ACORN Vegas Office Raided in Voter Fraud Investigation

[therealUT]

Really, which part of the Constitution talks about that? Maybe I should ask Sarah Palin, I'm sure she'll know.

Section 8: The Powers of Congress

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 borrow money on the credit of the United States;


To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;


To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;


To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;


To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;


To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;


To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;


To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;


To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;


To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;


To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;


To provide and maintain a Navy;


To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And


To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Any other brain busters?

 

[CaedmonVol]

Yes. They are most certainly welfare. I have no desire to take care of some old person or ailing person whom I have never met and have absolutely no communal ties to.

Our tax dollars also goes to subsidies (welfare) and unemployment insurance (welfare).

Further, our entire tax system is a form of welfare. By mandating that the rich pay more than the poor, the government is leaving more money in the hands of the poor and taking more from the rich. That, Sir, is a form of welfare.

Well, talk to Sarah Palin. She supported the Bridge to Nowhere. That probably cost about as much as the U.S. government's entire cash outlay for welfare in a single year.

 

[CaedmonVol]

Section 8: The Powers of Congress


Any other brain busters?

OK, so you gave me every clause in Art. I, Sec. 8, but only the first clause is relevant. That clause provides that Congress has the power to "collect taxes" do pay debts, provide a defense, and also for the "general welfare" of the United States. I don't read that as prohibiting a program to help elderly and poor people.

Please clarify.

 

[therealUT]

Well, talk to Sarah Palin. She supported the Bridge to Nowhere. That probably cost about as much as the U.S. government's entire cash outlay for welfare in a single year.

Bridge to Nowhere: $398M

Social Security: $608 billion

Medicare: $386 billion

Medicaid: $209 billion

Unemployment/Welfare: $324 billion

Weren't you the one who was accusing Palin of not having a firm grasp of the facts???

 

[therealUT]

OK, so you gave me every clause in Art. I, Sec. 8, but only the first clause is relevant. That clause provides that Congress has the power to "collect taxes" do pay debts, provide a defense, and also for the "general welfare" of the United States. I don't read that as prohibiting a program to help elderly and poor people.

Please clarify.

Feel free to click on the hyperlink "welfare".

 

[CaedmonVol]

Bridge to Nowhere: $398M

Social Security: $608 billion

Medicare: $386 billion

Medicaid: $209 billion

Unemployment/Welfare: $324 billion

Weren't you the one who was accusing Palin of not having a firm grasp of the facts???

Touche, I was trying to employ some humor there but you are sticking it to me. Next time I try to tell a joke I'll do some more research ahead of time.

 

[CaedmonVol]

Feel free to click on the hyperlink "welfare".

You don't think that "general welfare" can be read to mean a program to keep old people from starving?

Why don't you make a real argument instead of telling me to click on a hyperlink.

 

[jcwvolfan]

You don't think that "general welfare" can be read to mean a program to keep old people from starving?

Why don't you make a real argument instead of telling me to click on a hyperlink.

Sure, it CAN be read to meant that, but the question is SHOULD it be read to meant that. The best way to determine how it should be read is to determine the framers’ true intention behind the statement. Do you honestly believe the framers’ had Social Security in mind when the wrote “general welfare?”

 

[CaedmonVol]

Sure, it CAN be read to meant that, but the question is SHOULD it be read to meant that. The best way to determine how it should be read is to determine the framers’ true intention behind the statement. Do you honestly believe the framers’ had Social Security in mind when the wrote “general welfare?”

But so many things that the U.S. government does are not what the Framers envisioned. Congress hasn't declared war since 1941, yet we've fought loads of wars since then. I argue that we ought to require a declaration of war based on the Founders' intent, but then again nothing appears to prohibit the system we use now, i.e. the unilateral executive.

