WELFARE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

PERIOD.

EXPLANATION POINT !

if you think welfare is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, wait till you get a load of Obamas tax 'credits'...you aint seen nothing yet dude.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Providing for the general Welfare of the United States is a specifically enumerated general power delegated to the general government of the Union.

The power to fix the weights and measures of official poverty is also delegated to our federal government.

Simply ensuring the solvency of any state welfare schemes could ensure the full faith and credit of those public acts by the general government of the Union.

Better compliance with at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws could provide a simpler mechanism for ensuring the efficacy of any such scheme.

I have noticed a trend with government expanding when Republicans get their hands on it.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

A simpler method to distribute income is better compliance with at-will employment doctrine. Unemployment compensation is already an established bureaucracy and department.

Welfare, as we currently know it, could be phased out by attrition.

What do you think of the concept of public sector ownership of "means of production"? These types of public sector business ventures can improve our standard of living while generating revenue that can defray public sector costs.

I subscribe to the point of view that the general government of our Union is legally, morally, and ethically obligated to provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States. Does anyone want to discuss the perspective that states should be able to enact public policies of zero percent official poverty and feel a sense of entitlement to the full faith and credit of the United States; and, potential states' right.

In California, the employer pays all the unemployment tax. I would not mind paying half, to ensure that at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws are fully complied with, as a simple matter of equity, privilege, and immunity.

We could be reducing that cost to the employer and reducing litigation costs concerning at-will employment if anyone can apply for unemployment compensation at-will.

We can also solve official poverty if that unemployment rate is just above the official poverty rate.

No, it isn't, it is a qualification on the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.

Madison was absolutely clear that the "general welfare" clause was not an affirmative grant of power to spend on any object of the general welfare, but that it was a qualification on the revenue raising power that preceeds it, and is itself qualified by the explicit enumeration of particulars that follows it.

__________________
"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

I only agree with you to the extent those monies are being raised for the general welfare and common defense; especially since the common Offense, general Warfare, or general Badfare are nowhere enumerated.

Madison was a republican when he formulated the republican doctrine of specifically enumerated specific powers. However, even a republican should be able to recognize a specific enumeration of a general power since it is enumerated in the same sentence as the power to provide for the common Defense.

You say that dismissively as though in doing so, he wasn't making clear interpretations of the meaning of the proposed Constitution in the public discourse, thereby being a primary source for what those voting on it understood it to mean. The interpretation of "general welfare" as being a general grant of power to spend on anything deemed in the general welfare was one put forward by the OPPONENTS of the Constitution (indicating that were it to mean that, it would have resulted in greater opposition). Madison clearly stated (in defense and support of ratification) that this was a misinterpretation, and that it was not a general power. It was in this context that it was actually ratified.


Some friendly advice, drop this nonsense, it makes you sound foolish. The notion that there is a constitutional distinction between what YOU view as being in the general welfare and what others do is baseless. Just because you have deemed something "Badfare" as a subjective matter of opinion doesn't make it some sort of constitutional distinction or princple.

And for the record, the Constitution DOES provide for the "general warfare", in providing for standing armies, providing for declarations of war, letters of Marques and repraisal, designating a Commander in Chief, etc. etc., Seriously though, you really do sound incredibly sophomoric when you go on and on about this nonesense.

__________________
"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

I say it dismissively, only within the context that Madison was rebutting the anti-federalists in the Federalist Papers. He was formulating and subscribing to the republican doctrine of specifically enumerated specific powers, when expounding on that doctrine after the Convention when he was more in public life.

Madison's clarification is quite clear about raising money for the general welfare instead of non-specifically enumerated wars on abstractions.

It is not foolish bearing true witness to our Constitution and social contract; especially with a McCarthy era phrase in our social contract and pledge.

What he was doing in "public life" was putting forward a clear meaning of the words in the proposed Constitution (which clearly were more supported by the public as his was a defense of, and those with the interpretation you subscribe to were in opposition to it).

There is no such concept as "generalwarfare" in the Constitution, that is merely your nonesense term for what you subjectively think is not good policy pursuant to the general welfare, yet for everything you disagree with, there are just as many, if not more people who think it DOES serve the general welfare.

And what is foolish is making up your own vocabulary for these concepts, it is psuedointellectual sophistry on your part.

__________________
"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

He was also a republican at the time and could not support and defend the republican doctrine in practice, any better than modern republicans can defend their doctrine in practice. The federalist doctrine is a more consistent interpretation of our Constitution.

Our artificial Wars on abstractions are more disingenuous in that they are not specifically enumerated and must resort to forms of fallacy to be perpetuated, even with a McCarthy era phrase in our social contract and pledge.

No, in this context he was a Federalist. The fact that it was the opponents putting forward your interpretation and it was the proponents of the Constitution putting forward the clear notion that there was no general spending power conferred in the general welfare clause demonstrates that the general populous was disinclined to favor a Constitution that granted a general and unlimited power to spend for the "general welfare"; and since they did in fact ratify it that their understanding was that it was not a general grant of power, but rather as Madison put it a qualification on that preceeding it, itself qualified and restricted by the particular enumerations which followed.

And that's what makes your wording so damn silly. You are treating a mere rhetorical device as though it has any significance on the underlying constitutionality. What would you be saying if our policies were exactly the same, but that nobody had ever referred to it rhetorically as the "war on drugs"? What if instead it had been called the American Mind-Altering Substances General Welfare Restrictions and Policing Effort. No change in policy, just change in terminology? would your "general warfare" term make any sense in that case?

__________________
"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

The general powers of paying the Debts, the common Defence and general Welfare are clearly enumerated as ends for which our tax money is to be raised.