Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Socialism

Socialism Socialism Forum - Political Philosophy Forum


Thanks Tree73Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 11th, 2016, 11:47 AM   #21
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
Now now now. Let's let Clara think about this, do a little research and don't start generalizing about Liberal agendas. Please don't automatically assume you know exactly WHAT I think.
First, I'm rather surprised that you began with Webster, but that's cool. So
I'll counter with Webster: (http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/general).
promote - support or actively encourage.
general - affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things;
welfare - the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.

So, promoting the general welfare is the act of actively encouraging the widespread health, happiness and fortunes of Americans. Right?

Having said that, I also know that the phrase 'promote the general welfare' has been the topic of debate that has been going on, nearly as long as the Constitution itself. Much of what we argue about now, regarding the functions and limitations of Government -- they argued about back then, when our Constitutional "experiment" was just beginning. So, I'm guessing that those of us on DTT won't come to any consensus.
Here's what I know for sure: Congress appropriates money for a seemingly endless number of national interests, ranging from federal courts, policing, imprisonment, and national security to social programs, environmental protection, and education. No federal court has struck down a spending program on the ground that it failed to promote the general welfare. However, federal spending programs have been struck down on other constitutional grounds.

Okay, boys. Bring it on!
Quote:
So, promoting the general welfare is the act of actively encouraging the widespread health, happiness and fortunes of Americans. Right?

Having said that, I also know that the phrase 'promote the general welfare' has been the topic of debate that has been going on, nearly as long as the Constitution itself. Much of what we argue about now, regarding the functions and limitations of Government -- they argued about back then, when our Constitutional "experiment" was just beginning. So, I'm guessing that those of us on DTT won't come to any consensus.
The phrase “promote the general Welfare” of the preamble has not been then topic of debate; the topic of debate has been to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare.” The Preamble was the topic of a legal debate once and that was settled with Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905):
We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question (§ 137, c. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States unless, apart from the Preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power or in some power to be properly implied there from.
You are making an argument from the wrong part of the Constitution. You are referencing the preamble, which was a compact between the states and the federal government and based on Locke, Hobbe’s and Rousseau’s social contract and the Iroquois's Great Law of Peace. It was also agreed to be a duplicate of the preamble of the Articles of Confederation, but with Rhode Island boycotting the convention and several states balking at agreeing to sign and ratify the Constitution, the preamble as we know it was a last minute change by the Committee of Style to eliminate the need of a constitutional amendment to remove the states that did not ratify it.

Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Regarding the word "provide," I addressed it here:
The word “provide” in the 18th century meant to procure beforehand as evidence by 18th century dictionaries: to procure beforehand; to get ready; to prepare. To look ahead and be prepared was the context. It has a completely different meaning today: to make available; furnish.

Notice in Article 1, Section 8 the difference in verbs; this was not a grammatical mistake: “…taxes will be levied to “pay the debts” but then the verb changes to provide for the common defense and general welfare. Not pay, but provide. This is not the only time the term “provide” is use in the Constitution in this context.

A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states, not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.
The argument can only be made from Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. The difference is there is no power to promote anything in the Constitution by the federal government with taxpayer money except for the “…Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.

The general welfare clause was a not a granted power, but a limitation of power regarding the purpose of taxes and the purpose of how that money was spent. The Constitution was created in the context of the federal government and the states, and persons were not considered.
Thanks from coke and Jimgorn

Last edited by Jimmyb; April 11th, 2016 at 03:13 PM.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old April 11th, 2016, 11:53 AM   #22
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
Boy, how many times have we had this debate? These guys will never admit that they're wrong. And here's why.

Why Facts Won't Help You Win Arguments


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0QLjA1GSVI
Good to see you went to daily koss to get some more talking points! Good job!

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Thanks from Jimmyb and Sabcat
coke is offline  
Old April 11th, 2016, 01:08 PM   #23
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
The phrase “promote the general Welfare” of the preamble has not been then topic of debate; the topic of debate has been to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare.” The Preamble was the topic of a legal debate once and that was settled with Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905):
We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question (§ 137, c. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States unless, apart from the Preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power or in some power to be properly implied there from.
You are making an argument from the wrong part of the Constitution. You are referencing the preamble, which was a compact between the states and the federal government and based on Locke, Hobbe’s and Rousseau’s social contract and the Iroquois's Great Law of Peace. It was also agreed to be a duplicate of the preamble of the Articles of Confederation, but with Rhode Island boycotting the convention and several states balking at agreeing to sign and ratify the Constitution, the preamble as we know it was a last minute change by the Committee of Style to eliminate the need of a constitutional amendment to remove the states that did not ratify it.

Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Regarding the word "provide," I addressed it here:
The word “provide” in the 18th century meant to procure beforehand as evidence by 18th century dictionaries: to procure beforehand; to get ready; to prepare. To look ahead and be prepared was the context. It has a completely different meaning today: to make available; furnish.

Notice in Article 1, Section 8 the difference in verbs; this was not a grammatical mistake: “…taxes will be levied to “pay the debts” but then the verb changes to provide for the common defense and general welfare. Not pay, but provide. This is not the only time the term “provide” is use in the Constitution in this context.

A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states, not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.
The argument can only be made from Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. The difference is there is no power to promote anything in the Constitution by the federal government with taxpayer money except for the “…Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.

The general welfare clause was a not a granted power, but a limitation of power regarding the purpose of taxes and the purpose of how that money was spent. The Constitution was created in the context of the federal government and the states, and persons were no considered.
gas lighting gas lighting. Whatever hollywood called you. Just go look at that supreme court ruling that disproves your argument.
Thanks from coke
Fayt is offline  
Old April 11th, 2016, 01:09 PM   #24
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by coke View Post
Good to see you went to daily koss to get some more talking points! Good job!

