Conquer Club

john9blue wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
Oh please, quit the histrionics. Akin has his fair share of defenders, even on this site.

Taking up arms against his critics ain't exactly a good way to indicate that you don't believe in his nonsense.

by "defenders" do you mean people who agree with his rape comments? cuz i haven't seen anyone defend those.

all i see is republicans saying "wtf we don't believe that" and democrats saying "YES YOU DO, you're all equally stupid"

Why do you think Sym chose to insert some Akin commentary in this thread?

What could his motives be?

i call it the "palin reflex"

it's a strange pattern of behavior where the subject, when confronted with an ideology they dislike but cannot refute, chooses instead to cite a stupid person who believes in said ideology, in an attempt to discredit the ideology as a whole. usually the stupid person is hyped by the media as a representative of the ideology, in order to foster this delusion.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Actually, the Supreme Court did say that you can't force a person to participate in the marketplace. However, they then unconstitutionally rewrote the law to claim it was a tax and to say that taxing powers are allowed. And the Supreme Court has been known to take unconstitutional actions in the past in addition to this one, so it's not a huge surprise. That's what happens when you have a minimum of 4 judges who will always believe that they can change the Constitution based on their personal whims instead of the intent of the document.

and yet, you saw no problem with them just declaring that corporations were people....

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Your question makes no sense. The Constitution authorizes...if something is not authorized by the Constitution, then that is precisely how it violates the Constitution. You yourself have used this very statement in these fora. So....where in the Constitution is foreign aid authorized?

By the federal government being the one who enters into treaties and relations with other nations. I already said that.

So then you agree that ObamaCare is a valid use of the General Welfare Clause. Glad to hear it.

Nope, because the Constitution is not designed to provide for specific welfare payments to individuals.

tzor wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Actually, the Supreme Court did say that you can't force a person to participate in the marketplace. However, they then unconstitutionally rewrote the law to claim it was a tax and to say that taxing powers are allowed. And the Supreme Court has been known to take unconstitutional actions in the past in addition to this one, so it's not a huge surprise. That's what happens when you have a minimum of 4 judges who will always believe that they can change the Constitution based on their personal whims instead of the intent of the document.

and yet, you saw no problem with them just declaring that corporations were people....

I know this is getting off topic but I'm generally on the fence on this one.

On the one hand there is a significant difference between "rewriting a law" and a "bad declaration." The later is a general power of the Courts, not technically prohibited by the Constitution. The former is a power that belongs to the legislature. That's a major separation of powers violation.

As for the notion that "corporations were people" the qualifier was that it is only in specific cases. The courts didn't say that corporations have the right to vote, or to throw out the corporate taxing system because they should pay taxes like any other "person." It is limited to free speech. The First amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It doesn't mention that the right is limited to "people" or "citizens." One can disagree with the decision, but it's not an extreeme example of writing legislation from whole cloth.

Woodruff wrote:Where in the Constitution does it state that?

tzor wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Where in the Constitution does it state that?

The purpose of a constitution is not to tell the government what it cannot do, but what it can do. So if it is not an enumerated power the Federal Government doesn't have the power under the Constitution and under the Constitution the power goes to the states or to the people.

tzor wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Where in the Constitution does it state that?

The purpose of a constitution is not to tell the government what it cannot do, but what it can do. So if it is not an enumerated power the Federal Government doesn't have the power under the Constitution and under the Constitution the power goes to the states or to the people.

Woodruff wrote:

tzor wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Where in the Constitution does it state that?

The purpose of a constitution is not to tell the government what it cannot do, but what it can do. So if it is not an enumerated power the Federal Government doesn't have the power under the Constitution and under the Constitution the power goes to the states or to the people.

Thus, the General Welfare clause.

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

tzor wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Where in the Constitution does it state that?

The purpose of a constitution is not to tell the government what it cannot do, but what it can do. So if it is not an enumerated power the Federal Government doesn't have the power under the Constitution and under the Constitution the power goes to the states or to the people.

Thus, the General Welfare clause.

So the federal government has unlimited power?

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

tzor wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Where in the Constitution does it state that?

The purpose of a constitution is not to tell the government what it cannot do, but what it can do. So if it is not an enumerated power the Federal Government doesn't have the power under the Constitution and under the Constitution the power goes to the states or to the people.

