Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
for fuck sake what do you do type in your sleep?
I just posted this try reading it for shit sake!
What more do you need? a 2x4 across the head?
Its IN YOUR FACE clear what is going on!
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
Just cut you right on out of the picture all together didnt they.... LMAO
They just conferred power upon themselves not authorized or ever intended to be authorized by the constitution!
Of course you got to vote on it didnt you?
Oh the corrupt courts did it for you! Just like the election!
Truly it does not get any better than this to show how fucking corrupt the system is at large!
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: The "General Welfare" clause - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread