Returning to Our Roots

Doctor Pot said:
You're wrong. The exact quote is "... and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." The verb "provide" is clearly the one used here. I take it this means you're going to stop posting those ridiculous right-wing articles now that the cornerstone of your philosophy has been invalidated? ;)
Click to expand...

You know, you're way too nice of a guy to be referred to here as a dumb ass. So, I won't use that term, but only suggest that you actually READ the Constitution, rather than rely on what information some Marxist professor has indoctrinated you with.

Here's the Preamble ... uhh, that would be the paragraph right before Article I.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Now then, can we assume that you're going to stop posting your left-wing propaganda now that the cornerstone of your beloved welfare state has been constitutionally invalidated? bongsmilie
Vi
 
tipsgnob said:
Vi has the constitution...both pages
Click to expand...

Oh, well maybe you'd be kind enough to point out where, in subsequent pages, the phrase "promote" the general welfare was changed to "provide" the general welfare.

Come on big guy, if you, along with O'Bama, are going to change the world, I know you can find a simple Constitutional phrase ... I know you can. :lol:

Vi
 
ViRedd said:
You know, you're way too nice of a guy to be referred to here as a dumb ass. So, I won't use that term, but only suggest that you actually READ the Constitution, rather than rely on what information some Marxist professor has indoctrinated you with.

Here's the Preamble ... uhh, that would be the paragraph right before Article I.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Now then, can we assume that you're going to stop posting your left-wing propaganda now that the cornerstone of your beloved welfare state has been constitutionally invalidated? bongsmilie
Vi
Click to expand...
Oh Vi, for all the bitching you do about how stupid everyone is and how nobody has ever read the constitution, you seem to have completely overlooked Article 1, Section 8. Very first line: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". Maybe you should've been paying attention to your teachers instead of assuming they're all Marxists, eh? Or at least don't pretend to be a constitutional expert having only familiarized yourself with the preamble. ;)
 
Doctor Pot said:
Oh Vi, for all the bitching you do about how stupid everyone is and how nobody has ever read the constitution, you seem to have completely overlooked Article 1, Section 8. Very first line: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". Maybe you should've been paying attention to your teachers instead of assuming they're all Marxists, eh? Or at least don't pretend to be a constitutional expert having only familiarized yourself with the preamble. ;)
Click to expand...

provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
Click to expand...
that's still of the United States, and not of individuals, or groups of individuals. Perhaps you need to stop pulling your foot out of your mouth just to ram it back in.

There is nothing in that clause that can be stated to encourage the government to exceed the scopes and bounds placed upon it.

Especially when it is taken as any one with more than half a brain would take it, which is that the Congress has the responsibility to provide for the common defense of all the states, and the general welfare of all the states collectively, not any specific group of people.

This wasn't a government that was being organized to replace the States, it was a government that was being formed to serve as a frame in which to hold the individual states together, and ensure that they did not lapse into civil war.

10th Amendment
Amendment X


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...
 
Doctor Pot said:
Oh Vi, for all the bitching you do about how stupid everyone is and how nobody has ever read the constitution, you seem to have completely overlooked Article 1, Section 8. Very first line: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". Maybe you should've been paying attention to your teachers instead of assuming they're all Marxists, eh? Or at least don't pretend to be a constitutional expert having only familiarized yourself with the preamble. ;)
Click to expand...


Cool, I stand corrected.

The United States government resides in a ten-square-mile enclave known as Washington D.C. So, in view of the mess the local D.C. government has made of things there, then I can see why the founders would have placed that proviso into the Constitution .... To pay the debts and expenses incurred by the federal government within that ten mile radius. It had to be the Founder's intent ... otherwise, the Preamble wouldn't have stated PROMOTE the general welfare.

Now what say you?

Vi
 
ViRedd said:
Cool, I stand corrected.

The United States government resides in a ten-square-mile enclave known as Washington D.C. So, in view of the mess the local D.C. government has made of things there, then I can see why the founders would have placed that proviso into the Constitution .... To pay the debts and expenses incurred by the federal government within that ten mile radius. It had to be the Founder's intent ... otherwise, the Preamble wouldn't have stated PROMOTE the general welfare.

Now what say you?
Click to expand...
Well, I'm glad you at least learned something about our Constitution. :)

It seems like you're grasping at straws now though.

You can promote and provide for something at the same time; they aren't mutually exclusive. "Promote" was perhaps applied to the government and constitution as a whole, whereas "provide for" was applied only to congress. Also, it does use the phrase "general welfare of the United States" specifically, and is certainly not referring only to Washington DC.
 
wannabe grower said:
Hey you guys know what else? The world is still flat and the moon is really made out of green cheese. You wanna really live by principles laid down by people centuries ago?
Click to expand...
Kind of like how sharks and crocodilians have not evolved much, yeah, sure. If it's a good principle it's a good principle, no matter who thought of it first or how long ago. The Magna Carta is even older and is, for the most part, just as good a piece of paper.
NewGrowth said:
I have my copy its good to read most Americans have never read the constitution its sad.
Click to expand...
Gotta include the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights in that group there, NG. :)

Btw, you said something that made me think. I suppose I owe you a small thanks.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Pot
The Constitution did lay out that the courts are able to interpret it, and that the legislature is able to amend it. So you also have to look at two centuries of amendments and Supreme Court decisions, all of which are part of this as well.

Please show where the courts can interpret the Constitution.

