Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance


Thanks Tree23Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 20th, 2016, 12:49 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
It kind of is the issue because it's legal. That's all I'm saying. Are you against judicial review?
That is not what you were saying. You were stating that the general welfare clause was a plenary power granted to the federal government and using Hamilton as validation. Both are incorrect.

Using Hamilton is an ignorant argument. Every single idea of Hamilton's was voted against at the convention. Hamilton was prevented from being an influence at the convention by Governor Clinton before the convention convened by his appointing Yates and Lansing to temper Hamiltonís anti-stateís rights votes and his strong federal government views. After being outvoted by the convention and his two fellow New Yorkers at every turn and his ideas not garnering any votes or support at the convention, Hamilton left the convention for New York in a state of ire in June.

To substantiate your claim, you would need to do the following:
  • Demonstrate why there was not much debate regarding the welfare clause after Hamiltonís ideas were shot down.
  • The origination of the general welfare clause.
  • Know how to read McCulloch v. Maryland.
  • Have an understanding of legal English of 1787 regarding potestas stricte interpretatur as vis-a-vis the common English of 1819.
  • And understanding of Francis Baconís Elements of the Common Laws of England, and especially mandata licita recipiunt strictam interpretationem, sed illicita latam et extensam.
And produce any statements from the convention regarding the welfare clause being plenary.

Judicial Review is not applicable because judicial review was limited to acts of the federal Congress, not the states.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old September 20th, 2016, 01:12 PM   #32
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
That is not what you were saying. You were stating that the general welfare clause was a plenary power granted to the federal government and using Hamilton as validation. Both are incorrect.

Using Hamilton is an ignorant argument. Every single idea of Hamilton's was voted against at the convention. Hamilton was prevented from being an influence at the convention by Governor Clinton before the convention convened by his appointing Yates and Lansing to temper Hamiltonís anti-stateís rights votes and his strong federal government views. After being outvoted by the convention and his two fellow New Yorkers at every turn and his ideas not garnering any votes or support at the convention, Hamilton left the convention for New York in a state of ire in June.

To substantiate your claim, you would need to do the following:
  • Demonstrate why there was not much debate regarding the welfare clause after Hamiltonís ideas were shot down.
  • The origination of the general welfare clause.
  • Know how to read McCulloch v. Maryland.
  • Have an understanding of legal English of 1787 regarding potestas stricte interpretatur as vis-a-vis the common English of 1819.
  • And understanding of Francis Baconís Elements of the Common Laws of England, and especially mandata licita recipiunt strictam interpretationem, sed illicita latam et extensam.
And produce any statements from the convention regarding the welfare clause being plenary.

Judicial Review is not applicable because judicial review was limited to acts of the federal Congress, not the states.
Actually what I said was that this debate was won already by the SC ruling in favor of Hamilton.

Build a bridge jimmy and get over it. Your argument would appeal to me more if you said you're against judicial review. But whatever. It's law now.
Thanks from RNG

Last edited by Fayt; September 20th, 2016 at 01:14 PM.
Fayt is offline  
Old September 20th, 2016, 01:19 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
Actually what I said was that this debate was won already by the SC ruling in favor of Hamilton.

Build a bridge jimmy and get over it. Your argument would appeal to me more if you said you're against judicial review. But whatever. It's law now.
That is not what you said.

Quote:
To bubba's point (or mine), the "general" part in the constitution means just that. It's general or overall. So it's whatever we believe our tax dollars should go towards.
That is a constitutional statement. You have only dodged every opportunity I have given you to substantiate your statement. As I stated, if you want to defend Mccullough, then respond to my last post.

I have also addressed judicial review, which you also dodged.

Last edited by Jimmyb; September 20th, 2016 at 01:41 PM.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old September 20th, 2016, 01:40 PM   #34
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
That is not what you said.



That is a constitutional systemt. You have only dodged every opportunity I have given you to substantiate your statement. As I stated, if you want to defend Mccullough, then respond to my last post.

I have also addressed judicial review, which you also dodged.
Yeah that's what I said and my argument subsequently pointed to what the SC interpret General Welfare to mean. They agree with Halmiton and I too. Be a history buff all you want, but my point is that it's law now. And yes I hate judicial review. We should not have it.

However me believing that doesn't make it any less law. Just like the SC interpreting the 2nd amendment meaning citizens have the right to own firearms or Citizen United.
Fayt is offline  
Old September 20th, 2016, 01:46 PM   #35
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,796
So what's next? You telling me how the confederate could have won the civil war? I don't care. They lost.

That's an analogy of our argument right now jimmy.
Fayt is offline  
Old September 20th, 2016, 01:46 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
Yeah that's what I said and my argument subsequently pointed to what the SC interpret General Welfare to mean. They agree with Halmiton and I too. Be a history buff all you want, but my point is that it's law now. And yes I hate judicial review. We should not have it.

However me believing that doesn't make it any less law. Just like the SC interpreting the 2nd amendment meaning citizens have the right to own firearms or Citizen United.
As I stated, you are not reading or relying on Mccullough. You are making a general statement that is not accurate regarding the welfare clause and McCullough.

Judicial review had been around since the early 1600s, was in the colonies, then the states, then after the Constitution. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. What is unconstitutional about it is what the Supreme Court has done with it.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old September 20th, 2016, 01:47 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
So what's next? You telling me how the confederate could have won the civil war? I don't care. They lost.

That's an analogy of our argument right now jimmy.
My argument is an argument as opposed to what you have posted.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old September 20th, 2016, 01:53 PM   #38
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
As I stated, you are not reading or relying on Mccullough. You are making a general statement that is not accurate regarding the welfare clause and McCullough.

Judicial review had been around since the early 1600s, was in the colonies, then the states, then after the Constitution. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. What is unconstitutional about it is what the Supreme Court has done with it.
Well apparently many of our founders didn't mind the SC having that power to make or strike down laws. I hate it and apparently you do too.

So it looks like we both are building bridges.
Fayt is offline  
Old September 20th, 2016, 01:53 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 11,248
What is the point of reference? Bench Mark so to say.
Twisted Sister is online now  
Old September 20th, 2016, 01:55 PM   #40
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
My argument is an argument as opposed to what you have posted.
You have the right to your own opinions, but not the right to your own facts. The fact is and my argument. The SC ruled in favor of a broad interpretation of the General Welfare Clause.
Thanks from Twisted Sister
Fayt is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance

Tags
household, income, median



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Median Household Net Worth Has Dropped 43% in the Obamaconomy Libertine Current Events 3 June 25th, 2014 10:47 AM
Median Income Falls For 5th Year, Inequality At Record High waitingtables Current Events 43 April 23rd, 2014 07:47 AM
Your Household Lost Seven Thousand Dollars Last Year. Where Did It Go? waitingtables Current Events 25 September 19th, 2013 08:01 PM
Reduce The Trade Deficit; Increase Gdp & Median Wage. Supposn U.S. Federal Policy 19 February 28th, 2012 07:43 PM
Overlooked 150 Year Old Household Cleaner a Remedy for Swine Flu? intangible child Healthcare 0 December 15th, 2009 06:21 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.