They haven't limited who can receive welfare. They've limited under what circumstances a person can receive welfare. There's a key legal difference there.AbbetenThe key difference that you are missing is they (the government) and us (the people). Let us now turn to the Constitution provided by the world wide web. We the People of the... promote the general Welfare. Where is they in that part? Oh they doesn't exsist. Lets skip to Article 1. Section 8. About the people giving the privileges on what congress can do. The Congress shall have Power to ... provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States. This part specifically tells them to provide for welfare. Not just any welfare. Not limited welfare. Not circumstanced welfare. General. The same kind of general we the people promote. Or do we? By your statements and we the majority that allow congress to limit circumstancial food stamps, medicare, medicaid, and social security do not. But .. what's that called? Oh right. Ignorance.
LOXO7's forum posts
[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] So what exact process would this entail? Also I hardly think it's treason to uphold a different interpretation of the phrase 'general welfare' than you do.AbbetenInstead of the people being afraid of their government the government would be afraid of it's people. I don't care if you (one person) doesn't think it's treasonous if congress doesn't comply with it's only purpose of existence. I care about what congress decides of it. You're speaking in really vague terms. Congress is already 'afraid' of the people in the sense that they try to do things that are popular in their districts so they get reelected. And Congress' purpose is to represent the will of its constituents in legislation. They do that, more or less. And if they overstep the bounds of their powers in the constitution, the supreme court is there to arbitrate that. The problem here is that the Constitution does not always prescribe cut and dry solutions for every scenario. The Court often finds valid arguments both for and against specific bills, and in those cases, it rules in favor of upholding the legislation. So basically what it comes down to is, your idea of constitutionality is not definitive, and it's probably a little arrogant to accuse hundreds of people of treason for disagreeing with you! I'm the one speaking in vague terms? I'm not the one who misinterprets the Constitution. I'm not the one who decides to agree with whatever the government says. I'm trying to know my rights so when drones start to fly over our cities I can be there to stand up for our rights and say this is wrong. And you can be there to obey. Because you are talking like you are oblivious.
Court decisions do not promote freedom. How did the people gain more freedom after the decision of Roe v. Wade? The people already had the freedom. They don't need to have the supreme court tell them so. If they were educated. Maybe this would be different. But who controls the majority of education? The government. Everything good public schools have taught me that I use today I would have learned it from my parents. Teachings such as reading, writing, mathematics, and the differences between money, coins, and dollars.
Anyways the most important thing the government wants from you is to get you to agree with their unconstitutional privileges via licenses. Government's licenses is not freedom. Why do we let the government to tell us what we can do when we have the Constitution reminding us what the government can't do?
Instead of the people being afraid of their government the government would be afraid of it's people. I don't care if you (one person) doesn't think it's treasonous if congress doesn't comply with it's only purpose of existence. I care about what congress decides of it.[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] So what exact process would this entail? Also I hardly think it's treason to uphold a different interpretation of the phrase 'general welfare' than you do.white_wolf922
The problem is the majority of people don't feel the way you do. You're are the only person I've heard call wellfare programs unconstitutional. Even conservatives merely say they are wasteful or unnecessary. Beyond that you haven't given a shred of evidence to support your view aside from an extremely simplistic reading of the Constitution.
I have not said the welfare programs we have today are unconstitutional. What I am trying to say is that congress limiting who can receive welfare is an unconstitutional action. The Constitution specifically states we the people promote the general welfare. And now in today's world the majority of people would be reneging on this statement. If they think congress has a valid argument to make food stamps only for a certain type of person and not for the general public then cross out the word general and make it specific or entitled welfare.The Constitution is not hard to figure out. People have unalienable rights granted to them by existence. Luckily in America the founders agreed with this. They are life, liberty, and owning property. We the People means we the American citizens, not we the government officials. The people grant privileges to the government that it has to follow. Every time you see the word shall in the constitution that is the people giving this responsibility to the government. If they dishonor their responsibility it is treason. The tenth amendment prohibits the federal government to tweak or create new laws not specified in the previous amendments when it was created. But now as you can see other amendments go beyond the tenth. If you are going to have more amendments beyond the tenth, remove the tenth first. Otherwise it is treason. They did not follow the Constitution.
