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.
It doesn't say anything about the exclusion of individuals in those states. The commonly accepted interpretation is that the welfare of the states and the welfare of the people in those states are one in the same.
No, it isn't, which is self-evident when you look at the power states have via Article 1 Section 8 and the 10th Amendment. Take, for instance, public K-12 education. That certainly could be construed to benefit the general welfare, but since it involves delivering services to individuals, it's the purview of each of the states. Each state has its own Board of Education under which public K-12 schools operate. Welfare, if administered by a government at all,* is also the purview of each of the states, NOT the Fed Gov.
* Though, it shouldn't be. It should be funded via voluntary contributions. Let society vote with their wallets if they support providing welfare to individuals.
It doesn't say anything about the exclusion of individuals in those states. The commonly accepted interpretation is that the welfare of the states and the welfare of the people in those states are one in the same.
Look, the constitution is very clear on separating the People from the State. If they meant individuals, they would say the People, for example, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You can twist all you want but the same word cannot have two different meaning within the constitution. State means state, and people means people. Are you going to argue that if it says “the right is the State to bear arms” means the people can bear arms?
Furthermore, “general welfare” does not mean welfare today. The founding fathers didn’t even know what the modern welfare is. That meaning was not invented back then.
Look, the constitution is very clear on separating the People from the State. If they meant individuals, they would say the People, for example, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You can twist all you want but the same word cannot have two different meaning within the constitution. State means state, and people means people. Are you going to argue that if it says “the right is the State to bear arms” means the people can bear arms?
Furthermore, “general welfare” does not mean welfare today. The founding fathers didn’t even know what the modern welfare is. That meaning was not invented back then.
It means a person makes life choices that lead him to be poor.
Please find one single able-bodied person who stays poor if he or she does the following:
1. Obey the law.
2. Don’t drink or do drugs.
3. Don’t have children they can’t afford and don’t have children without marriage.
4. Focus on education.
5. Do what’s told at work.
6. Live below the means.
People choose to break the law; people choose to do drugs; people choose to have children before marriage; people choose to leave their children behind; people choose not to go to school even it's free; people choose to live a lifestyle that their income can't sustain.
These are all life choices people have voluntarily and consciously chosen, and as a result, they are poor.
Look, the constitution is very clear on separating the People from the State. If they meant individuals, they would say the People, for example, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You can twist all you want but the same word cannot have two different meaning within the constitution. State means state, and people means people. Are you going to argue that if it says “the right is the State to bear arms” means the people can bear arms?
Furthermore, “general welfare” does not mean welfare today. The founding fathers didn’t even know what the modern welfare is. That meaning was not invented back then.
You can have your belief, but that doesn't make it true. There's been precedent set and that's what the government follows... and it's based on Hamilton's views. Your personal belief doesn't mean anything of value and all you can do is vote... just like anyone else.
If you're truly concerned, why don't you put your money where you mouth is and sue the government?
Otherwise, you're just expressing an opinion of no value beyond yourself.... as the government doesn't function that way.
No, it isn't, which is self-evident when you look at the power states have via Article 1 Section 8 and the 10th Amendment. Take, for instance, public K-12 education. That certainly could be construed to benefit the general welfare, but since it involves delivering services to individuals, it's the purview of each of the states. Each state has its own Board of Education under which public K-12 schools operate. Welfare, if administered by a government at all,* is also the purview of each of the states, NOT the Fed Gov.
* Though, it shouldn't be. It should be funded via voluntary contributions. Let society vote with their wallets if they support providing welfare to individuals.
There's plenty of examples of it already being applies to individuals (as a whole). You should look up the application rather than argue against reality.
There's plenty of examples of it already being applies to individuals (as a whole). You should look up the application rather than argue against reality.
There are plenty of examples where it doesn't apply. I just gave one, K-12 public education. State health insurance commissioners are another one. That's under state control, not Federal control. Like I said, get more Constitutionalist judges placed in Federal Courts and revisit many of the Fed Gov's overreaches.
Some more examples: States, not the Fed Gov, license doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. Also State gun regulation laws are not necessarily reciprocal, not nationwide, not Fed Gov. All could be considered under the purview of "the general welfare of the United States," but since none of those are an enumerated power in Article 1 Section 8, they are the sole purview of the states via the 10th Amendment.
Last edited by InformedConsent; 08-09-2020 at 11:38 PM..
Please explain to me why anybody should have sympathy for the poor:
1. They don’t pay taxes but take in all the benefits.
2. They commit most of violent crimes including murder by number and by ratio.
3. They don’t produce anything.
4. They have the highest single motherhood rate.
5. They don’t take care of their children.
6. They have the highest alcohol and drug abuse by number and by ratio.
7. They don’t care about education.
I understand #1 as they are poor and don’t have money, but the rest points are inexcusable for being poor.
They do actually pay taxes. If they rent, property taxes are caked into rental prices. Sales taxes including gasoline taxes actually hits the poor the most. The poor might get largely all their income tax back, but they aren't paying a fair share.
I work with students who went through traumatic pasts. Some have poor parents, some have a parent in jail, some have a deceased parent, some might be a product of a broken home. This often causes more violent outbursts because they don't having coping mechanisms.
The poor not being productive is a misnomer since unless you talk vets who are disabled or the normal street corner panhandler, you likely are around poor people without knowing it. Poor people can be your co-worker, the person ringing up your grocery store purchase or the guy that works at the football game in security.
Yes they are more single parented but is that their fault? Children cannot pick their parents. I don't get why that is a fact that people don't get. Nobody chooses to have bad parents or be the product of a broken home.
Not taking care of children is a misnomer too. I can argue many middle class parents don't take care of their children either. How many parents do you see be helicopter parents or sibling parents rather than i dont know actual parents?
As for alcohol and drug abuse, that can be an escape. I mean a lot of people who make the choice to be alcoholic or a drug user typically had traumatic events as a child. Some aren't, but most do and use that as their outlet. It isn't a good outlet, I doubt anyone will say it is, but it is an outlet none the less.
Not caring about education is another misnomer. Some don't because they don't see the endgame. I wasn't poor but I was burnt-out on schooling by the time I entered high school. Lots of state testing and often times I could pull an 80 or better breathing. I wasn't challenged or motivated. Now imagine you have trauma added to that...
The other part is college costs. As a white male like myself, you realize how many scholarships there for me? Not a whole lot. That means costs are out of pocket for me or I take out loans. The scholarships are to entice minorities into a major that maybe they are underrepresented in. It is hardly affordable to go to school while working anymore either.
I think a lot of people have more traumatic events than you realize OP. People who come from parents that use or used drugs, might use drugs themselves. People who come from parents that have tons of medical bills might not be able to have college.
I think you and others need to walk a mile in a poor person's shoes.
Libertarianism ( the absolutist sales pitch 'AMWAY' 'Scientology' form ) is just anarchy for the wealthy.
Libertarianism is freedom.
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.
