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 bottom line is, the authors of the constitution did not want our country to become a gigantic welfare state as the left seems to think. This is why you hear, particularly from the left that the constitution is a "living" document and is open to interpretation to suit the times.
When you only pick certain areas to complain about, it weakens the fact that is not a living document.
The discussion itself is a great example that the Constitution is open to interpretation and that can change over time.
When you only pick certain areas to complain about, it weakens the fact that is not a living document.
The discussion itself is a great example that the Constitution is open to interpretation and that can change over time.
SCOTUS was never authorized to interpret or judge the Constitution. Can it change? Yes... BUT only in the sense that it can be amended per Article V.
But then again what I know to be true is completely irrelevant because those in government will continue to wipe their collective rears with the document that limits their powers, then proclaim they are using the >insert clause here< to do it.
Wrong, based on the words the founders clearly stated. You can go into the devious Clinton defense of "it depends on what the definition of "is" is", but the fact is that the founders were pretty darn clear about their intent and her have numerous statements by them on every concept in question multiple times that establishes it. The problem is, we no longer look back to the founders words, we use "modern interpretation" which is nothing more than code word for ignoring the original intent.
This is a fact, it can not be disputed without looking like an idiot. It is not an opinion as the founders specifically establish the intent and if you actually spent time reading what our founders said, you might have a clue.
Go ahead, read back through this thread, KS_Referee even provided numerous quotes by the founders that CLEARLY place the intent, but let me guess... like a needle on a broken record "that is my opinion" /derp /derp
I do not see the word "provide" and no references that can be remotely interpreted as "provide"
So, how does the federal government come to provide so much for so many, without authorization?
"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 ..."
Note that "general Welfare" is not talking about the welfare system. It means the state of well-being.
SCOTUS was never authorized to interpret or judge the Constitution. Can it change? Yes... BUT only in the sense that it can be amended per Article V.
But then again what I know to be true is completely irrelevant because those in government will continue to wipe their collective rears with the document that limits their powers, then proclaim they are using the >insert clause here< to do it.
Which tactics only work on a very stupid people, hence the need to control the education system and churn out morons who are too lazy and too stupid to read up on the topics at hand.
"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 ..."
Note that "general Welfare" is not talking about the welfare system. It means the state of well-being.
Provide is specific to defense, not the general welfare. Promote as it was used back then meant to encourage, not act on with authority to resolve.
this is what he meant when he said that nowhere does it say provide for the general welfare.
You need to really do some reading to understand his point. He is going true constitutionalist here, and this understanding is beyond the scope of most peoples reading or education on the federal Constitution. Fact is, the number of people in the US who actual understand their true rights would be considered statistically insignificant, which is why the government gets away with so much that it does.
One unique aspect of the Constitution is that there is NO plain/clear meaning of the document. There are parts of the Constitution that are intentionally vague.
Really? Please! Nothing was "intentionally vague." What liberal professor taught you this garbage?
Its views like this that have caused so many of our problems that have resulted in the bastardization of the Constitution. The meaning is quite clear if we study it correctly.
Force everyone to benefit everyone. How about that?
US liberals would never go for that. To them "fair share" is some paying nothing and others paying everything. Regardless of how often they praise Sweden they would never adopt a nordic model where EVERYONE pays. We've already got barely 50% paying and they don't think that's "fair".
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.