 

[jcwvolfan]

But so many things that the U.S. government does are not what the Framers envisioned. Congress hasn't declared war since 1941, yet we've fought loads of wars since then. I argue that we ought to require a declaration of war based on the Founders' intent, but then again nothing appears to prohibit the system we use now, i.e. the unilateral executive.

Hey, you won’t get an argument from me on the above. But it seems like if you want the declaration of war based on the framers’ intend you would also ask for the abolishment of Social Security. Its obvious how they wanted war declared and that they didn’t intend for the government to fund individual welfare.

 

[therealUT]

You don't think that "general welfare" can be read to mean a program to keep old people from starving?

Why don't you make a real argument instead of telling me to click on a hyperlink.

If the Framers had intended for our tax dollars to be used to support the old and feeble in our country, then they probably would have instituted a more revenue generating federal tax system, and welfare programs would probably have been instituted prior to the 1930s.

 

[therealUT]

But so many things that the U.S. government does are not what the Framers envisioned. Congress hasn't declared war since 1941, yet we've fought loads of wars since then. I argue that we ought to require a declaration of war based on the Founders' intent, but then again nothing appears to prohibit the system we use now, i.e. the unilateral executive.

This is a stretch. The Founders and Framers of the Constitution never supported any kind of government social welfare program. No Federal social welfare program was established until the 1930s.

However, plenty of the Founders and Framers of the Constitution supported military action without formal declarations of war:
Quasi-France War 1898
First and Second Barbary Wars 1801 and 1815

Brilliant effort on your part. BTW, 1942 was the last time the US formally declared war (just making sure that you have a firm grasp of the facts).

 

[jcwvolfan]

If the Framers had intended for our tax dollars to be used to support the old and feeble in our country, then they probably would have instituted a more revenue generating federal tax system, and welfare programs would probably have been instituted prior to the 1930s.

True that! If one wants to speculate about the Framers’ intended role of the federal government, one need look no further than what the Framers practiced after the start of our country. If they had meant for there to be Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or other entitlement programs (read UHC), they would have instituted them in the early years of the Republic.

This goes for the Second Amendment also. If they meant that only those in a state sponsored militia should have arms, then they would have confiscated all guns owned by those that were not a member of a militia. Now I’m digressing so I will wrap it up.

 

[CaedmonVol]

True that! If one wants to speculate about the Framers’ intended role of the federal government, one need look no further than what the Framers practiced after the start of our country. If they had meant for there to be Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or other entitlement programs (read UHC), they would have instituted them in the early years of the Republic.

This goes for the Second Amendment also. If they meant that only those in a state sponsored militia should have arms, then they would have confiscated all guns owned by those that were not a member of a militia. Now I’m digressing so I will wrap it up.

That's not true. States can pass gun-control laws irrespective of the Second Amendment. You guys are all states-rights guys, right? So certainly you wouldn't mind if the people of Tennessee decided to ban firearms for civilians, right? The Second Amendment doesn't prohibit this -- it only prohibits the FEDERAL government from banning guns. And don't tell me about D.C. v. Heller. In that case the law was invalidated because it was in D.C., which is not a state. Thus no states' rights.

 

[CaedmonVol]

Dude, I have honestly enjoyed debating you. You are a smart person and I respect your viewpoints. Since you're a fan of ancient learning, how about Aristotle's Rhetoric? According to Aristotle, the three elements of persuasion are Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. I think your Logos is pretty strong -- that's the element of pure knowledge, logical reasoning, etc. Your Ethos and Pathos, however, need work. Ethos is how likeable you are -- no one is persuaded by a bully or a jerk. You drop a lot of casual insults, rather than engage in a purely civil debate, so you should work on that. You also need to work on Pathos, i.e. understanding the audience that you're speaking to. Bottom line, you'll be way more effective in persuading if you work on the latter two.

 

[CaedmonVol]

This is a stretch. The Founders and Framers of the Constitution never supported any kind of government social welfare program. No Federal social welfare program was established until the 1930s.

