Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-02-2017, 03:13 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,786 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13623

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Wow, that's thoughtful. "General welfare" means "general welfare."
Perhaps you would like to cite exactly where in the Constitution it states that the welfare of citizens or persons is to be provided for.

We'll wait...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-02-2017, 03:15 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,786 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13623
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post
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.

You have no point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2017, 03:16 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,808,044 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Perhaps you would like to cite exactly where in the Constitution it states that the welfare of citizens or persons is to be provided for.

We'll wait...
I'm waiting....for you to proffer up the Founding Father's definition of "welfare". I've been waiting. And waiting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2017, 03:18 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,786 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13623
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
I'm waiting....for you to proffer up the Founding Father's definition of "welfare". I've been waiting. And waiting.
How does that matter when there is no stipulation in the Constitution that the welfare of citizens or persons is to be provided for?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2017, 03:21 PM
 
10,920 posts, read 6,888,584 times
Reputation: 4942
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2017, 03:29 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,786 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13623
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18 View Post
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.

Reading comprehension matters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2017, 03:35 PM
 
Location: Arizona
13,778 posts, read 9,640,437 times
Reputation: 7485
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
I see the word "promote".

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.

Last edited by mohawkx; 03-02-2017 at 04:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2017, 04:05 PM
 
10,920 posts, read 6,888,584 times
Reputation: 4942
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
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.

Preamble: https://www.senate.gov/civics/consti...n.htm#preamble
Quote:
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.
Article I - Section 8: https://www.senate.gov/civics/consti...on.htm#a1_sec8
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2017, 06:13 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,786 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13623
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18 View Post
Yep, it does matter. It's not stipulated in either case.

Preamble: https://www.senate.gov/civics/consti...n.htm#preamble


Article I - Section 8: https://www.senate.gov/civics/consti...on.htm#a1_sec8


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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2017, 06:55 PM
 
20,955 posts, read 8,629,930 times
Reputation: 14050
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Three things:

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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:37 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top