[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]Why not? The safety net is designed to relieve the hardships of poverty. It's bad for the nation as a whole if whole swathes of it are disastrously poor. Aside from the civil unrest that would cause, it also hampers the economy if most of the consumers can't afford to buy products. So the well-off person who can't 'claim a welfare house' is benefited because A) he doesn't have hordes of starving people clamoring to rob him, and B) he can make even more money since he can sell his products or services to a larger consumer base. Not to mention that the safety net encourages enterprise and investment because it lessens the potentially disastrous repercussions of a business failing or an investment going bad. Not to mention that lower elderly poverty rates (thanks medicare and social security!) reduces financial burdens on offspring, which helps everyone. So the safety net does promote the 'general welfare.' It's amazing what you can do when you don't have such a cripplingly narrow interpretation of things!white_wolf922

Because it's for the general populace. If it can't do it for all it can't do it for some. The regulations on food stamps need to be removed or else it's breaking the law.

A) Robbing people is against individuals rights. The judicial branches will have purpose.

B) He can do that when everyone is able to receive welfare, rich middle class, poor.

C) It wouldn't be removed because it's for everyone. It's still there. So it still encourages people who suck at capitalism to try again until they do succeed.

What? Elderly people can steal in point a? Congress has 18 things to do. Medicare and social security aren't any of them. Following the laws in the Constitution reduces financial burdens. Imagine if the government did what it was supposed to do. Everyone benefits from the government following the law. The safety net is still going to be there only it will let everyone participate if they wish. It's amazing what can be accomplished if the people would stand up for their rights.

You've just shown how ignorant you are of legal history. Those 18 things are the Enumerate Powers, butMcCulloch v. Maryland ruled that the the "Necessary and Proper" clause granted Congress numerous implied powers. Among these was chartering a national bank, which was the issue in that case.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

[QUOTE="white_wolf922"]

First of all, a Republic simply means a state without a monarch. Secondly, do you even understand the role of the Supreme Court? It is to interpet the law.

white_wolf922

Yes, the power in theory comes from the people. Authority, rights, government, all of these things are social constructs humans created. However, we have agreed to live by a certain social contract (the Constitution) and under our system the Courts interpret the law.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]Why not? The safety net is designed to relieve the hardships of poverty. It's bad for the nation as a whole if whole swathes of it are disastrously poor. Aside from the civil unrest that would cause, it also hampers the economy if most of the consumers can't afford to buy products. So the well-off person who can't 'claim a welfare house' is benefited because A) he doesn't have hordes of starving people clamoring to rob him, and B) he can make even more money since he can sell his products or services to a larger consumer base. Not to mention that the safety net encourages enterprise and investment because it lessens the potentially disastrous repercussions of a business failing or an investment going bad. Not to mention that lower elderly poverty rates (thanks medicare and social security!) reduces financial burdens on offspring, which helps everyone. So the safety net does promote the 'general welfare.' It's amazing what you can do when you don't have such a cripplingly narrow interpretation of things!Abbeten

Because it's for the general populace. If it can't do it for all it can't do it for some. The regulations on food stamps need to be removed or else it's breaking the law.

A) Robbing people is against individuals rights. The judicial branches will have purpose.

B) He can do that when everyone is able to receive welfare, rich middle class, poor.

C) It wouldn't be removed because it's for everyone. It's still there. So it still encourages people who suck at capitalism to try again until they do succeed.

What? Elderly people can steal in point a? Congress has 18 things to do. Medicare and social security aren't any of them. Following the laws in the Constitution reduces financial burdens. Imagine if the government did what it was supposed to do. Everyone benefits from the government following the law. The safety net is still going to be there only it will let everyone participate if they wish. It's amazing what can be accomplished if the people would stand up for their rights.

You clearly don't understand economics if you think it's viable to make welfare instantly available to everyone in the country simultaneously.

'Following the laws in the Constitution' does not reduce financial burdens. The Constitution is not a magic wand. It is not a panacaea. It does not magically make all of our problems go away.

General welfare does not need to be interpreted as 'instantly available to everyone.' General welfare can (and probably should) be interpreted as 'improve your quality of life.) Instituting limited welfare improves the quality of life of everyone, albeit not to the same degree.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="white_wolf922"]

Marbury V. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall writing for an unanimous Supreme Court said this: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is"

white_wolf922

First of all, a Republic simply means a state without a monarch. Secondly, do you even understand the role of the Supreme Court? It is to interpet the law.

Why not? The safety net is designed to relieve the hardships of poverty. It's bad for the nation as a whole if whole swathes of it are disastrously poor. Aside from the civil unrest that would cause, it also hampers the economy if most of the consumers can't afford to buy products. So the well-off person who can't 'claim a welfare house' is benefited because A) he doesn't have hordes of starving people clamoring to rob him, and B) he can make even more money since he can sell his products or services to a larger consumer base. Not to mention that the safety net encourages enterprise and investment because it lessens the potentially disastrous repercussions of a business failing or an investment going bad. Not to mention that lower elderly poverty rates (thanks medicare and social security!) reduces financial burdens on offspring, which helps everyone. So the safety net does promote the 'general welfare.' It's amazing what you can do when you don't have such a cripplingly narrow interpretation of things!Abbeten

Because it's for the general populace. If it can't do it for all it can't do it for some. The regulations on food stamps need to be removed or else it's breaking the law.

A) Robbing people is against individuals rights. The judicial branches will have purpose.

B) He can do that when everyone is able to receive welfare, rich middle class, poor.

C) It wouldn't be removed because it's for everyone. It's still there. So it still encourages people who suck at capitalism to try again until they do succeed.

What? Elderly people can steal in point a? Congress has 18 things to do. Medicare and social security aren't any of them. Following the laws in the Constitution reduces financial burdens. Imagine if the government did what it was supposed to do. Everyone benefits from the government following the law. The safety net is still going to be there only it will let everyone participate if they wish. It's amazing what can be accomplished if the people would stand up for their rights.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] No, you're not (necessarily) wrong because you don't happen to agree with my interpretation of the constitution (although you're probably wrong there too, but I digress). You're wrong because you refuse to even acknowledge that legitimate differing interpretations of the constitution are possible.

white_wolf922

I explain why the government is violating the Constitution. You defend the government by saying it has it's own interpretation so it is allowed. What? Why are you defending the thing that the people gave power to? It has no rights. It is not a person. Where does it say there are legitimate interpretations conjured by the government that we the people must except? I'll tell you. Nowhere. That is the purpose of the tenth. Oh... and now we've come full circle. That's it.

Marbury V. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall writing for an unanimous Supreme Court said this: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is"

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1

'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'

Now I can already hear your cries of 'bu bu bu but GENERAL welfare!!!'

The safety net promotes the general welfare, both through direct poverty relief to those in need as well as indirect benefits to those not currently receiving the aid. This is where we get into the slightly nuanced area that you seem to stubbornly insist doesn't exist.

Abbeten

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] See: Article III Section 2, Federalist Paper #78, Marbury v. Madison -Sun_Tzu-

I'm not ignoring the Constitution. Maybe they needed those writings to explain what it is because the colonies just became free of monarch rule. That's what people know. King rule. Describe a republic to a person who grew up under king law. Describe the individual has the power and not the king.

Knowing why the founding fathers you say framers tried to explain things is interesting. And good for us to remember of why choose to become independent from the king. The Constitution is simple enough to understand after you understand the side of tyranny.

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1

'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'

Now I can already hear your cries of 'bu bu bu but GENERAL welfare!!!'

The safety net promotes the general welfare, both through direct poverty relief to those in need as well as indirect benefits to those not currently receiving the aid. This is where we get into the slightly nuanced area that you seem to stubbornly insist doesn't exist.

Abbeten