President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#14,928
#14,928
luthervol said:
The national Constitution addresses economic and social rights prominently but with little specificity. The Preamble states that an overriding purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to “promote the general welfare,” indicating that issues such as poverty, housing, food and other economic and social welfare issues facing the citizenry were of central concern to the framers.

www.acslaw.org

'To Promote the General Welfare' | ACS

www.acslaw.org www.acslaw.org
Click to expand...
the Preamble isn't binding. its an explanation/summation of what comes next. they spell out what they mean by general welfare in the actual text of the Constitution, just like they do Justice, defense, and liberty.

and no, it doesn't include economic and social welfare issues.

you have to remember the Constitution was a LIMIT on government powers, not an blank license for the Government to do whatever. there is a reason Amendment* 9, rights retained by the people, comes before States rights.

*I had wrongly said Article*
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, Ritzwatch, 825VOL and 3 others
#14,931
#14,931
McDad said:
Someone can go back and research the McKinley Model but nobody researches and tweets about debt to gdp ratios.

our outrage and anxiety is so selective.
Click to expand...
It's crazy.

The Dept of Ed has proven an absolute failure and people are bemoaning an end to its waste. "It's for the children!"

Well, maybe we need to burn down the failure, stop feeding the waste, and get our budget/deficit in order.

The people crying about the kids here are generally not the ones worrying about the deficit that is spending THEIR MONEY NOW.

Pro tip, if you care about their kids, start caring about not spending/wasting their money. As adults, we have power of attorney over their future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT, marcusluvsvols, Buddy’s Bandit and 1 other person
#14,932
#14,932
luthervol said:
Yep, "scholars" are often proven to be wrong with the passage of time.
The flat earther's certainly were. I guess we probably disagree on who the flat earther is in this debate.

Had the states responded to the fed's promotion by adequately providing, then there would have been no need for the feds to step into the provider role.

Hell, had local communities adequately provided, there would have been no need for the state to get involved.

But that's the way it always goes.
Click to expand...
Would you consider it fair/Constitutional if a government, local, state, or federal, held you criminally responsible for the acts of someone you didn't even know in California?
Would you consider it fair/Constitutional if a government, held you financially responsible for someone in Connecticut?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#14,934
#14,934
volfanhill said:
I did no such thing. But again no potus gets a pass for actions of their secretaries. And continuing bad policy, not saying this is, doesn't make you above accountability.
Click to expand...
I kind of agree with your "bad policy " but as painful as the Slaughter was, I think it was necessary, if I had a case of brucellosis or tb in my dairy herd it would have been bye bye cows.
 
#14,938
#14,938
825VOL said:
So, you quote a progressive organization that doesn't even understand the definition of words. There is a reason they use "provide" in reference to defense and "promote" in reference to general welfare. They are not the same.

There is no place in any part of the Constitution that states we should take from the rich and give to the poor.

It scares the hell out of me that you were around kids for years and probably passed your ignorance on to them. God help those kids.
Click to expand...
Yep. And the following sentence about "liberty" seems to be an immediate constrain to the idea of wealth distribution.

Also... Same. It just goes back to the failures of the DoE at the macro and micro level.
 
#14,940
#14,940
luthervol said:
pro·mote
/prəˈmōt/

verb

  1. 1.
    further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage.
    "some regulation is still required to promote competition"
Click to expand...
The federal government could just as well "promote" the general welfare by taxing us less, leaving money in our pockets, and better enabling us to voluntarily care for our neighbors. You are REALLY stretching this whole "promote" thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT, SpaceCoastVol, McDad and 2 others
#14,941
#14,941
Orange_Crush said:
The federal government could just as well "promote" the general welfare by taxing us less, leaving money in our pockets, and better enabling us to voluntarily care for our neighbors. You are REALLY stretching this whole "promote" thing.
Click to expand...
Imagine thinking you need to send your money to a middleman hundreds of miles away that takes like 90% of what you give them, flushes it down the toilet, then tells you they care while they provide ****** services to you and your neighbor all while you could just walk to a local soup kitchen or church and give them the same amount and see it actually work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT, marcusluvsvols, McDad and 2 others
#14,942
#14,942
825VOL said:
Since you refuse to answer the question, I will treat you like my 14-year-old students when I teach them the Constitution so maybe you can understand it.

Provide means to give. This one is simple. If I provide lunch for you, that means I give you lunch. In context of the Constitution, it is the federal governments job to provide or give us our defense.

Promote is not as straightforward as provide. If you ask me to promote your rap concert, does that mean I give you a free place to put it on at and buy all the tickets for the concert? Of course not. Promote means I tell or show people why your concert is a good idea, I tell them it would be fun, it would be good for them to support someone local, they will get to hang out with their friends, etc. So, promote means that I think something is a good idea and it will help you in one way or another, so I want you and others to know about it. In context of the Constitution, promote means things the government thinks will be good for its citizens such as education, safety, proper nutrition, daily exercise, etc. It does not mean the government is to provide these things.

As far as your "scholars" comment, scholars used to think the moon was made of cheese, the Earth was flat and many other idiotic things, that didn't make them correct any more than it makes you correct.
Click to expand...
Ah, the old "Appeal to Authority" in lieu of supporting his claims.

He also trusts experts that don't know the difference between boys and girls. This seems appropriate:

1741289186005.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#14,943
#14,943
luthervol said:
Yep, "scholars" are often proven to be wrong with the passage of time.
The flat earther's certainly were. I guess we probably disagree on who the flat earther is in this debate.

Had the states responded to the fed's promotion by adequately providing, then there would have been no need for the feds to step into the provider role.

Hell, had local communities adequately provided, there would have been no need for the state to get involved.

But that's the way it always goes.
Click to expand...
You've switched your argument from "Constitution says..." to "feds had to..." without even moving back to prove that it's the states' responsibility to PROVIDE...
 
#14,945
#14,945
SpaceCoastVol said:
Cool story bro. Be sure to stick with it.
Click to expand...

I take it Lee has provided you with actual evidence of fraud then?

Please, do share with the class.
giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: swampfoxfan
#14,947
#14,947
LouderVol said:
Would you consider it fair/Constitutional if a government, local, state, or federal, held you criminally responsible for the acts of someone you didn't even know in California?
Would you consider it fair/Constitutional if a government, held you financially responsible for someone in Connecticut?
Click to expand...
Equal to being taxed to support a grotesquely bloated war machine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: swampfoxfan
#14,948
#14,948
Orange_Crush said:
The federal government could just as well "promote" the general welfare by taxing us less, leaving money in our pockets, and better enabling us to voluntarily care for our neighbors. You are REALLY stretching this whole "promote" thing.
Click to expand...
I'm for reducing the size government. I'm team Carter/Clinton.
I hated that Reagan sent us down this road of spiraling debt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol and swampfoxfan
#14,949
#14,949
luthervol said:
Equal to being taxed to support a grotesquely bloated war machine.
Click to expand...
Troll better. If you want to argue the meaning of "grotesquely bloated" regarding defense spending you'll have no shortage of allies here but military spending itself is wholly and unambiguously Constitutional. In fact it's funny in context with what you were discussing earlier. Note the boldened:

...provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare...
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT and Orange_Crush
#14,950
#14,950
hndog609 said:
Troll better. If you want to argue the meaning of "grotesquely bloated" regarding defense spending you'll have no shortage of allies here but military spending itself is wholly and unambiguously Constitutional. In fact it's funny in context with what you were discussing earlier. Note the boldened:

...provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare...
Click to expand...
snooze.........

The question included the word "fair". I answered the question asked.

Troll better.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top