J’Biden to spend $36 BILLION to bail out union pensions

[johnwk2]

Yes! Focus. What wording in our federal Constitution authorizes the expenditure in question? Eh?

The old saying goes, put up or shut up!

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

[RTchoke]

@Publius

@RTchoke

@Publius

@Rurudyne

No enumerated power for that in the first place.

A justifying clause to explain why a power to levy certain forms of taxes rather than beg the States for funds is not an enumerated power to spend. The enumerated powers to spend are given in the subsequent clauses.

Take it up with the courts then. The law is in place, and it’s the President’s duty to ensure that it’s faithfully executed.

Then the savior Obama failed. He failed to ensure many laws were faithfully executed. Heck, he was the master of ignoring laws he didn’t like. Or is that little caveat only for Republican presidents?

Please try to focus.

I am. I am focusing on YOUR bar that doesn’t seem to apply to your own kind.

[Publius]

@johnwk2

Yes! Focus. What wording in our federal Constitution authorizes the expenditure in question? Eh?

The old saying goes, put up or shut up!

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

There’s a place for those kinds of questions to be answered definitively, and this is not it.

[Rurudyne]

You do realize that appeals to authority are a kind of fallacy, especially when the authority itself is being questioned, right?

[johnwk2]

@Publius

@johnwk2

Yes! Focus. What wording in our federal Constitution authorizes the expenditure in question? Eh?

The old saying goes, put up or shut up!

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

There’s a place for those kinds of questions to be answered definitively, and this is not it.

Well, isn’t that sweet of you? Assert a power exists allowing for an expenditure but refuse to identify the wording in the Constitution to support your assertion.

[Publius]

@johnwk2

@Publius

@johnwk2

Yes! Focus. What wording in our federal Constitution authorizes the expenditure in question? Eh?

The old saying goes, put up or shut up!

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

There’s a place for those kinds of questions to be answered definitively, and this is not it.

Well, isn’t that sweet of you? Assert a power exists allowing for an expenditure but refuse to identify the wording in the Constitution to support your assertion.

I don’t pretend to be a Constitutional scholar like some here. But I do know Congress authorizes all expenditures, and that the President is responsible for executing those expenditures under law. I also know that we have a whole system of courts where people who disagree with such expenditures can have their cases or controversies adjudicated.

[johnwk2]

So, you still refuse or avoid identifying, the wording in the Constitution authorizing the expenditure in question.

[Publius]

@johnwk2

So, you still refuse or avoid identifying, the wording in the Constitution authorizing the expenditure in question.

I have people for that. They’re called the courts.

Your micturating into the wind here is sad and ineffectual.

[johnwk2]

No. You are avoiding identifying the wording in the Constitution authorizing the expenditure in question.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Publius

@johnwk2

So, you still refuse or avoid identifying, the wording in the Constitution authorizing the expenditure in question.

I have people for that. They’re called the courts.

Your micturating into the wind here is sad and ineffectual.

Today I learned…

[Publius]

What, you haven’t seen The Big Lebowski?

[johnwk2]

“To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation.”____ Savings and Loan Association v.Topeka,(1875).

[johnwk2]

I see no one has yet to identify the wording in our federal Constitution authorizing “J’Biden to spend $36 BILLION to bail out union pensions”.

Here is a LINK which articulates the specific powers of our President as found in our Constitution. Perhaps Publius will be kind enough to point to the words in our Constitution authorizing “J’Biden to spend $36 BILLION to bail out union pensions”.

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Publius

What, you haven’t seen The Big Lebowski?

I have tried twice. I know its a cultural touchstone and all that, but I gave up like 15 minute in both times.

[Toll_Collector]

@bigtwnvin

Biden: Teamster workers getting federal bailout for pension fund

So my question is as follows:
Union membership requirements include contributing to pension funds through “dues” payments.
So why in the ■■■■ do the unions need federal TAX dollars to subsidize their pensions?
WHERE DID THE DUES MONEY GO??

Even if union dues were set aside solely for pensions, which it is not, I highly doubt it would be nearly enough to fund pensions. My union dues for the entire year don’t add up to one paycheck after taxes.

[Cratic3947]

Why pay taxes when the govt just print’s money? It’s kind of silly!

[johnwk2]

Have to keep working people poor and dependent upon government.