Posted on 09/28/2011 9:34:48 AM PDT by free me
"Q: So in your view those things fall outside of general welfare. But what falls inside of it? What did the Founders mean by 'general welfare'?
"A: I don't know if I'm going to sit here and parse down to what the Founding Fathers thought general welfare meant.
"Q: But you just said what you thought they didn't mean by general welfare. So isn't it fair to ask what they did mean? It's in the Constitution.
"A: [Silence.]
"Q: OK. Moving on.... "
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
You, OTOH, support people like nativist, eugenicist and white supremacist, John Tanton. Got you pegged right, boy!
I glad too see you boiling over with anger! It warms my heart, mission accomplished.
A lickspittle for the Southern Poverty Law Center calling me names is a badge of honor!
Yep! Imagine repeating the lies of the SPLC here on FR after they have called FR a “hate group” and “domestic terror threat”
These pro-amnesty Perristas would sell their souls to get what they want.
It’s easier to know what they did NOT mean. Anyway, the clause itself isn’t part of the definitional section of the constitution, but in the goals section.
In other words, it is in the list of things that are considered desirable, for which the constitution has been defined. Everything in the constitution is meant to do one of those six things listed, one of which is to promote the general welfare.
The CONVERSE is NOT true — the constitution does not allow government to take ANY action that it believes would acheive one of those 6 goals.
A great analogy when some stupid liberal tries this trick: If you are on a sports team, your goal is to WIN. So, you plan what you will do in order to WIN. “In order to WIN, we will do the following”.
The things you decide to do will all be focused on acheiving the goal of winning. But that doesn’t mean you will do ANYTHING it takes to win. You won’t cheat, you won’t assault members of hte other team and knock them out of the competition, you won’t put ringers on your team.
Of course, liberals may not understand the analogy because either they will have no concept of what “winning” means, or they won’t see the problem with cheating and lying and hurting people to achieve the goal.
It would be a fool’s errand to take the bait when a liberal asks what the founders meant by “promote the general welfare”.
BTW, another good way to approach this is to just pick another one of those clauses: “insure domestic Tranquility”. Ask your liberal buddy if it would be OK for the state to imprison protesters, since protests disturb the domestic tranquility and the constitution clearly states that our government has the goal of making us all tranquil.
But don’t ask them to define what the founders meant by “domestic tranquility”.
Reagan did not “get suckered”. He always knew what he was doing.
“True eliminate tax payer subsidizies and freebies to illegals, anchor babies and their extended families, and they will both self-deport and not come.” Not true. Most of the illegals are not using any of this.
Nor is there much chance of increasing the police forces to the level necessary to monitor economic activity to the extent it would take to eliminate illegals.
What would you do if you could make ten times as much by crossing a border? If doing so was the difference between comfort and poverty?
I don't know any conservative who supports the SPLC. That includes me. I understand you think if you keep repeating a lie it will stick. That is a good liberal tactic. But won't work on FRee Republic.
I never mentioned the SPLC.
You brought them up, not me, stupid!
Try again. LOL
Excellent! From beginning to end!
That would be provide for our common defense. Although I suppose it could also be somewhat related to establishing justice or securing the blessings of liberty.
The key is to not let the liberals at NR win by letting them pretend the pre-amble defines an actionable part of the constitution. Trying to define the terms just gives them the victory. The preamble was just that — the justification for the things they did in the constitution.
Here are our goals; here is what we are going to allow the federal government to do in order to acheive those goals. The constitution does not provide the federal government enough power to perfectly achieve the goals; it has just enough power to make the goals acheivable by the people.
Why bother arguing? You aren’t going to change the mind of someone who posts such a picture. Just point it out — like you did — and move on.
What I find more disturbing is conservatives giving in to a liberal definition and missing the constitutional principles simply because they think it helps them attack a candidate.
He pretty much said that, and refused to let the liberal news guy twist it around by making him define precisely what they meant by it.
You shouldn’t attack the SPLC like that. Next week you might want to quote from one of their publications to attack Perry.
Thank you. I also found Perry’s dealing with this issue in his book “Fed Up” to be pretty good. I don’t know why he’s coming off so clueless now. I wish we’d find out he’s doped up on painkillers for his back or something. :-)
You failed to include Perry’s answer in the interview before the later quote you selected.
His “ silence “ was because he had already answered the question.
It may have been a radio interview, because at one point
Perry apologized for his silence because he was distracted
doing something else.
“A: I don’t think our founding fathers when they were putting the term ‘general welfare’ in there were thinking about a federally operated program
of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care.
What they clearly said was that those were issues that the states need to address.
Not the federal government.
Full interview here- http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/12/rick-perry-newsweek-interview-transcript.html
Perry on border security :
We have a pathway to citizenship in this country today:
it’s get in the line and
do what it takes to get here legally.
You cannot have a comprehensive discussion about immigration reform until you secure the border.
I’ve got a 1,200 mile border with Mexico and it’s not secure.
We have American citizens being killed,
we have drugs coming across, we have illegal immigrations and all types of other human trafficking going on.
Our border is not secure because our federal government has been an abject failure at it.
I stand very clear on that.
From my perspective, the states could substantially
better operate those programs
if that’s what those states decided to do.”
It sounds like you would be fine if, after telling someone what the general welfare clause doesn’t mean, they asked you what it did mean.
Unfortunately Perry was not.
My day is made ... being called names by a cheer leader for the position of the SPLC on CIS,FairUS, and NumbersUSA, and a cheer leader for Chris Cannon, Utah congressman praised by SPLC!
Both the SPLC and Chris Cannon imply that those who want to curb immigration have no reasons other than racism, nativism, and white supremacy.
;)
Actually I quoted Perry himself, word for ignorant word.
You still looking up NJ’s record on tuition for illegals?
Amen
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.