Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh--let me guess--because all Black people are on welfare/SSI/food stamps and no White people ever need welfare/SSI/FS. Ever. Therefore, "civil rights" and "welfare programs" are really two terms that refer to the same group of people--"poor Black people". Was I right?
"Social justice" is a phrase that liberals attempt to use to usurp "equal opportunity". They are not interested in equal opportunity, but equal results.
I just haven't seen the words social justice next to each other in the Constitution of the United States. That term came into being when the progressive movement started and has never been really true, yet.
You have to do some real progressive twisting and spinning to get the term social justice out of the Constitution. You didn't even come close.
Where in hell do you find the words, social justice in the Bill of Rights. You people of the progressive bent just twist and spin to make words say something that they just don't say at all.
It's also in the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson? Or do you also consider that to be a liberal rag?
Come on Savoir you haven't managed to twist and spin those words to say social justice. You people really do think you are saying something and nothing of truth comes out for you.
That is generally the reason used for social matters. Its proven that people are easier to control when you have them feed, housed, and take care of to at least a minimum extent. It reduces crime, it makes business more easily operated without overhead expenses like "security", and it makes for a healthier population which usually means that the country is more ready to make war.
Now, I'm not saying that we haven't gone far enough, I think that we've gone to far in some areas of "social justice". But that doesn't mean there aren't constitutional reasons for doing so.
We've followed an "interpreted" powers view of the constitution since before Jefferson was in office. Jefferson, a strict constructionalist, actually overstepped his bounds and used implied powers to purchase land west of the Mississippi from Napoleon.
So to ignore that we haven't followed the constitution "to the letter" is to ignore the entire history of these United States. I, myself, would personally love to see us follow the constitution to the letter. If a program is so necessary, so agreed upon, then write an amendment and put it in the constitution. But neither side of the political aisle wants that.
It would mean....
No war on drugs. No military exercises without congress authorizing a declaration of war. Abortion issues would be reliquished to the states. No more censorship of the airwaves.
And the list goes on and on.
There are things that every individual likes about the implied powers the constitution gives, and there are things each individual doesn't like. The problem is, they vary so widely from person to person, that its likely our federal government will never get anything done.
Hell, a large standing army, isn't necessarily constitutional or in line with the founding fathers views of our country. Giving money to Israel, Egypt, etc for their military sure as hell isn't in there.
So while the words "social justice" aren't written in the constitution, doesn't mean that it hasn't been interpreted to be so.
However your interpretation is nothing but progressive thinking. It was them in the first place that came by that term, social justice. I really don't understand where people of the left see all that crap about social justice in the Constitution. Surely those men were intelligent enough to include the term if they really wanted it to show up.
I get so sick of hearing people talk about various things in the Constitution saying "social justice" is so and so.
May be the problem is with your hearing, and comprehension?
Go ahead and point out to the OP where you think the term social justice is and stop just accusing him of having poor hearing or comprehension. All of your deflections won't really work on this subject.
Using ANY taxpayer tax revenue to "redistribute" to ANYONE is unconstitutional.
So you think the Supreme Courts over the last 100 years overlooked it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
