or three-year sharp downturn into a 16-year depression that ended in 1946. How they accomplished that is covered very well in a book authored by Jim Powell titled "FDR's Folly." Here's my question: Were the presidents in office and congresses assembled from 1787 to 1930 ignorant of their constitutional authority to manage and save the economy?

If you asked President Obama or a congressman to cite the specific constitutional authority for the bailouts, handouts and corporate takeover, I'd bet the rent money that they would say that their authority lies in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that reads: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Impost, Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." They'd tell you that their authority comes from the Constitution's "general welfare" clause. James Madison, the father of our constitution, explained, "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." He later added, "With respect to the two 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." Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." That means only those powers listed.

The Constitution provides, through Article V, a means by which the Constitution can be altered. My question to my fellow Americans whether they are liberal or conservative: Has the Constitution been amended to permit Congress to manage the economy? I'd also ask that question to members of the U.S. Supreme Court. I personally know of no such amendment. What we're witnessing today is nothing less than a massive escalation in White House and congressional thuggery. Secure in the knowledge that the American people are compliant and willing to cast off the limitations imposed on Washington by the nation's founders, future administrations are probably going to be even more emboldened than Obama and the current Congress.
 
BTW, when one mentioned your name, and how it should be correctly spelled, one assumes that you think of yourself as a master of Zen. Thus a correct spelling would be CitizenZen. Of course, if it was meant to be as a child does such as a "vroom, vroom", then you would be correct.

Thank you for the spelling tip. You'll be a very busy man if "misspelled" usernames are the windmills you choose to tilt at. Frankly, I can't think of a less germane point to bring into a discussion.

Once again you fall into that habit of assuming far too much and not having the good sense not regurgitate your misconceptions in your post. You assume I think of myself as a "master of Zen"? Should I assume by your username that you consider yourself to be Daniel Boone?
 
Thank you for the spelling tip. You'll be a very busy man if "misspelled" usernames are the windmills you choose to tilt at. Frankly, I can't think of a less germane point to bring into a discussion.

Once again you fall into that habit of assuming far too much and not having the good sense not regurgitate your misconceptions in your post. You assume I think of myself as a "master of Zen"? Should I assume by your username that you consider yourself to be Daniel Boone?



Yep, and I was born 100 years too late.

In regards to the topic, here is another good article you should read since you have no proof for your position.

http://townhall.com/columnists/Larr..._constitution_versus_the_modern_welfare_state
 
Not nice zen.

It looks like to me that your arguments have been consistently destroyed. So, you lash out against all here out of frustration.

I am certain you did not mean to make such a hateful statement.

Yes?

No.

I stand by that statement. And you're a prime example of it. You think my arguments "have been consistently destroyed"? Well, that (and so many of your other posts) just show the futility of trying to discuss these issues with someone who lacks even a modicum of perspective and open-mindedness.

Virtually no post is answered with "You have a point there, but I see it this way..." Instead it's a steady stream of "You blind idiot" "socialist"... whatever. So pardon me if I join the party and start dishing like I've been taking. Did I lash out in frustration? You bet I did. And you deserved every word of it.
 
Geeze... you complain about my username. Perhaps you could email the author and educate him about paragraphs and how to use them.

As to the content, I will answer that soon.

I'm quite sure Elders knows about punctuation. I would assume it was the way it was scanned in, or whatever.

I am going to wait, and see, what kind of BS you can come up with to refute the argument he, and Dr. Williams, made.
 
I am going to wait, and see, what kind of BS you can come up with to refute the argument he, and Dr. Williams, made.

You'll have to wait a little while longer. Since you've already declared whatever I say as "BS" why should I even bother in the first place?

Maybe one day a conservative will come to this forum with an open mind and ability to exchange ideas with a [shudder] liberal.

But today is not that day... and you are not that conservative.
 
Of course you would choose to spend on bombs rather than people... as intelligence has very little to do with your world... only the desire to find safety through destruction and domination.

Wise choice my friend... wise choice. :rolleyes:

Your response seems to reveal the fact that you either did not read, or did not understand what I wrote. If you give it another looksie, you'll see that I called your bluff. I am absolutely willing to cut the military massively if it means that we can eliminate the unconstitutional welfare state.

For the record, the constitution empowers the government to provide for an army and navy for the defense of our nation. It does not empower the government to take from some to give to others. There is nothing in there that says everything you think you need must be yours by right. You've got a lot of reading ahead of you buddy. You could start with the constitution, Atlas Shrugged, Wealth of Nations, and The Road to Serfdom. and once you've got those under your belt, you could take another stab or two at each of my posts so far in this thread.

My experience with you thus far has been one of frustration at your preference for beating up strawmen rather than responding to the statements that I've actually made.
 
Please show me where I said the general welfare is a blank check.

You are very good at fantasizing. Too bad you can't ACTUALLY show me where I said that.

Maybe it's just the words "blank check" that you have a problem with? Just for the record, I'm not saying that you used the words "blank check". If you thought that is what I was alleging, then you are reading what I wrote to literally. What I was doing was summarizing your position. Allow me to do so again, in order to clear up your confusion.

You have consistently argued that the "general welfare clause" found both in the preamble, and later in the "taxing and spending clause", empowers congress to tax for any purpose it likes, so long as it can make the case that it is doing so to promote the general welfare. I do not agree, I believe that the general welfare clause is intended specifically to clarify the mission of our government WITHIN THE LIMITS SPECIFICALLY IMPOSED UPON CONGRESS BY THE ENUMERATED POWERS. But again, that is just my opinion. It is also the opinion of every single other framer of the constitution (except for Hamilton) as well as being supported by the rest of the text within the constitution which clearly limits the role of government. But we aren't talking about what I believe, or what Jefferson or Madison believed, we are talking about what you believe. I have already clarified your position previously, and you did honorably own up to it, and for that I thank you. Now, if your interpretation of the "general welfare clause" is indeed the correct one, then how do you define the limit to congressional power? What couldn't they do, "for our own good"? I say that there is very little that they would find themselves unable to claim they were doing in our best interest, and therefore your interpretation of the general welfare clause is essentially a "blank check" for governmental power.

Please please please PLEASE carefully read and reread what I have written here before responding. I have been fair to your position, and described it accurately. I have painstakingly laid out exactly why I believe such a position is as I described a "blank check".
 
Werbung:
It does not empower the government to take from some to give to others.

But it does specifically give Congress the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises...

That is by definition "taking from some".

And the constitution doesn't instruct congress to take that money and put it in a piggy bank to collect interest. It is specifically instructs them to use that money to "pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

So according to the words written in the United States Constitution, Congress specifically is tasked with (and has spent the last two centuries) "take[ing] from some to give to others".

It is amazing how we can look at the same words and come to opposite conclusions.

There is nothing in there that says everything you think you need must be yours by right.

Yeah, well, this is just hyperbole. Obviously "everything" I think I need is not mine by right.

And you complain about my straw men. :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top