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
What does that youtube post have anything to do with the dailykos?
Thanks from coke
Fayt is offline  
Old April 11th, 2016, 01:12 PM   #25
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,741
And no I'm not going to kick your butt again on this argument. Unlike you, I'm not paid to do so. Over over over again.

Clara, you're wasting your time.
Thanks from coke and Clara007
Fayt is offline  
Old April 11th, 2016, 01:43 PM   #26
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
And no I'm not going to kick your butt again on this argument. Unlike you, I'm not paid to do so. Over over over again.

Clara, you're wasting your time.
Thanks from Sabcat and Jimgorn
coke is offline  
Old April 11th, 2016, 01:44 PM   #27
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
gas lighting gas lighting. Whatever hollywood called you. Just go look at that supreme court ruling that disproves your argument.
You can always start a pedestrian and inerudite thread regarding FDR and his hand-picked Supreme Court of puppets regarding the ruling United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. (1936). That ruling has nothing to do with my post or the intent of the welfare clause.

Another option is for you to breakdown the Butler ruling and provide the constitutional basis for expanding the taxing and spending power of Congress vis-a-vis the intent of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, the Philadelphia convention debates, the state ratifying convention debates, and all court ruling prior to FDR puppet court.
Thanks from Sabcat, coke and Jimgorn

Last edited by Jimmyb; April 11th, 2016 at 01:52 PM.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old April 11th, 2016, 03:17 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 6,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
gas lighting gas lighting. Whatever hollywood called you. Just go look at that supreme court ruling that disproves your argument.
What Supreme Court ruling??....Can you answer or are you going to play like Clara and ignore me until I answer it for you, then cry I know what you are thinking??
Thanks from Jimmyb and coke
Jimgorn is offline  
Old April 11th, 2016, 03:22 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 6,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
Now now now. Let's let Clara think about this, do a little research and don't start generalizing about Liberal agendas. Please don't automatically assume you know exactly WHAT I think.
First, I'm rather surprised that you began with Webster, but that's cool. So
I'll counter with Webster: (http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/general).
promote - support or actively encourage.
general - affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things;
welfare - the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.

So, promoting the general welfare is the act of actively encouraging the widespread health, happiness and fortunes of Americans. Right?

Having said that, I also know that the phrase 'promote the general welfare' has been the topic of debate that has been going on, nearly as long as the Constitution itself. Much of what we argue about now, regarding the functions and limitations of Government -- they argued about back then, when our Constitutional "experiment" was just beginning. So, I'm guessing that those of us on DTT won't come to any consensus.
Here's what I know for sure: Congress appropriates money for a seemingly endless number of national interests, ranging from federal courts, policing, imprisonment, and national security to social programs, environmental protection, and education. No federal court has struck down a spending program on the ground that it failed to promote the general welfare. However, federal spending programs have been struck down on other constitutional grounds.

Okay, boys. Bring it on!
Nobody is generalizing about what you think....You were asked a question and you ignored me....so I gave you the answer.....The definition of the word "Welfare" as used in 1828, not 2008.....That is a typical left-wing trick...reading a new definition into the old meaning of the words used....Welfare as used in the Preambles refers to the States, not the individual citizen....there is simply no argument about what it was intended to address...
Thanks from coke
Jimgorn is offline  
Old April 11th, 2016, 03:24 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
The phrase “promote the general Welfare” of the preamble has not been then topic of debate; the topic of debate has been to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare.” The Preamble was the topic of a legal debate once and that was settled with Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905):
We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question (§ 137, c. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States unless, apart from the Preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power or in some power to be properly implied there from.
You are making an argument from the wrong part of the Constitution. You are referencing the preamble, which was a compact between the states and the federal government and based on Locke, Hobbe’s and Rousseau’s social contract and the Iroquois's Great Law of Peace. It was also agreed to be a duplicate of the preamble of the Articles of Confederation, but with Rhode Island boycotting the convention and several states balking at agreeing to sign and ratify the Constitution, the preamble as we know it was a last minute change by the Committee of Style to eliminate the need of a constitutional amendment to remove the states that did not ratify it.

Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Regarding the word "provide," I addressed it here:
The word “provide” in the 18th century meant to procure beforehand as evidence by 18th century dictionaries: to procure beforehand; to get ready; to prepare. To look ahead and be prepared was the context. It has a completely different meaning today: to make available; furnish.

Notice in Article 1, Section 8 the difference in verbs; this was not a grammatical mistake: “…taxes will be levied to “pay the debts” but then the verb changes to provide for the common defense and general welfare. Not pay, but provide. This is not the only time the term “provide” is use in the Constitution in this context.

A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states, not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.
The argument can only be made from Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. The difference is there is no power to promote anything in the Constitution by the federal government with taxpayer money except for the “…Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.

The general welfare clause was a not a granted power, but a limitation of power regarding the purpose of taxes and the purpose of how that money was spent. The Constitution was created in the context of the federal government and the states, and persons were not considered.



Oh Jimmy! I've never known anyone to nitpick like you do. Swoooon!
Thanks from coke
Clara007 is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Socialism

Tags
democratic, lies, socialism



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is socialism? Sabcat Socialism 71 October 5th, 2015 05:50 PM
Here's a look at Socialism roastpork Socialism 70 August 11th, 2015 05:20 PM
Radical Austerity’s Brutal Lies: Krugman, Chomsky seeing Through Neoliberal Lies LongWinded Current Events 12 July 14th, 2015 10:06 AM
More Right Winger Lies: Ted Cruz: Democratic Senators Want to ‘Repeal the First Amend tristanrobin Politicians 13 May 26th, 2014 02:39 PM
Plain Lies and War Lies alias Warfare 4 September 2nd, 2006 10:52 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



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