However, plenty of the Founders and Framers of the Constitution supported military action without formal declarations of war:
Quasi-France War 1898
First and Second Barbary Wars 1801 and 1815

Brilliant effort on your part. BTW, 1942 was the last time the US formally declared war (just making sure that you have a firm grasp of the facts).

Dude, I have honestly enjoyed debating you. You are a smart person and I respect your viewpoints. Since you're a fan of ancient learning, how about Aristotle's Rhetoric? According to Aristotle, the three elements of persuasion are Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. I think your Logos is pretty strong -- that's the element of pure knowledge, logical reasoning, etc. Your Ethos and Pathos, however, need work. Ethos is how likeable you are -- no one is persuaded by a bully or a jerk. You drop a lot of casual insults, rather than engage in a purely civil debate, so you should work on that. You also need to work on Pathos, i.e. understanding the audience that you're speaking to. Bottom line, you'll be way more effective in persuading if you work on the latter two.

 

[therealUT]

That's not true. States can pass gun-control laws irrespective of the Second Amendment. You guys are all states-rights guys, right? So certainly you wouldn't mind if the people of Tennessee decided to ban firearms for civilians, right? The Second Amendment doesn't prohibit this -- it only prohibits the FEDERAL government from banning guns. And don't tell me about D.C. v. Heller. In that case the law was invalidated because it was in D.C., which is not a state. Thus no states' rights.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In 1813, Kentucky enacted the first carrying concealed weapon statute in the United States. The Kentucky Court of Appeals struck down the law in 1822 as a violation of the state constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

Also, feel free to look up Nunn v. State.

In 1822, I would have to say that those acting to protect the Constitution actually had considerably more knowledge of the intent and spirit of the 2nd Amendment then some claim to have in 2008.

 

[therealUT]

Dude, I have honestly enjoyed debating you. You are a smart person and I respect your viewpoints. Since you're a fan of ancient learning, how about Aristotle's Rhetoric? According to Aristotle, the three elements of persuasion are Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. I think your Logos is pretty strong -- that's the element of pure knowledge, logical reasoning, etc. Your Ethos and Pathos, however, need work. Ethos is how likeable you are -- no one is persuaded by a bully or a jerk. You drop a lot of casual insults, rather than engage in a purely civil debate, so you should work on that. You also need to work on Pathos, i.e. understanding the audience that you're speaking to. Bottom line, you'll be way more effective in persuading if you work on the latter two.

Interesting post coming from the person who started the following thread:

To get into UT, you need good grades and SAT scores, which generally indicates that you know stuff (e.g. facts, basic grasp of science and logical reasoning). Could Palin make that cut? Let's be generous and use today's Palin (rather than the 18-year-old Sarah). Thoughts?

Of course, the post about Palin lacks logos, pathos, and ethos...

 

[BigPapaVol]

Dude, I have honestly enjoyed debating you. You are a smart person and I respect your viewpoints. Since you're a fan of ancient learning, how about Aristotle's Rhetoric? According to Aristotle, the three elements of persuasion are Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. I think your Logos is pretty strong -- that's the element of pure knowledge, logical reasoning, etc. Your Ethos and Pathos, however, need work. Ethos is how likeable you are -- no one is persuaded by a bully or a jerk. You drop a lot of casual insults, rather than engage in a purely civil debate, so you should work on that. You also need to work on Pathos, i.e. understanding the audience that you're speaking to. Bottom line, you'll be way more effective in persuading if you work on the latter two.

this would make considerable sense if you weren't on a Vol message board. However, you are and that makes this drivel sound utterly senseless.

 

[jcwvolfan]

That's not true. States can pass gun-control laws irrespective of the Second Amendment. You guys are all states-rights guys, right? So certainly you wouldn't mind if the people of Tennessee decided to ban firearms for civilians, right? The Second Amendment doesn't prohibit this -- it only prohibits the FEDERAL government from banning guns. And don't tell me about D.C. v. Heller. In that case the law was invalidated because it was in D.C., which is not a state. Thus no states' rights.