Thus, the General Welfare clause.

So the federal government has unlimited power?

I suppose that depends on your perspective, but I would certainly disagree with that statement. Is that what you believe the General Welfare clause means?

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

tzor wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Where in the Constitution does it state that?

The purpose of a constitution is not to tell the government what it cannot do, but what it can do. So if it is not an enumerated power the Federal Government doesn't have the power under the Constitution and under the Constitution the power goes to the states or to the people.

Thus, the General Welfare clause.

So the federal government has unlimited power?

I suppose that depends on your perspective, but I would certainly disagree with that statement. Is that what you believe the General Welfare clause means?

So what powers does the federal government not have? Because you pretty implicitly implied that the federal government can do anything via the General Welfare clause that wasn't already enumerated.

puppydog85 wrote:Well, one thing is certain. It does not mean "special welfare".

puppydog85 wrote:Neither is ok. Although, you could give an equal amount of money to everyone, which would be a general welfare distribution, not specific.

PLAYER57832 wrote:And yet, so many people seem to think "provide for the general welfare" means just that..

Sorenson’s thesis, based primarily on Federalist No. 41, is that Madison regarded the enumeration as defining the objects entailed within the general welfare and the other general clauses that make up the Preamble (i.e., justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, and liberty). But those objects are the broad ends or purposes of the Constitution, not just means or powers. Therefore, states Sorenson, Madison understood the general terms of the Preamble to enlarge the dominion of government beyond the enumeration itself, although not to confer plenary power. Madison’s public position, ascribed to him by Crosskey, was that substantive powers are defined by specifying their number, kind, and application. On the contrary, Sorenson’s explanation is that (1) Madison perceived the Preamble of the Constitution as prescribing a limited number of limited ends; (2) the enumeration defines those ends more precisely; (3) the general welfare and other clauses that make up the Preamble vest particular powers beyond the enumeration, but only to accomplish the limited ends; and (4) the particular powers thus vested can be identified only through an examination of the enumerated powers themselves, in their relation to the authorized ends.

Symmetry wrote:

puppydog85 wrote:Neither is ok. Although, you could give an equal amount of money to everyone, which would be a general welfare distribution, not specific.

That wouldn't then contribute toward the general welfare of the nation, though would it?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

tzor wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Where in the Constitution does it state that?

The purpose of a constitution is not to tell the government what it cannot do, but what it can do. So if it is not an enumerated power the Federal Government doesn't have the power under the Constitution and under the Constitution the power goes to the states or to the people.

And yet, so many people seem to think "provide for the general welfare" means just that..

Symmetry wrote:

puppydog85 wrote:Neither is ok. Although, you could give an equal amount of money to everyone, which would be a general welfare distribution, not specific.

That wouldn't then contribute toward the general welfare of the nation, though would it?

puppydog85 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

puppydog85 wrote:Neither is ok. Although, you could give an equal amount of money to everyone, which would be a general welfare distribution, not specific.

That wouldn't then contribute toward the general welfare of the nation, though would it?

I fail to see how that would not. If everyone got some then all the nation would benefit right? Special welfare is when only a particular group gets the benefits "ie. the auto industry"

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

puppydog85 wrote:Neither is ok. Although, you could give an equal amount of money to everyone, which would be a general welfare distribution, not specific.

That wouldn't then contribute toward the general welfare of the nation, though would it?

Why wouldn't it? The only way to provide for the general welfare is for the government to punish one group while giving handouts to another?

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

puppydog85 wrote:Neither is ok. Although, you could give an equal amount of money to everyone, which would be a general welfare distribution, not specific.

That wouldn't then contribute toward the general welfare of the nation, though would it?

Why wouldn't it? The only way to provide for the general welfare is for the government to punish one group while giving handouts to another?

Huh? I get that I was being a bit general and talking about a nation, but elaborate on the specifics you object to,

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

puppydog85 wrote:Neither is ok. Although, you could give an equal amount of money to everyone, which would be a general welfare distribution, not specific.

That wouldn't then contribute toward the general welfare of the nation, though would it?

Why wouldn't it? The only way to provide for the general welfare is for the government to punish one group while giving handouts to another?

Huh? I get that I was being a bit general and talking about a nation, but elaborate on the specifics you object to,

OBAMA!!!