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.
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
I don't see anything strange here that contradicts everyday use of the term "the United States" meaning the entire nation or the federal governemtn depending on context.
No, there is not.
But there is in terms of legal authorization and designation in the Constitution.
The Constitution does not require us to be accurate in our casual conversation - that is up your own integrity.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defenceand general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States..."
"General welfare of the United States" is not 'welfare benefits for individuals.' The Constitution refers to "people" or "person/s" no less than 23 times, but the welfare clause specifically does not. If the intent of the Constitution was to provide welfare benefits to "people" or "persons" it would have stated so. It does not.
Integrity or rather knowledge of English language, to be precise: XVIII century English, with its historical grammar, syntax and semantics. so different from XXI century English spoke in the US now.
To sum, your are nitpicking with determination worthy of a better cause.
Every government, in every country is charged with taking care of their respective nations. We are not an exception.
So, when you're proven wrong, you change the goalposts to:
"What it says doesn't matter, we should ignore the law and just do what I want".
The court is supposed to rule on cases involving differing interpretations of the Constitution.
There shouldn't even be any differing interpretations of the general welfare clause. While the Constitution does refer to "people" or "person/s" no less than 23 times, the general welfare clause is not one of them. The Constitution does not provide the means for the federal government to tax some people to provide welfare benefits to other people or persons.
The only thing you have proven so far is that you obviously can't read and analyze written text. That's all.
The Constitution charges the government with looking after the welfare of the entire nation (the United States) and you want to believe that the governemtn was charged with looking after it's OWN welfare only.
I've already proven you wrong from the text itself.
The Surpreme Court has no power to change what it says.
Just like you, it makes up its own fiction as it goes along.
Like any other politician, it must be forcibly restrained.
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.