You missed the point. I never mentioned anything about state laws or state’s rights. I was talking about the federal government and the intent of the Framers.

What are your thoughts on the actual points I made in the post you referenced?

 

[kptvol]

You missed the point. I never mentioned anything about state laws or state’s rights. I was talking about the federal government and the intent of the Framers.

What are your thoughts on the actual points I made in the post you referenced?

You ask too much.

 

[CaedmonVol]

Also, feel free to look up Nunn v. State.

In 1822, I would have to say that those acting to protect the Constitution actually had considerably more knowledge of the intent and spirit of the 2nd Amendment then some claim to have in 2008.

Dude, you have some good foreign policy and military knowledge, I must admit. But I may have to school you in the ways of the law.

The opinion you cite is a state-court opinion, striking down a state statute, based on the state constitution. Of course, a state court can enforce its own state constitution.

The Second Amendment to the FEDERAL constitution, however, is not binding on the states. That is why a state legislature can ban firearms without violating the U.S. constitution. The question is what a federal court could do if the Kentucky legislature outlawed firearms. The answer -- nothing. The only reason why the federal courts could strike down the D.C. statute is because it is a D.C. (not a state) law.

Thus, (to respond to two posts at once), the Framers' intent is irrelevant, unless we're talking about an act of Congress.

 

[therealUT]

Dude, you have some good foreign policy and military knowledge, I must admit. But I may have to school you in the ways of the law.

The opinion you cite is a state-court opinion, striking down a state statute, based on the state constitution. Of course, a state court can enforce its own state constitution.

The Second Amendment to the FEDERAL constitution, however, is not binding on the states. That is why a state legislature can ban firearms without violating the U.S. constitution. The question is what a federal court could do if the Kentucky legislature outlawed firearms. The answer -- nothing. The only reason why the federal courts could strike down the D.C. statute is because it is a D.C. (not a state) law.

Thus, (to respond to two posts at once), the Framers' intent is irrelevant, unless we're talking about an act of Congress.

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.

I guess in your expert legal opinion, the individual States can also legislate against our 1st Amendment rights as well.

You have bought in to a line of garbage that the anti-gun activists have been toting for years.

Again, in your expert legal opinion, you must think that individual states can also invade our houses and search and seize at will...as long as they pass the measure through their State Governments.

Thank you for schooling me.

 

[CaedmonVol]

I guess in your expert legal opinion, the individual States can also legislate against our 1st Amendment rights as well.

You have bought in to a line of garbage that the anti-gun activists have been toting for years.

Again, in your expert legal opinion, you must think that individual states can also invade our houses and search and seize at will...as long as they pass the measure through their State Governments.

Thank you for schooling me.

All right, I'll continue to school you. The Second Amendment (unlike every other single amendment except for the grand-jury clause of the 5th Amendment), is NOT BINDING on the states. It's true.

It's a legal fiction called incorporation, which the Supreme Court instituted in the early 20th century -- through this legal fiction, all the other amendments are binding on the states, otherwise they could institute state-run religions and search your house. If you think I'm making this up, read a book about constitutional law (something you would say to me).

Hence, the states CAN pass gun-control laws if the people so desire.

 

[therealUT]

All right, I'll continue to school you. The Second Amendment (unlike every other single amendment except for the grand-jury clause of the 5th Amendment), is NOT BINDING on the states. It's true.

It's a legal fiction called incorporation, which the Supreme Court instituted in the early 20th century -- through this legal fiction, all the other amendments are binding on the states, otherwise they could institute state-run religions and search your house. If you think I'm making this up, read a book about constitutional law (something you would say to me).

Hence, the states CAN pass gun-control laws if the people so desire.

Are you trying to argue with me against the spirit and intent of the 2nd Amendment by quoting a Supreme Court decision in the 1900s?

Classic.