As we read through the Constitution...... I never see the word "provide", or any vague suggestion. (drug, bias)
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.
I did point out that there is also Article I, section 8, which permits Congress to provide for the general welfare. You appear to be ignoring my posts, but the language is quite clear. The first clause of Article I, section 8 contains it.
Again, you prove my point. Quit making 2 words in the same sentence, have the same definition.
Promote means only to promote ideas???? Where'd you come up with that claptrap?
When promote and provide reside in the same sentence, they cannot possibly be, or mean the same thing, as was being conveyed they did. Why would anyone want them to mean the same thing? Why do you want them to mean the same thing. They don't.
Promote is the governments propaganda for you to buy it hook line and sinker from the education given. Providing it, is how government buys votes.
The Fakestream media, promoted Hillary Clinton, they didn't provide her to us.
Today it is just the opposite.
To promote the defense and security, while providing General Welfare.
When promote and provide reside in the same sentence, they cannot possibly be, or mean the same thing, as was being conveyed they did. Why would anyone want them to mean the same thing? Why do you want them to mean the same thing. They don't.
Promote is the governments propaganda for you to buy it hook line and sinker from the education given. Providing it, is how government buys votes.
The Fakestream media, promoted Hillary Clinton, they didn't provide her to us.
NO one says they mean the same thing. They just aren't exclusive. You can promote something by providing something.
Let me say that again. YOU CAN PROMOTE SOMETHING BY PROVIDING SOMETHING.
Now are you telling me that statement is false? Because it clearly isn't.
Again, you prove my point. Quit making 2 words in the same sentence, have the same definition.
So let me post the text *again*, as you haven't read it. The word "promote" does not appear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article I, section 8
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The verb "provide" applies to both the "common defense" and the "general welfare" in this sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by movintime
Provide & disberse tho are V diff terms. Many contracts "provide for" via built-in provisions -- yet are seldom invoked or enacted. I see welfare as such. Yes, it hangs in balance, yet discretion as to its prudent use supercedes the mere fact that it is a proviso "on the bks." The 2 are NOT interchangeable & clearly not synonomous.
Disburse is not used. General welfare doesn't mean the same thing as we have developed the term "welfare" to mean in politics, but that political term is very clearly encompassed within the scope of the spending power of Congress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by movintime
US Const isn't a crazy demo ideal of a, "living, breathing document". Hahaha, are you dems for real? No offence here but many libs really think this is open to debate or change. It worked for 250 yrs almost so why NOW does it become suddenly -- obsolete??
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
You left off the rest...
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"
States, NOT citizen or person. We know there's a distinct difference because both the terms 'citizen' and 'person' are included throughout the Constitution, but neither are present in this particular Constitutional statement. Reading comprehension matters.
*United States* as a political entity. There are very few limits on how Congress can decide to spend money under this clause of the Constitution. Subject to a few external limits (e.g., the Establishment Clause or hijacking State executive authority), it is for Congress to decide what "provide for the common defense and general welfare" includes. If Congress wants to provide what we use the term "welfare," to mean in politics, then the spending power gives Congress that authority.
It isn't a full time gig. Or then it becomes providing and not promoting.
Like the doctor writing you a prescription, they may give you a free sample to promote it, but it is up to you to fill the script to help yourself.
It's more like the circus owner. The safety net that promotes the welfare of the high-wire act and the audience isn't something he can leave to someone else.
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.