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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,351 posts, read 54,502,307 times
Reputation: 40814
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Pancake
See education listed anywhere in the Constitution?
Unless your contention is that schools didn't exist in the late 1700's, the framers had the option to include education in the Constitution, but chose not to. It is a state issue at best.
Airplanes didn't exist in the late 1700s, I guess the USAF shouldn't be, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Pancake
It isn't the job of the federal government to educate you and to pay for your healthcare. It isn't your job to fund my healthcare through taxation.
So, despite your admission the Constitution tasks the government with benefitting the entire nation, you believe a healthy populace does not?
It isn't the job of the federal government to police/build any other nation but the US, it isn't any Americans job to fund that through taxation.
Airplanes didn't exist in the late 1700s, I guess the USAF shouldn't be, eh?
So, despite your admission the Constitution tasks the government with benefitting the entire nation, you believe a healthy populace does not?
It isn't the job of the federal government to police/build any other nation but the US, it isn't any Americans job to fund that through taxation.
The government cannot and should not be in the business of making everyones life better.
I rely on the words of the founding fathers since they knew the document better than you, me, or any other poster here.
There are specific enumerations outlined in A1S8 that are designed to ensure the general welfare of the nation. Like education, unless you believe doctors didnt exist at the time the Constitution was written, the founding fathers had the option to include federal subsidization of doctor visits, but chose not to.
You keep attempting to make a point that we should not be the worlds police force. No argument from me there, I have never stated that, nor ever supported the idea we are the planets superhero.
Where is the origin of my debt to another citizen?
Why am I called "selfish" for wanting to keep what I earn?
In fact, no other citizen has a claim on MY property, including my earnings.
Taxation is constitutional.....but limited to enumerated spending powers.
This argument simply cannot be broken.
The origin is in natural law. The Constitution's purpose is to structure and give certain powers to the Federal Government, spell out your God given rights and discuss your relationship with the federal government. That said as a citizen you have obligations and duties to your country in addition to the rights it protects. Unfortunately there isn't a document that specifies your obligations and duties as a citizen which is why this country is going to s***.
The right to your earnings is enforced and protected by government and its laws. This enforcement and protection costs money hence taxation.
You've said 'promote the general welfare' means benefit the entire nation.
How?
You seem to like to pick and chose my words while leaving out the rest of the comment.
Again, as I posted before:
Quote:
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson
I already said those specific enumerations outlined in Article 1 Section 8 are the ONLY expenditures meant to benefit the entire nation.
Defense, postal roads, copyrights and patents, regulating interstate commerce, etc, etc.
Unless you believe you know the Constitution better than Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, you are arguing a moot point. Their commentary on the general welfare clause is there for the reading. It's plain and simple enough I'm sure even you can understand it.
If you truly want to split hairs, look at it like this: There are more healthy people than there are sick people, so as a whole, the nation would be considered healthy already, so no need for governmental intervention in healthcare
"Social Justice" is a code word for "Rule of men", as opposed to "Rule of Law".
Dude, all laws are the rule of men
It's always a delight to find someone so abjectly ignorant of basic civics that he doesn't even know the difference between "Rule of Law" and "Rule of men". And as he does so consistently, little avacatto stands forth once again.
Such discoveries help to explain how someone like Barack Obama could have gotten elected.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,351 posts, read 54,502,307 times
Reputation: 40814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
It's always a delight to find someone so abjectly ignorant of basic civics that he doesn't even know the difference between "Rule of Law" and "Rule of men". And as he does so consistently, little avacatto stands forth once again.
Since you apparently consider yourself something of an expert, please do share your yet to be seen expertise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
Such discoveries help to explain how someone like Barack Obama could have gotten elected.
McCain/Palin are a much better explanation of how Obama got elected.
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.
last night by "Stars Earn Stripes" which, let me tell you, could have been better. 
