Will the Right Eventually Openly Dump the Constitution?

Post Reply New Topic

The folk of the political right will not render void the Bill of Rights because it is the only thing that protects them from the folk of the political left.

ruveyn

I think it's ridiculously petty to call something unconstitutional just cuz you don't like it. As far as I know, the Founding Fathers considered these things within the role of the Government: Securing the rights of citizens and protecting them from foreign invasions. Since when did the constitution even mention the topic of social programs? And your question is ridiculous since right wingers tend to have a more literal interpretation of the Constitution as opposed to left wingers who tend to interpret it more contextually. The Constitution carries as much weight as the specific circumstances it was written under whereas the right wing tends to see them as applicable in the broad context of how society would function under general principles.

Welfare programs fall under the general welfare of the nation.

That cannot be the case. To benefit one group of people another group must be looted.

ruveyn

The Constitution says the role of the Government is to protect your rights and protect the nation from foreign invaders. It says nothing about maintaining the welfare of its citizens.

And? The general welfare of the country is helped by keeping riffraff off the streets and fed. The group that is 'looted' from is helped by the wellbeing of their comrades. Note that I do disagree with some of how the current welfare policies are implemented, in regards to the amount given and the lack of scrutiny of to who it is given.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_We ... ted_States





The only disagreements concerning the general welfare clause are about what its applications are towards government power, they are not about whether or not the general welfare of the united states exists as a responsibility of the federal government.

On a slightly unrelated note, how often do you study the constitution? Since you made this easily disproved claim.

For welfare to be general EVERYONE must benefit. Any policy that advantages one group to the detriment of the other cannot be General Welfare. General means everyone, without exception.

ruveyn

No action can have benefit for everyone with such a large group, not when the action requires resources that must be taken from said group.(Taxes being the resource congress uses to implement policies) Such a demand is unreasonable.(And by extension this makes your definition unreasonable)

Keeping riffraff off the street keeps the desperate from turning to illegal crimes. Keeping them fed assures that they have the opportunity to better themselves and seek happiness at a later time.(As opposed to turning over and dying) The only other option would be to imprison beggars and the homeless. That itself would likely cost as much if not more than the current welfare programs.(You would still have the cost of feeding them but you would also have to pay for the construction of the facilities they would be held in. If you where actually going to attempt to educate them so that they might be useful that too would have to be paid for because they most certainly wouldn't be able to find employment while imprisoned.)

How often do I study the Constitution? Why would I keep track of how much time I spend on one specific sub topic relevant to politics?

The General Welfare Clause pertains to the Federal government's power to tax its citizens in order to serve it's own interests. It doesn't say anything about entitlements to the citizens. How are you so sure about what Thomas Jefferson meant by "Welfare"? Since the Union meant "America" back in those times, "Welfare of the Union" could've easily meant "National Security". Here's a quote which shows he is against a welfare state:

That is a statement against a specific form of redistribution of wealth he is simply stating that people have the right to prosper from their work and that people have no right to that prosperity on the basis that they are entitled(by virtue of being American) to a share of that prosperity, to apply this to the current issue(general welfare, or to reword, distribution of wealth to benefit the well being of the nation as a whole) you would have to ignore several words in the quote.

He is against taking others wealth solely on the basis that the person being taken from has too much wealth compared to someone else, this is not an argument against the general welfare as I have stated it.

And your attempted redefinition of what constitutes the general welfare does not disagree with mine, I have outlined the citizens interest. And the way I have outlined the purpose of welfare programs is not as an entitlement.

The Welfare of The Union can be taken to include the defense of the nation but it cannot be taken to exclude the domestic issues of The Union. Which is why I am comfortable including the current welfare programs under said quote.

Do you condone theft?

ruveyn

And that's pretty much what "general welfare" is about: You are too rich, therefore you owe the poor. Whether it is for the "greater good" or to satisfy jealousy is irrelevant because either way "general welfare" holds the assumption that it's okay to involuntarily take from the rich to give to the poor since the poor are entitled to it.

I didn't redefine s**t, I brought up a possibility. Funny you accuse me of redefining a term, yet you assert it to mean what you interpret it as by default.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 12 Mar 2011, 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The extreme leftists are more likely to dump the constitution than those on the right.

ruveyn

Yeah the right tends to interpret the Constitution more literally.

In addition to which, Political Correctness which is an extra-legal method of stifling free speech is a Creature of the Liberal Left.

ruveyn

@ruveyn Taxing is an instrument of government given to our nation in its infancy I do not consider it theft in a legal sense and I do not care if someone considers it theft in the common sense. Although I will acknowledge that is perfectly reasonable to consider it theft.

@AceofSpades You introduced your own definition without attacking mine, I call this an attempt at redefinition if you had actually compromised my definition I would have just continued arguing over the definition until satisfied, what you did is an attempt to redefine a term which has an accepted meaning. I am arguing on the side of the currently accepted common definition you are not therefor you are the one attempting to redefine the word.(I have no problem with this as a concept so there is no reason for you to take offense, unless of course you consider the practice offensive but in that case it is your problem not mine so keep it to yourself.) Also you did not just bring up a possibility you brought up a possible interpretation of his statement and tried to argue it as valid, that is redefinition.

The current welfare programs are not based on taking from the rich and giving to the poor, it is based on taking taxes and applying them to a useful cause with benefits that apply to the nation as a whole. The wealthy are not the sole contributers of taxes so your argument is invalid. And if you wish to argue that the way taxes are taken are unfair, do so, but keep in mind that this is a separate issue from the current one, it is also an issue I am less likely to argue against, I am for a percentage tax that is constant across all income levels exceeding the poverty level, with a cap on what can be taken from a single person in a year, but I am also for a corporate tax without such limits on what can be taken.

EDIT:

Nonsense it is based on the reasoning that people should be provided for when they cannot do so themselves. That otherwise they will become a hindrance to society taking from others violently and violating the law to provide for themselves. The current definitions are not based on entitlement. Also the general welfare is based on helping society as a whole preventing needless death and decay at the societal level. No one has claimed the poor are entitled to welfare if you wish to claim so again provide a source.

The current welfare programs are not based on a rich-poor division so your arguments have no validity.