What Side of The Fence Are You On?

[This_person]

It's "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare", as LG stated. No biggie, really, but something every American should have memorized since elementary school. I seriously doubt it for any generation after 1970, probably.

That is the preamble, which is not legally enforceable.

Although the preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments.

The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se. It can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them.

However, Article 1, Section 8 says: "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..."

This is the legally-enforceable portion.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yup.

Just take a look around at what all that "providing" the general welfare has done for the financial and moral fabric of the country.

Well, is it all bad? As I say, more than half the population, women, blacks, homosexuals, Hispanics, are all better off in most ways than they were, what 30 years ago on back? No doubt for white males, it's not and it's obvious because all the 'providing' used to be to us at the expense and limitation of others. Even Noam Chomsky understands why white males, blue collar, little or no college, act like they've been losing for generations; because they have been.

 

[This_person]

Which, again, as we've had this argument, is even worse. "Promoting" might be, say a public highway. "Providing" might be, say, a car. Point being that, left and right, we are, by and large, all fans of big gummint.

"...of the United States". NOT "...of the people of the United States." Promoting may be going overseas and selling the United States as a great place to do business. Providing for the general welfare of the United States is exactly buying a car, for an agent of the government to conduct his/her business. Or, paying that agent of the government. Note that the clause is after collecting taxes to pay for stuff. It means to pay for stuff to conduct the business of the United States government. That's all it means.

 

[b23hqb]

Article 1 Section 8:

"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". "Promote" is in the preamble.

Correct. That is what I quoted, the preamble. That is the thought I had in T p statement was from the preamble. Section 8 merely combines both into one unbroken sentence. I like the specificity of the preamble better.

 

[Larry Gude]

"...of the United States". NOT "...of the people of the United States." Promoting may be going overseas and selling the United States as a great place to do business. Providing for the general welfare of the United States is exactly buying a car, for an agent of the government to conduct his/her business. Or, paying that agent of the government. Note that the clause is after collecting taxes to pay for stuff. It means to pay for stuff to conduct the business of the United States government. That's all it means.

That's your view, agreed? if we can argue long and loud what the flying hell this means;

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

...when EVERYTHING else is, expressly, about the INDIVIDUAL, what can't we argue about?

 

[This_person]

That's your view, agreed? if we can argue long and loud what the flying hell this means; ...when EVERYTHING else is, expressly, about the INDIVIDUAL, what can't we argue about?

When they say "the people", they mean people. When they say, "The United States", they mean the federal government. When they say "the states", they mean the individual states that make up the United States.

I'm not sure why this is difficult. It says what it means and means what it says. You are an intelligent and venerable person in such discussions - far too much so to not get the difference between promoting the general welfare as a generic and unenforceable clause with provide for the general welfare of the United States as a specific duty of Congress in terms of laying and collecting taxes to pay for doing just that.

 

[This_person]

Correct. That is what I quoted, the preamble. That is the thought I had in T p statement was from the preamble. Section 8 merely combines both into one unbroken sentence. I like the specificity of the preamble better.

Psy and I are not quoting the Preamble. There are two specific and distinct differences between the preamble and Article 1, Section 8. The first is that the preamble is general thoughts and ideas, totally unenforceable legally. The second is that the Article 1, Section 8 clause makes it a specific responsibility of government to lay and collect taxes to pay for itself, whereas the preamble does not, while being entirely legally enforceable.

 

[Larry Gude]

When they say "the people", they mean people. When they say, "The United States", they mean the federal government. When they say "the states", they mean the individual states that make up the United States.

I'm not sure why this is difficult. It says what it means and means what it says. You are an intelligent and venerable person in such discussions - far too much so to not get the difference between promoting the general welfare as a generic and unenforceable clause with provide for the general welfare of the United States as a specific duty of Congress in terms of laying and collecting taxes to pay for doing just that.

I could say the exact same thing to you, and will.

1: 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;

2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

If the Untied States isn't we, the people, then let them go collect those taxes for this mythical United States that is NOT we, the people.

We are the states. We are the United States. The US stands out over all other forms of government and religion, ever, BECAUSE it is about, all about, the individual. If the duty of our government is to provide for the general welfare of the United States than can mean nothing other than providing for the general welfare of we, the people. If we were to say 'provide for the general welfare of the UK/Saudi Arabia/Iran/Russia etc, we'd not be talking about the people.

 

[black dog]

So, you're saying only babies from other countries that aren't white will be adopted? But, if they're American babies that aren't white, they won't be adopted?

Good point, makes a lot of sense......

Feel free to interject your understanding of this information anyway you see fit.
That way it will make sence to you.

 

[This_person]

I could say the exact same thing to you, and will.






If the Untied States isn't we, the people, then let them go collect those taxes for this mythical United States that is NOT we, the people.

We are the states. We are the United States. The US stands out over all other forms of government and religion, ever, BECAUSE it is about, all about, the individual. If the duty of our government is to provide for the general welfare of the United States than can mean nothing other than providing for the general welfare of we, the people. If we were to say 'provide for the general welfare of the UK/Saudi Arabia/Iran/Russia etc, we'd not be talking about the people.

People pay taxes to the government. They may pay them via corporate taxes, who simply pass them along invisibly, or through direct taxation, but people pay the taxes.

Are you saying that the tenth amendment means that the federal government has all the authority, not "the people" or "the states", since you see no distinction? After all, if the people, the states, and the United States are interchangeable, this line seems pretty silly: “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.”

 

[This_person]

Feel free to interject your understanding of this information anyway you see fit.
That way it will make sence to you.

I was merely completing the logic stated. Is the logic flawed? Is my statement somehow outside of the logic of the statement I quoted?

 

[Larry Gude]

Are you saying that the tenth amendment means that the federal government has all the authority, not "the people" or "the states", since you see no distinction? After all, if the people, the states, and the United States are interchangeable, this line seems pretty silly: “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.”

We've slammed into a brick wall if that is your interpretation of this;

We are the states. We are the United States.

I'll have to try harder next time.

 

[This_person]

We've slammed into a brick wall if that is your interpretation of this;

I'll have to try harder next time.

Ok.....so, you DO see them as separate entities?

Then, what is the "mythical" United States of which you spoke? What is the challenge to the difference between the United States borrowing money and a person borrowing money? What is the challenge to "general welfare of the United States" as a completely separate concept from "general welfare of the people of the United States"?

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok.....so, you DO see them as separate entities?

Then, what is the "mythical" United States of which you spoke? What is the challenge to the difference between the United States borrowing money and a person borrowing money? What is the challenge to "general welfare of the United States" as a completely separate concept from "general welfare of the people of the United States"?

Representative government. Government of, by and for the people. Not a democracy. We picked people to go represent us, not the 'federal gummint'. Us. We call it the federal gummint to give it form. They do a good job, they get to keep representing us. If not, we send new people to operate OUR entity.

 

[This_person]

Representative government. Government of, by and for the people. Not a democracy. We picked people to go represent us, not the 'federal gummint'. Us. We call it the federal gummint to give it form. They do a good job, they get to keep representing us. If not, we send new people to operate OUR entity.

Absolutely. And, the ocean water around the antarctic is significantly colder on any given day than the water around Jamaica. And all of that information has as much to do with the difference between "general welfare of the United States" vs. "general welfare of the people of the United States" as what you posted.