quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
I expect there will be changes for the better if this country survives that long.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

But i want you to come forward in time and explain to me how, when we have SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Libraries and the link all funded by the government, and considered needed for the general welfare of the american people... and yet helath care isnt?

I was always under the impression that medicare and medicaid were developed to provide health care for those who needed it and could not afford it. They help in the general welfare of the elderly and the poor.


Note: this is not to imply that I think they are doing a good job with medicare or medicaid. I don't, and the thought that these same idiots may one day be running a system that covers everyone in the country as opposed to just the elderly and poor, scares the fuck out of me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


you are joking right?

would you prefer I post the continental congress or th earticles of confederation which not quite as good explains the same thing or do you think that it meaning changed in a few months to ohaha care?

In other words "ORIGINAL" intent

I dont believe original intent has anything to do with what we are talking about.

You always seem to get a hard on when discussing the Constitution as you feel it was originally intended. Hey, its your kink. I respect that.

But i want you to come forward in time and explain to me how, when we have SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Libraries and the like all funded by the government, and considered needed for the general welfare of the american people... and yet health care isnt?

I dont mean the HC Law... i mean health care.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776

WHEREAS all government ought to be instituted and supported for the security and protection of the community as such, and to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights,

in consideration of protection only,

AND WHEREAS it is absolutely necessary for the welfare and safety of the inhabitants of said colonies,

quote:

yes scrap it all.
but not before scrapping the government sanctioned corporations that are attached to the regulations that create the requirements and the something for nothing bone head attitude of this insurance laden society.
insuance by tax always costs 2wice to many times more than direct invoice but getting rid of one without getting rid of the controlling regulations which is how things are done will only shift it to another label as they have and continue to do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I agree gay today is not gay of yesterday. Nor did the Constitution take into account the ability to fly, the use or nuclear power, teh aging of a generation of baby boomers, nor the capacity to send men/women into space.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

and welfare today is not welfare 200 years ago.

you destroy your argument by anything you do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

yes scrap it all.
but not before scrapping the government sanctioned corporations that are attached to the regulations that create the requirements and the something for nothing bone head attitude of this insurance laden society.
insuance by tax always costs 2wice to many times more than direct invoice but getting rid of one without getting rid of the controlling regulations which is how things are done will only shift it to another label as they have and continue to do.

Just how would you do this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

and welfare today is not welfare 200 years ago.

you destroy your argument by anything you do.

leave to ron to shoot himself in the foot, prove my point and claim I am wrong.

you are always good for a laugh man

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776

WHEREAS all government ought to be instituted and supported for the security and protection of the community as such, and to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights,

in consideration of protection only,

AND WHEREAS it is absolutely necessary for the welfare and safety of the inhabitants of said colonies,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

yes scrap it all.
but not before scrapping the government sanctioned corporations that are attached to the regulations that create the requirements and the something for nothing bone head attitude of this insurance laden society.
insuance by tax always costs 2wice to many times more than direct invoice but getting rid of one without getting rid of the controlling regulations which is how things are done will only shift it to another label as they have and continue to do.

Just how would you do this?

Now that is another story isnt it?

that is a circular argument because you cannot get rid of it as long as people keep using it.

So they need to collect taxes to support those they OWE not only from the users but from new people to pay for people already in the system.

Combine that with the continual failure of the monetary system by the constant "DEVALUATION" of the money and retirement savings (401k etc) that forces people to BEG for relief of the services offered because the same amount of money today buys ONLY 1/2 of what it did in 2000.

The whole system is structured to rape those who use it and force those who do not consent to use those services at the end of the barrel of the government gun.

Its RICO at its best.

quote:

the OP wasnt to bad of an interpretation considering it cane from wiki but this what it really means;

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


you are joking right?

would you prefer I post the continental congress or th earticles of confederation which not quite as good explains the same thing or do you think that it meaning changed in a few months to ohaha care?

In other words "ORIGINAL" intent

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

the OP wasnt to bad of an interpretation considering it cane from wiki but this what it really means;

First, the OP didnt come from wiki... try again.

What wiki does say is as follows...

The two primary authors of the The Federalist essays set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:

Lets not forget the antifederalists and the farmers and several others that opposed the federalists since the federalists were after all the next best thing to the monarchy....

James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, (same thing originally) or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[9][10]

A qualifying statement is not a power to tax....in other words only LAW grants the "LEGITIMATE" power to tax.

Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently <--- (outside the constitutional limitations or oversight of the people something one would expect from a traitor to the constitution)  to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[11]

arguing on the qualifier rather than the LETTER of the law?  Exectly what I would expect from an attorney.  Not to mention AH and GW were both monarchists to the core.

While Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington (speak of the devel eh? LOL)  and Adams, historians argue that his view of the General Welfare Clause was repudiated in the election of 1800, and helped establish the primacy of the Democratic-Republican Party for the subsequent 24 years.[12]

Democratic = group-think 51% to 49% dictatorship
Republican = Individual liberties and the rights of the individual

ORIGINALLY!

Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed a narrow interpretation on the Clause, as demonstrated by the holding in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.,[13] in which a tax on child labor was an impermissible attempt to regulate commerce beyond that Court's equally narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This narrow view was later overturned in United States v. Butler. There, the Court agreed with Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Story had concluded that the General Welfare Clause was NOT a general grant of legislative power, but also dismissed Madison's narrow construction requiring its use be dependent upon the other enumerated powers.

That must be an error as ALL powers are dependent on ENUMERATED powers unless he had access to information I am not privy too. 

If they are not dependent on enumerated powers then you have NO rights at all and they have INFINITE POWER.

Consequently, the Supreme Court held the power to tax and spend is an independent power  (that means "EXTRACONSTITUTIONAL" which means beyond that authorized by the constitution which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US is operating according to PRIVATE contract for PUBLIC USE rather than the LAW OF THE LAND.) 
rather and that the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. 

(You all need to understand precisely WHAT is being said here and the only way to do that is to study law.

Just what everyone wants to do while they raise a family and work 3 jobs to support their kids))

In other words the government does "NOT" HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT "ITSELF" POWER!!!!!

However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare.

There you go right before your very eyes!

Watching the evolution of SYNTAX TERRORISM perpetrated against the people right before your very eyes the words changed into something NEVER INTENDED! LOL
Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[14] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole.[15] To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause

quote:

I dont qualify under any of those events. Many people believe Medicaid is for the poor. Its far more restrictive than that.