I believe that 'the pursuit of happiness' was one of the most hotly debated statement included in the Original Documents, simply because it was open to interpretation.
__________________
.Intense feeling too often obscures the truth.
Harry S. Truman


Anyway, where in the constitution does it give authority to the courts to interpret the constitution? Please enlighten me.
 
It is open to interpretation, but it shouldn't be considered so esoteric that the "common man" or layperson should not be able to read and interpret to a general understanding of the document. For instance, I interpret "pursuit of happiness" (that's in the BoR, if I recollect) to include the right to marry whomever one chooses, as long as consenting adults are the parties.
 
Seamaiden said:
Kind of like how sharks and crocodilians have not evolved much, yeah, sure. If it's a good principle it's a good principle, no matter who thought of it first or how long ago. The Magna Carta is even older and is, for the most part, just as good a piece of paper.
Gotta include the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights in that group there, NG. :)

Btw, you said something that made me think. I suppose I owe you a small thanks.
Click to expand...

Yes the "bill of rights" is actually part of the constitution so yes I have that too. I also have the Declaration of Independence, one of my favorite documents to quote. Here is my favorite line: But when a long train of abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
Its an incredibly written "legal" document, I love how they capitalize words like Duty, Guards, ect.

I also have the Articles of the Confederation :mrgreen:
 
Seamaiden said:
It is open to interpretation, but it shouldn't be considered so esoteric that the "common man" or layperson should not be able to read and interpret to a general understanding of the document.
Click to expand...

My problem with court interpretation is that they interpret the constitution to justify the law, rather that interpret the law to be justified by the constitution.

My personal pet peeve is 'drug testing' being justified.
If you need a court order to search property why is it ok to test someones body, at will. And any employer can mandate it. Something is wrong with that.

Why is abortion legal on the premise 'its my body, my choice', yet get caught with pot that argument is null and void? There is bullshit here somewhere.
 
Basic biology dictates that living creatures eat, breath/(and/or whatever type of respiration is necessary to sustain life), and replicate their species. Human beings fall outside that realm given their intelligence and knowledge that what they do can affect every other living creature on this planet. If you maintain, that because a document written 100's or even thousands of years ago supercedes anything new we develop in these modern times, I just don't know how you can justify that. I am sure the founding fathers of the United States never dreamed of leaving the Earth or they would have included some text about colonizing other planets or space travel. You adapt to new changes in the environment,or you die off. Personally, I think I'll keep on living and adapt to changes as needed to sustain life whatever that may be.
 
NewGrowth said:
Yes the "bill of rights" is actually part of the constitution so yes I have that too. I also have the Declaration of Independence, one of my favorite documents to quote. Here is my favorite line: But when a long train of abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
Its an incredibly written "legal" document, I love how they capitalize words like Duty, Guards, ect.

I also have the Articles of the Confederation :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I am not familiar with the Articles of the Confederation, but I think we would have all been a lot happier under them.

It is harder to fight two bloated monsters (Federal and State) than just to fight one bloated monster (State).
 
TheBrutalTruth said:
I am not familiar with the Articles of the Confederation, but I think we would have all been a lot happier under them.

It is harder to fight two bloated monsters (Federal and State) than just to fight one bloated monster (State).
Click to expand...
Is it just me or did you go from thinking the Constitution was the greatest document ever created by man, to thinking the Articles of Confederation would've been better?

If you don't want to deal with the Federal government, you can always move to one of the states that isn't part of the United States of America.
 
Doctor Pot said:
Is it just me or did you go from thinking the Constitution was the greatest document ever created by man, to thinking the Articles of Confederation would've been better?

If you don't want to deal with the Federal government, you can always move to one of the states that isn't part of the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Know, I'm thinking that both were great documents, but that based on the growth of the federal government due to fools that think as you do that it is transmutable to suit their ends the Constitution has been shredded into little itty bits of confetti, and thus the Articles of Confederation might have been better in that it would have prevented that from occurring. It also would have limited the impact of the federal government on the states, and quite possible served the United States better.

But that's more of a "what if?" thought, then an endorsement of the Articles of Confederation over the Constitution. Having not actually really looked at the Articles of Confederation, I'm not sure of my opinion yet.

The inherent advantage of the Constitution is that it has the Bill of Rights, unfortunately, that's something else people like you like tearing up into little pieces of confetti.
 
Spitzered said:
My problem with court interpretation is that they interpret the constitution to justify the law, rather that interpret the law to be justified by the constitution.

My personal pet peeve is 'drug testing' being justified.
If you need a court order to search property why is it ok to test someones body, at will. And any employer can mandate it. Something is wrong with that.

Why is abortion legal on the premise 'its my body, my choice', yet get caught with pot that argument is null and void? There is bullshit here somewhere.
Click to expand...
There is bullshit everywhere, and I happen to agree with you. There is a lot wrong wiht how our SCOTUS is juried as well, though I'm afraid I haven't got a better idea of how to best serve the people and the Constitution through those jurists just yet.

One of the latest and largest burrs under my saddle was Kelo vs. City of New London. :evil:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hanimmal
Biden's lame duck presidency, what does the old guy have in his tank?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
4K
Offmymeds
Offmymeds
Offmymeds
Trying to discuss issues with a conservative, I'm speechless.
Replies
5
Views
455
Lucky Luke
Lucky Luke
emepher
Ohio - VOTE on Nov. 7, 2023
Replies
6
Views
1K
organicnugz
O
Jimdamick
Russia & China align
2 3
Replies
49
Views
2K
Friendly_Grower
Friendly_Grower
hanimmal
Iran says state-linked sites seized by US, reasons unclear
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
4K
CatHedral
CatHedral
Back
Top