Do most Americans still believe in the Constitution anymore?

Dec 2018
4,894
1,340
New England
Feb 2018
1,598
944
Oregon
And yet somehow you manage it just fine. ;-)
Ok so you need to be spoon-fed. Go back and read YOUR post #51. When I replied with "it's very hard to find", I meant it's very hard to find a Marxist, unlike the task of finding a rightie who wants to destroy the Constitution. Hell, the Senate is full of them.
 
Dec 2018
4,894
1,340
New England
Of course you didn't even when you did, or do.
King Roderick: The Duke. What did the Duke do?
Hubert Hawkins: Eh... the Duke do?
King Roderick: Yes. And what about the Doge?
Hubert Hawkins: Oh, the Doge!
King Roderick: Eh. Well what did the Doge do?
Hubert Hawkins:The Doge do?
King Roderick: Yes, the Doge do.
Hubert Hawkins: Well, uh, the Doge did what the Doge does. Eh, uh, when the Doge does his duty to the Duke, that is.
King Roderick: What? What's that?
Hubert Hawkins: Oh, it's very simple, sire. When the Doge did his duty and the Duke didn't, that's when the Duchess did the dirt to the Duke with the Doge.
King Roderick: Who did what to what?
Hubert Hawkins: Oh, they all did, sire. There they were in the dark; the Duke with his dagger, the Doge with his dart, Duchess with her dirk.
King Roderick: Duchess with her dirk?
Hubert Hawkins: Yes! The Duchess dove at the Duke just when the Duke dove at the Doge. Now the Duke ducked, the Doge dodged, and the Duchess didn't. So the Duke got the Duchess, the Duchess got the Doge, and the Doge got the Duke!
King Roderick: Curious. I... I... hm? What? What's that? All I heard was that the Duchess had a siege of rheumatism. She's 83, you know.
King Roderick: You spent some time in the Italian court?
Hawkins: Why, yes. What better place to court Italians?
 
Dec 2018
2,605
1,595
Unionville Indiana
No, it's because framer Madison disagreed with framer Hamilton and, more importantly, by 1791 got two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states to see it the same way.

A framer's intent doesn't mean much more than your own if that intent is contradicted by the Constitution.
Outrageous fabrication and circular reasoning. No one in the field of Constitutional law believes that.

Read this:

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare, and did not contravene the 10th Amendment.[1] The Court's 7–2 decision defended the constitutionality of the Social Security Act of 1935, requiring only that welfare spending be for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose. ...

... The Opinion of the Supreme Court in the case was written by Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo. This decision supported the right of the Congress to interpret the "general welfare" clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Holding: The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way. The Social Security Act of 1935 does not contravene the Tenth Amendment, as Congress is permitted to spend for the general welfare.


Helvering v. Davis - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Aug 2019
924
888
Albuquerque, NM
Outrageous fabrication and circular reasoning. No one in the field of Constitutional law believes that.

Read this:

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare, and did not contravene the 10th Amendment.[1] The Court's 7–2 decision defended the constitutionality of the Social Security Act of 1935, requiring only that welfare spending be for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose. ...

... The Opinion of the Supreme Court in the case was written by Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo. This decision supported the right of the Congress to interpret the "general welfare" clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Holding: The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way. The Social Security Act of 1935 does not contravene the Tenth Amendment, as Congress is permitted to spend for the general welfare.


Helvering v. Davis - Wikipedia
Sounds like that case allows for universal healthcare as well. I don't pay attention to the details of ruling, but on the ACA ruling, did they cite this case?
 
  • Like
Reactions: leekohler2
Dec 2018
4,894
1,340
New England
Holding: The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way. The Social Security Act of 1935 does not contravene the Tenth Amendment, as Congress is permitted to spend for the general welfare.
Seriously?

The power to tax is an enumerated power. Did you not know that?
 
Dec 2018
4,894
1,340
New England
Sounds like that case allows for universal healthcare as well. I don't pay attention to the details of ruling, but on the ACA ruling, did they cite this case?
They certainly didn't cite the administration's initial argument that the federal government had the authority to compel citizens to purchase an insurance product. In the closing minutes of the hearing team Obama threw a Hail Mary and decided to call the mandate a tax (which is reasonable, but the political optics are bad, which is why they didn't lead with that argument). Justice Roberts agreed, taxation being an enumerated power, and he was the swing vote.