fenderburn84
Well-Known Member
Syncos I think its time to bust it out. I got +1 for ya if ya do....
Usda Closes 259 Offices
- Thread starter ClaytonBigsby
- Start date
In the Preamble it says to Promote the general Welfare as one of the reason for making the constitution in the first place.
In article 1 it says the congress shall have the power to provide for the defence and general welfare. Article 1 sec 8 is not mandating that they provide for the welfare, just that they have the power to do so.
In article 1 it says the congress shall have the power to provide for the defence and general welfare. Article 1 sec 8 is not mandating that they provide for the welfare, just that they have the power to do so.
beardo
Well-Known Member
I believe General Welfare was meant to mean- insure a enviornment that is conductive to business and to protect the rights of the citizens that were laid out in the documents...
I would like to point out that the USDA is actually who runs the Food Stamp/SNAP program. This accounts for about 60-70 billion of the budget of the USDA.
Unsure why anyone would bother to argue for or against a part of the government if they aren't sure what it actually does. If anyone cares at all, here is a link to the USDA page that shows their budget. 3/4 of their budget actually goes to food assistance programs, with the largest piece being SNAP. http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=BUDGET
Cali chronic
Well-Known Member
USDA HA HA what bunch c%*%* suckers they are. They are involved in Outlawing Raw Milk! Barely 180, or something folks died, since the late 80's because of it. Then they allow McDonald's to run the Frikin show. What are you guys smoking? Watch "Food INC" then come back here and tell me you eat that shit...Are you guys (not all) BTW when I group or say you guys it is in General not absolute. FYI I digress....
I cannot believe how you think Red licorice is on the shelf and you trust the FDA and are concerned about some lazy Govt "Bring out the Gimp" Freak having an office closed. They should close about 50% of the whole Govt. Did you know there is like 5 public officials tied to each one of us? Something asinine, micro management, Manager for a Manager; Bureaucracy.
I buy meat from the butcher grass fed and Grind it myself (Not certified Organic) but they've been ranching since forever. In the process of, if, getting the FDA's stamp of approval, what ever that is worth. There stamp is bought and paid for. I also buy Pork and not Nitrate smoked pork, for bacon; for making my own sausage. I do not think those guys will be missed. Heck they allow Alcoa to put Aluminum or Fluoride in the water. that is their solution for getting rid of the waste. Just cause I polish me teeth with don't mean I want to drink it. R.O H20, Take heed on what you consume. Be it Propaganda or Twinkies. Vote with you wallet. </rant
I cannot believe how you think Red licorice is on the shelf and you trust the FDA and are concerned about some lazy Govt "Bring out the Gimp" Freak having an office closed. They should close about 50% of the whole Govt. Did you know there is like 5 public officials tied to each one of us? Something asinine, micro management, Manager for a Manager; Bureaucracy.
I buy meat from the butcher grass fed and Grind it myself (Not certified Organic) but they've been ranching since forever. In the process of, if, getting the FDA's stamp of approval, what ever that is worth. There stamp is bought and paid for. I also buy Pork and not Nitrate smoked pork, for bacon; for making my own sausage. I do not think those guys will be missed. Heck they allow Alcoa to put Aluminum or Fluoride in the water. that is their solution for getting rid of the waste. Just cause I polish me teeth with don't mean I want to drink it. R.O H20, Take heed on what you consume. Be it Propaganda or Twinkies. Vote with you wallet. </rant
GreenGurl
Well-Known Member
BULL SHIT ALERT... http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm
Sorry to be a bummer Cali, but happy to hear you are caring about what you ingest. I totally agree with you that is the only way we are getting out of this system alive (and not riddled with cancer). I'm also big into voting with one's wallet.
WillyBagseed
Active Member
I have read them all and do understand your argument. You seem to intentionally leave out the opposing views of intent tho........ lol
What you seem to not understand is many of these "unconstitutional" programs were setup using the wording, not intent of article 1 section 8.
So if it is written and followed but not along the lines of intent it is wrong.... that is the crazy argument.
Precedent is also used in the USA, it has been set using article 1 section 8........... but alas J Mad and a few others 200 years ago were to lazy to write it down, only bitch about it afterwards...... you should actually hear your argument... it comes down to pick and choose. One of the many reasons I left the Libertarians a long time ago.
If we go by intent:
No right to bear arms unless you are in a militia
No rights whatsoever unless you are a land owner (life tenant is not owner) so if you paid off your house anywhere but a few places in Nevada or Texas or actually know how to make a purchase you are not a land owner.
Come on now, you are not that stupid.............. might be that stubborn but damn man..........
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
None of what you stated as intent seems to be true.
The right to bear arms unless you are in a militia is still an open debate based on the meaning of the words 200 years ago.
The intent was to create a document that limited the federal government. I seriously hope we can agree on that.
Now, there is a clause, the commerce clause that the federal government has interpreted to mean that it has the right to get into everything else regardless of the function of the constitutional document.
If you step back and look at the big picture it should be clear to you that the Federal Government is by far overstepping its powers. It now has leverage over any individual state by withholding revenue it should not even be receiving.
If you cant see any of this then further discussion is pointless.
The right to bear arms unless you are in a militia is still an open debate based on the meaning of the words 200 years ago.
