Yes, I’m getting use to this response from you when you don’t like what I said. It’s okay, I understand.
You’re still using those underscores before the attribution. Why? And you still haven’t told me if you have any other honored guests’ quotes stored in text files on your computer?
Where did he say that?
Why am I constantly having to educate you? Why are you so ill informed? You really need better news sources.
“Let me put it another way. We could afford to take in a heartbeat another two million. The idea that a country of 330 million cannot afford people, who are in desperate need and who are justifiably weak, and fleeing depression is absolutely bizarre,” Biden said.
And that’s an extra two million on top of the current one million. EVERY STINKING YEAR! That’s a plan to balloon the population. I’m guessing you are opposed? Yes?
Biden says US can afford 2 million more immigrants and refugees (washingtonexaminer.com)
I didn’t realize I was a monster for wanting someone to back up their claims.
Where did he say “every year”?
That’s right…you’re generous with money that’s not your own and when asking you to put your money, where your mouth is, “that’s not the right thing”. Now you’re correct…it’s the “left” thing.
Thinking it makes more sense to fund things by having everyone pay a little bit relative to their income vs a single person giving away all of their money isn’t a “left” thing, its a logical thing.
But you (c) knew that, I’m not sure why you (c) keep regurgibleating that stupid illogical retort.
No, it’s being generous with other people’s money, largely on illegitimate objects for federal expenditures because of there not being any enumerated power for the federal to concern itself with anyone’s (among the several State’s or the Territories) individual welfare … no matter how dire their circumstances may be.
The constitutionality of using a progressive income tax to pay for social services is a well worn argument hashed out on these forums many times over. Essentially boils down to whether the Supreme Court ruled erroneously or not and an argument of opinions. Best to just agree to disagree to avoid wasting everyone’s time.
You are in error. The Court in willful abeyance.
The idea that levying a tax automatically makes the expenditure lawful is corrupt and lawless. The expenditure must me lawful in and of itself. Raising a tax is not amending. Not even close.
Full disclosure, I’m not aware of the word abeyance, but it sounds to me like I’m not in error and that I’m correct… that is that there is a disagreement regarding whether the courts rule correctly or incorrectly.
Then ponder this.
Does the spending being for a legitimate end (both proper and necessary, not just said to be necessary) make the reason to levy tax valid?
Or does the imposition of a tax make any associated spending lawful no matter what?
I don’t believe the congress is allowed to spend tax dollars on just anything. The things they spend on should be for carrying out enumerated powers and supporting the general welfare.
You’re not. I may have been a little too harsh. Sorry bout that.
Under your idea ___ allowing the current flow of illegal entrants to consume $4.38 BILLION worth of goods and services from our nation’s cupboard ___ is somehow beneficial to our nation’s economy.
The next time a major fire sweeps across California and consumes $4.38 BILLION in property losses, I’ll rejoice and be grateful for such a beneficial “stimulus”, as your absurd thinking indicates such an event would be.
Of course, we all know from you previous views, especially concerning the current flood of poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, disease carrying, mentally impaired, and criminal populations of Central Americas flooding into the United States, your real desire is using the American Citizen’s United States Treasury to meet the economic needs of these illegal entrants, and to hell with the limited purpose for which this treasury was created, i.e., to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States and HER CITIZENS.
As I have pointed out before, your philosophy, and with all due respect, is one which evolves from the heart, and not the brain, and violates one of the most fundamental purposes for which a legitimate government is created . . . the protection of its citizens property, and was eloquently summarized by one of our nation’s eminent forefathers:
“Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man’s labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny.” ___ See Representative Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792
JWK
When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Revolutionary Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens who have invaded America’s borders.
Are you familiar with the idea of a justification clause? This is a statement used to justify something it is attached to.
In the case of A1:S8:C1 the power needing to be justified is that Congress can levy any form of tax, which was a novelty for the central government of the United States. The justification presented for that Power is what is commonly called the General Welfare clause, but which could just as easily be called the common defense clause or the payment of the debts clause using exactly the same logic.
But a justification clause is not an enumeration of any power to do anything.
This is actually easy to prove since any of the subsequently enumerated powers could be easily inferred just from the justification clause, rendering them as superfluities, as serving no real function.
This is also true of language in the Constitution that enumerates specific circumstances under which Congress can lawfully exercise more general legislative power than presented by the enumerated Powers … said clauses existing for the seat of government (and land ceded from State jurisdictions to serve certain functions) or the Territories.
By this I mean if there is a basis to claim general legislative power on account of “general welfare” then there is no need to lay out circumstantial exceptions to a doctrine of delegate powers.
The Modern Court operates essentially on the view that much of the Constitution serves no function because it allows legislative power in pretty much all circumstances whatsoever by the way they misuse some of the language.
Why do you keep accusing me of deflecting when I disagree with you?
Let’s take a step back… do you believe stimulus payments to citizens help stimulate the economy? Because if you don’t think so, then this whole argument is moot.
Under your idea ___ allowing the current flow of illegal entrants to consume $4.38 BILLION worth of goods and services from our nation’s cupboard ___ is somehow beneficial to our nation’s economy.
The next time a major fire sweeps across California and consumes $4.38 BILLION in property losses, I’ll rejoice and be grateful for such a beneficial “stimulus”, as your absurd thinking indicates such an event would be.
Of course, we all know from you previous views, especially concerning the current flood of poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, disease carrying, mentally impaired, and criminal populations of Central Americas flooding into the United States, your real desire is using the American Citizen’s United States Treasury to meet the economic needs of these illegal entrants, and to hell with the limited purpose for which this treasury was created, i.e., to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States and HER CITIZENS.
As I have pointed out before, your philosophy, and with all due respect, is one which evolves from the heart, and not the brain, and violates one of the most fundamental purposes for which a legitimate government is created . . . the protection of its citizens property, and was eloquently summarized by one of our nation’s eminent forefathers:
“Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man’s labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny.” ___ See Representative Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792
JWK
When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Revolutionary Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens who have invaded America’s borders.
Why do you keep deflecting from my questions? What you wrote doesn’t answer it.
Of course, you and I have been down this road many times in the past, and when asked to support your opinions regarding the meaning of “general welfare”, and Congress’ powers of taxation as limited by our Constitution ___ powers which were defined and explained during our Constitution’s framing and ratification debates ___ you find great comfort in declaring you “have no intentions of engaging with” the mountain of evidence I present confirming your opinions are based on the Humpty Dumpty theory of language . . . “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”
In any event, and to substantiate my assertions, here is a LINK to a recent post confirming you are uninterested in determining the true meaning of our Constitution with regard to Congress’ taxing and spending powers as understood during our Constitution’s framing and ratification process, and you prefer the Humpty dumpty theory of language being applied to our Constitution, in addition to a taxing authority promoting “From each according to their ability to pay, to each who needs help living a decent life.”
How sweet of you to be so generous with other people’s property, especially the property earned by the sweat of one’s labor!
JWK
“The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.” ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)
The thing is, the modern court is what we have and decades of programs and legislation based on the idea that we can use income taxes to pay for social programs. How would you put the genie back in the bottle, so to speak?
