As we read through the Constitution...... I never see the word "provide", or any vague suggestion. (program, amendment)
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.
There is also no language in the Constitution that says someone can carry a concealed weapon, yet it is allowed. Why? Because SCOTUS has interpreted the intent of the 2nd Amendment to allow it. The same as SCOTUS found in 1937 that Social Security is Constitutional in Helvering vs. Davis.
How is carrying a concealed weapon not covered under the right to bear arms? Is carrying a concealed weapon bearing arms? Yes, it is.
How is carrying a concealed weapon not covered under the right to bear arms? Is carrying a concealed weapon bearing arms? Yes, it is.
You have no point.
It's not stipulated in the Constitution how citizens may bear arms - just like it's not stipulated in the Constitution how Congress may lay taxes to promote the general welfare of the United States. The point was quite simple.
It's not stipulated in the Constitution how citizens may bear arms
Exactly. There are no limitations.
Quote:
just like it's not stipulated in the Constitution how Congress may lay taxes to promote the general welfare of the United States.
States, not citizens or persons. That's the distinction. The 2nd Amendment specifically grants a right to "people." The Article 1, Section 8's welfare clause does not.
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?
I know what you mean.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Any idiot can clearly see that what this means is that in America, it's every man woman and swinging dick for himself and the rest can go to hell.
Exactly. There are no limitations. States, not citizens or persons. That's the distinction. The 2nd Amendment specifically grants a right to "people." The Article 1, Section 8's welfare clause does not.
Reading comprehension matters.
Yep, it does matter. It's not stipulated in either case.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To the point of this thread, Congress was given this power. It has been held up by the Supreme Court (multiple times). I have written on this dozens of times in this thread - you're welcome to read my posts on the matter as I have provided lots of detail to explain why Congress' actions in relation to these duties is perfectly Constitutional.
To the point of this thread, Congress was given this power. It has been held up by the Supreme Court (multiple times). I have written on this dozens of times in this thread - you're welcome to read my posts on the matter as I have provided lots of detail to explain why Congress' actions in relation to these duties is perfectly Constitutional.
Three things:
1) In the Preamble, it's "...promote the general Welfare..."Promote. Not provide for it.
2) In article 1, Section 8, it's "...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."States, not citizens or people.
Contrast that with any of the various instances in which citizen, citizens, person, or people is specifically stated throughout the Constitution, such as Article 1, Section 2:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States..."
States are not people, and people are not states. Understand the difference?
3) Funding and administering social welfare programs is not a Federal power enumerated in the Constitution. Each of the States, however, is Constitutionally able to fund and administer their own such programs.
1) In the Preamble, it's "...promote the general Welfare..."Promote. Not provide for it.
3) Funding and administering social welfare programs is not a Federal power enumerated in the Constitution. Each of the States, however, is Constitutionally able to fund and administer their own such programs.
And so, you must be able to point us to where the founders clearly delineated what "social" welfare means?
We can gleam some things that you believe it does not mean....
You don't consider lighthouses, navigational aids and canals/dredging/post offices, post roads and such things as social welfare - even though these taxpayer funded items may benefit one person or corporation 100X as much as another.
You may not consider public health as "social welfare" and therefore feel we should never have embarked upon ways to protect our population from diseases...unless the states wanted to do it. After all, what could be more "social" welfare than research on STDs?
It makes sense that you don't think the bondage of human beings is "social" welfare since the Fed. Government has been involved in making law (and therefore providing money and backup) for this since the late 1700's.
You must think that booze is also under the purview of the "social welfare" - being as the government has been involved with it since day one.
All this talk and really not much delineation as to what constitutes "social" welfare! Is spending money for education social welfare? Is paying farmers or landowners for cultivating (or not) social welfare?
Or, as I suspect, do you get to decide for yourself exactly what is social welfare and what is not?
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.