The intent was to create a document that limited the federal government. I seriously hope we can agree on that.
Now, there is a clause, the commerce clause that the federal government has interpreted to mean that it has the right to get into everything else regardless of the function of the constitutional document.
If you step back and look at the big picture it should be clear to you that the Federal Government is by far overstepping its powers. It now has leverage over any individual state by withholding revenue it should not even be receiving.
If you cant see any of this then further discussion is pointless.
WillyBagseed
Active Member
That's what I am talking about......... pick and choose ... lol keep it up.
Here is an argument for your side, I have them all day long.
Libertarian Argument 101
http://universityofcommonsense.org/tag/general-welfare-clause/
I agree the Feds do much more than they should be allowed to.
I also know that intent does nothing but cause more arguments and both sides have valid points.
I also know that the Constitution is the law of the land and it needs to be taken literally or shit gets perverted like it is now and has been for awhile.
If a portion of the Constitution does not read the way somebody likes then that person needs to get like minded people together and get the verbiage changed to read properly.
There is much with the Constitution that is a little vague and needs to be cleaned up,
Your right to bear arms argument, the way it reads in the second amendment means that any violent felon should be able to own fire arms.......
Now, because it is in the Constitution I actually do not mind if they could own weapons but I would like an amendment stating VIOLENT felons... not any felon, can't own a gun........... do you see where I am going????
As smart as our founding fathers were we have a language barrier and 200 years of change to deal with. You cannot place 200 year old values on today and get the exact same meanings.
I have grown tired of the intent argument over the years and use text only, as it should be. Get it changed if ye do not like it.
Here is an argument for your side, I have them all day long.
Libertarian Argument 101
http://universityofcommonsense.org/tag/general-welfare-clause/
I agree the Feds do much more than they should be allowed to.
I also know that intent does nothing but cause more arguments and both sides have valid points.
I also know that the Constitution is the law of the land and it needs to be taken literally or shit gets perverted like it is now and has been for awhile.
If a portion of the Constitution does not read the way somebody likes then that person needs to get like minded people together and get the verbiage changed to read properly.
There is much with the Constitution that is a little vague and needs to be cleaned up,
Your right to bear arms argument, the way it reads in the second amendment means that any violent felon should be able to own fire arms.......
Now, because it is in the Constitution I actually do not mind if they could own weapons but I would like an amendment stating VIOLENT felons... not any felon, can't own a gun........... do you see where I am going????
As smart as our founding fathers were we have a language barrier and 200 years of change to deal with. You cannot place 200 year old values on today and get the exact same meanings.
I have grown tired of the intent argument over the years and use text only, as it should be. Get it changed if ye do not like it.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
I read the enumerated powers.
Where is the right to provide social security?
Where is the right to provide a federal food stamp program?
I dont see them in the enumerated powers... hmm
And by the way, we all pick and choose. You cannot debate every aspect of life in one thread. Providing all relevant information is simply not possible and every post would read like a phone book. So, lets stick with reality eh?
Where is the right to provide social security?
Where is the right to provide a federal food stamp program?
I dont see them in the enumerated powers... hmm
And by the way, we all pick and choose. You cannot debate every aspect of life in one thread. Providing all relevant information is simply not possible and every post would read like a phone book. So, lets stick with reality eh?
WillyBagseed
Active Member
Precedence
SS and Food stamps both are
provided for the general (many) welfare (The health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.)
I am not saying any of this is right, I am saying that this is the way it is and only an amendment or 3 will change it.
SS and Food stamps both are
provided for the general (many) welfare (The health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.)
I am not saying any of this is right, I am saying that this is the way it is and only an amendment or 3 will change it.
Nowadays the people move fast on figuring out what the harmful products are. That's a big advantage since more are informed because we are in the information age.
I think what you are concerned about is the bureaucracy in that by the time the case comes up the damage is done. But the obstacles were created by the Federal government. That is the entire problem.
What is a problem in Colorado isn't a problem in Kentucky. Let the local officials be in charge. They want to stick up for a company that pollutes they'll be voted out of office and loose the cushy money and benefits that comes with it. Make no mistake about people, they get away with what we allow them to. No doubt the entire process has to change.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Acid rain, polluted rivers, dioxin, invasive fish and a host of other difficulties spawned by national and international companies or simply uncaring citizens are mutual problems from state to state or from one state to the several states. I don't understand why so many are against undue and burdensome regulation but want 50 states each to have their own EPA.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Hence the difference between intent (stated or not) and action - the composition and ratification of the Constitution, which is why the Federalist papers are wonderful historical documents but should have little bearing on interpreation.
WillyBagseed
Active Member
Second amendment intent covered
original intent was not all MEN regardless etc.. etc.. it was for Landowners.
Correct again
Thing is, as written you do not have to be a landowner, you do not have to be in a militia to bear arms and, provide for the general welfare means just that.
I get where you are coming from, but article 1 does not implicitly state that Congress is supposed to Provide for the welfare of it's constituents, it merely give congress the power to do so if it wishes. The article does not mandate that congress take care of us all.Willyßagseed;6913682 said:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If you don't think he should speak for your family...why would you use government aggression to take his money to pay for something he may not want or need? Couldn't you and your family simply buy your food from a source that is independantly monitored to the standard you desire and leave Parker out of it?