"Any use you appear to feel is justified by your view of the general welfare clause would only cause or already has caused grave harm to the general welfare. The actual reason that it has no meaning is you believe that you can better society by taking from some to help others. You claim to be against socialism but you want The U. S. Constitution to allow some form of misguided social endeavor."
You are incorrect. I don't want government to have broad power. All that I'm doing is pointing out that government does have broad power, legally.
If you will look at the history of our nation, we've had a FOUNDING FATHER create the first federal bank two centuries ago, legally. We've had gold confiscated and outlawed up until the mid 1970's. Government programs have grown every year for decades, and the very whining and crying of libertarians illustrates that government is NOT denied of broad power.
Yet you libertarians will consistently claim that the general welfare clause gives no power to the federal government. You will consistently claim that government power is more limited than both reality and court decisions would indicate to any rational person.
Look around you. Is government power constrained in America or are you complaining that it is too powerful?
Why has government power been so broad over the last 200 years of court decisions?
You see, reality contradicts the libertarian worldview.
One of the things that is wrong with libertarians is that they consistently misinterpret the Constitution, specifically the general welfare clause.
Many of the posts above this one being prime examples of that fact.
You are incorrect. I don't want government to have broad power. All that I'm doing is pointing out that government does have broad power, legally.You're so full of it.
Your sorry excuse for an interpretation has been thoroughly thrashed. That's because it was wrong to begin with.
If you will look at the history of our nation, we've had a FOUNDING FATHER create the first federal bank two centuries ago, legally.
Nothing to do with the so called "general welfare clause".
We've had gold confiscated and outlawed up until the mid 1970's. Government programs have grown every year for decades, and the very whining and crying of libertarians illustrates that government is NOT denied of broad power.
First, that has as little to do with the "general welfare clause" as the national bank. Like I said before, amateur big government hacks use the "general welfare clause". The pros use the commerce clause.
You know, the SC once ruled that a man growing crops on his own land for the consumption of his own livestock was interstate commerce. I know, it's an incredibly stupid ruling, but the Court actually made it. More telling for this discussion is that they didn't just say "general welfare" and let it pass. In other words, your position is even more stupid than the one the Court used as justification. You are, in short, full of it. You know nothing.
And second, that stuff is indeed unConstitutional. You types always get back to the position that "it exists, therefore it's Constitutional" even though nobody knew it until the 1930s. This is so stupid I won't bother refuting it. Seriously, anything Congress does is Constitutional because Congress does it? Please. I suppose you think the Alien and Sedition Acts were also Constitutional.
One of the things that is wrong with libertarians is that they consistently misinterpret the Constitution, specifically the general welfare clause. Many of the posts above this one being prime examples of that fact.
You've been PROVEN WRONG ON ALL COUNTS. Every contention you've made on behalf of your idiotic claim has been incorrect, has had no relation to the topic, or has been nothing but sophistry. Sure, we consistently disagree with you, but, as this thread demostrates, that means we consistently GET IT RIGHT.