Are you referring to the US Constitution? It did address the major inconsistencies that were a form of States' rights. We were simply not moral and ethical to bear true witness to our own Constitution.

define:

major inconsistencies and their relation to state's rights.

that is, actually explain what it is you are trying to say in ONE post.

__________________

The veto was only one part of my post. The other part was from the Constitutional debates. I also included a quote from the FEDERALIST no. 45.

In addition we have this....

James Madison elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted."

Jefferson wrote even more on the General Welfare clause, numerous quotes I have posted at this forum before.

Some people just don't get it. Our current Federal Government has very few limits, as they can twist almost any policy into fitting the general welfare requirement. Any thinking person knows this is not what the founding fathers intended. If people wish to support welfare and the like, then at least be honest and admit that it is unconstitutional. Then, we can either pass an amendment, or scrap the constitution, as many, many government policies are clearly unconstitutional.

Some of the major socio-economic issues were black and women's suffrage. Both of those were considered States' rights at the time.

I disagree that the general Badfare, common Offense, or general Warfare are within the scope of the general power "to raise money for the general welfare."

stated specifically where?

ahh, i see, you are letting the constitution be its own cop-out. you can't seriously be saying that the founders EXPECTED the states to allow black and women suffrage (when the prevailing system was that only white LANDOWNERS mattered anyway in terms of voting)

__________________

yet you can cite no specific part of the constitution or any court case that involves the matter.

you will keep stating that it is your opinion that the spending is only for the 'enumerated powers.'

big deal. can we move on?

__________________

Have you actually read our own Constitution? The document that our Founding Fathers took such great care at the Convention with, were gender and color neutral.

Voting and slavery were considered legacy States' rights from the Articles of Confederation.

Paying the Debts and providing for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States are the scope of the general powers. It means, that public monies should not be spent on the general Badfare, the common Offense, or the general Warfare; as is current practice by subscribers to the republican doctrine and where any good fallacy will work for the common Offense and general Warfare, not to mention the general Badfare.

The powers listed after the general powers are specific examples and qualifications of what was meant by the common defense and general welfare (as the scope and basis for authority of the specific powers.)

This explains why our Founding Fathers didn't simply provide a list of specifically enumerated specific powers without the general qualifiers on what constitutes the common defense and general welfare. "But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter."

Because, not everything qualifies as the common defense and general welfare.

As long as it is for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States as specifically enumerated by that general power; it can be considered within the scope of the powers delegated to our federal Congress.

The explanations and qualifications after the general powers are what constitutes specific examples what was meant by the common defense and general welfare.

In other words, anything that does not promote the general welfare is beyond the scope of the authority of those general powers delegated to our federal Congress. It can be considered a form of States' right.

The republican doctrine is only credible when there is no homelessness or poverty in republican Right to Work states.

Wrong, Republicans recognize that by and large in a free society homelessness and poverty are not problems to be solved by society, but rather the result of individual choices and decisions in life.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Why would we have any simple poverty in any state that provides recourse to an income through Right to Work legislation?

That any ONE PARTICULAR person is poor is largely the result of individual choices and decisions in life -- GIVEN that there are poor people.

That there are ANY poor people at all, however, is a problem to be solved by society.

sounds like you are convinced that in 'any free society' poverty is impossible unless someone 'chooses' to be so. care to elaborate on why you think this is an absolute truth?

__________________

sounds like you are convinced that any presence of poverty is automatically indicative of a flaw in the prevailing social system. care to elaborate on why you consider this an absolute truth?

__________________