The Consitution states the people give privilaged powers to the government. It's a document from the people to the government. It's directions. Politicians have turn this idea upside down. Now the government unconstitutionally gives the people privileges, like licences. What?! How can that be when you have an unalienable right called liberty? The government doesn't grant us privileges. That's unconstitutional.
[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="white_wolf922"]Why are you leaving out the specific word that comes before welfare? That's the whole basis of why I say it's unconstitutional. Congress manipulates and decides who gets the welfare. I'm not saying it's bad. I'm saying it's illegal. It's treason. Heh. You're funny. Anyway, it's a shame the Supreme Court has the final ruling on constitutionality and it would appear that they disagree with you. If Americans stood up for their rights I'm sure they would say otherwise.Under our current system of government wellfare is neither illegal or unconstitutional. If you want to say it's a bad idea, sure, but it isn't unconstitutional.
Abbeten
The power of the people trumps the powers granted by the people to the supreme court. Why make a government to rule over the people? They had that before the revolutionary war. Why rebel against the British in the first place? The people grants the government powers. That's how complex it gets. Congress violates the Constitution by making specifications for people receiving welfare. This is not providing general welfare. This is manipulating general welfare into unconstitutional specific welfare.[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="white_wolf922"]
Did you even bother reading my post? The Supreme Court does not agree with you on this. Seriously try actually studing the constituitiona nd what the courts have said about it, instead of this extremly simplistic interperation you are giving. Just answer me this. What provisons of the constituon do wellfare or these other social programs violate?
white_wolf922
Under our current system of government wellfare is neither illegal or unconstitutional. If you want to say it's a bad idea, sure, but it isn't unconstitutional.
Why are you leaving out the specific word that comes before welfare? That's the whole basis of why I say it's unconstitutional. Congress manipulates and decides who gets the welfare. I'm not saying it's bad. I'm saying it's illegal. It's treason.Hmm. We the People of the United States... Article. 3. Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court. Who grants this privilege by saying shall? Sh*t! The people also grant a privilege to the supreme court as well. What does this mean? Government power is granted as a privilege by the people. There is an idea out there that the government grants the people privileges. This is back*ss backwards.[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="white_wolf922"]
Have you ever studied the Constitution? The Supreme Court has never held that the government can only do what is specifically written in the Constitution. See the doctrine of Implied Powers and McCulloch V Maryland. Also check out the Commerce Clause which the Supreme Court has interpreted very broadly when it comes to Congresses's powers.
white_wolf922
Did you even bother reading my post? The Supreme Court does not agree with you on this. Seriously try actually studing the constituitiona nd what the courts have said about it, instead of this extremly simplistic interperation you are giving. Just answer me this. What provisons of the constituon do wellfare or these other social programs violate?
The power of the people trumps the powers granted by the people to the supreme court. Why make a government to rule over the people? They had that before the revolutionary war. Why rebel against the British in the first place? The people grants the government powers. That's how complex it gets. Congress violates the Constitution by making specifications for people receiving welfare. This is not providing general welfare. This is manipulating general welfare into unconstitutional specific welfare.You are saying the government and congress has rights?! Nine does not disprove my point. Rights are only for the people. He was talking about since it's not in the Constitution then congress has no problem making up new laws. Which it is unconstitutional, because nine is for people, and ten is for the government not being allowed to make up new laws because they are not specifically written in the Constitution. Not every right is written for the people in the Constitution (amendment 9). Every privilege is written in the Constitution for the government (amendment 10).[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="white_wolf922"]
What do either of those have to do with your point? If anything the 9th disproves your point since it refers to rights not specially stated in the Constitution.
white_wolf922
If Wellfare were unconstitutional, someone would have challenged it by now. The fact is those social programs are funded by taxes and Congress can spend tax dollars however it wants unless you can prove that they are doing something unconstitutional with them. Wellfare isn't unconstitutional. An no I wasn't saying the goverment has rights, however your reply was so vague I had no clue what you meant which is why I asked you why you think those amendments support you.
General welfare is constitutional. What we have now is people blindly accepting specific welfare as constitutional, like yourself and the majority. Yeah, look at all of the good amendment 16 has done. The people in 1913 were also blind. How is the 9th and 10th amendments vague? They are only 49 words in total.
Log in to comment