I asked *you* to give your definition of the general welfare clause. And I did. I notice you didn't have a comment about that.
Furthermore, I'ts not for him who makes such bold assertions to insist that others justify their disagreement. It is you who has insisted on an interpreted meaning of the clause, it is for you to defend your position.
"The first fallacy you employ is amphiboly. You have detached the word "welfare" from the meaning it had when the document was written, and attempted to attach to it the meaning that has been assigned it by popular culture in the last 30 years." - Yeti Nonsense. I asked *you* to give your definition of the general welfare clause. - Southack
"And I did. I notice you didn't have a comment about that."
Whew, talk about straying from the point! Your claim above is that I was being ambiguous, even though you agree that I actually asked *you* for *your* definition to avoid any amphiboly, and somehow you reply with "I notice you didn't have a comment about that."
Oh please...