• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we Eliminate Social Security?

Should we Eliminate Social Security

  • Yes, no replacement

    Votes: 13 25.5%

  • Yes, but with a replacement

    Votes: 11 21.6%

  • No, we should wait until it goes bankrupt

    Votes: 1 2.0%

  • No, its not going to go bankrupt

    Votes: 22 43.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 4 7.8%
  • Total voters
    51
sazerac said:
Pretty damn scary results so far.

See, this is why they don't let people vote.
Click to expand...

yeah, i've long been in favor of some kind of basic poll test.

"what are the three branches of government" type questions.
 
Henrin said:
So intention doesn't go into what clauses mean.

Interesting logic...for a complete dipstick.
Click to expand...

Times they change. We once started out as a smaller country, with mostly a farming country that really did not need a "helping hand", then times changed now only like 4% of the country farms and we turned into a more industrialized country..
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Times they change. We once started out as a smaller country, with mostly a farming country that really did not need a "helping hand", then times changed now only like 4% of the country farms and we turned into a more industrialized country..
Click to expand...

Your point means nothing in relation to mine.
 
i think what he's saying is that people who live largely hand-to-mouth, performing backbreaking labor, and dependent upon strength and health in the most unhealthy conditions are somehow less vulnerable than people who work in climate-controlled workspaces where their chief source of sustenance provision is a difficult to damage set of mental abilities, and their wealth enables them to set aside large stores of accumulated savings for the future.
 
TurtleDude said:
so tell me

without resorting to the FDR lapdog justices

do you honestly think that the general welfare clause meant income redistribution? or the other wlefare schemes of today
Click to expand...

Does promote the general welfare mean income redistribution in and of itself is allowable? Probably not what the Founders intended. However, Social Security as a program is clearly allowed under the Preamble and its contents.

But Social Security is not just income distribution.
 
The Preamble? what are you a senator that thinks the word A allows them unlimited power?

That is just dumb. You remind me of the time I posted a video on another forum where a senator said the preamble was the reason the healthcare law was constitutional in a town hall meeting and instead of being greeted with anger was greeted with laughter.

I have to watch that video again! I will post it if I find it.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
This argument takes no effort, no knowledge, and zero ability. You need to do better than say the courts decide stuff. It doesn't fly. If I was only interested in what a body of people that build cases on top of cases in complete ignorance thought I wouldn't have a mind of my own and there would be no reason to know the truth of what is and isn't constitutional.
Click to expand...

Good luck declaring Social Security unconstitutional on your own then.

And honestly, just think, SS has been around nearly 70 years, almost as long as both of my parents' age put together. No one has declared it unconstitutional in that time, no one has challenged it's constitutionality in a serious manner. Makes you think, there must be reason, eh?
 
Henrin said:
The Preamble? what are you a senator that thinks the word A allows them unlimited power?

That is just dumb. You remind me the time I posted a video on another forum where a senator said the preamble was the reason the healthcare law was constitutional in a town hall meeting and instead of being greeted with anger was greeted with laughter.
Click to expand...


To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The Preamble is part of the Constitution, and is a very rough outline of the extent of the government's powers.
 
Catawba said:
We evolved.
Click to expand...

not all of us, there are still plenty of us who can't get past the phase of our life when we are totally self centered, our infant years...YEAH, I SAID IT, there are a bunch of big whiny babies complaining about not getting as much of the pie as they think they deserve. If that pie was totally of their own making, I could sympathize with them, but nobody makes a fortune without the help of infrastructure paid for by all of us, one way or another.
 
repeter said:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The Preamble is part of the Constitution, and is a very rough outline of the extent of the government's powers.
Click to expand...

It doesn't grant powers. I will now laugh at you for trying to defend what you just said.
 
Henrin said:
It doesn't grant powers. I will now laugh at you for trying to defend what you just said.
Click to expand...

It outlines government as a whole. That you think that is false is a clear indictment of your understanding of the government.
 
Henrin said:
Oh so now you admit some partisanship. Good to know you can ignore reality and then notice reality as if no one will notice what you are doing. Court is good, pure, the rule of law, and now well its just a conservative court. Yes, good show my boy.
Click to expand...

Isn't the current SCOTUS tilted in the conservative direction? If so, it isn't partisan to say they are conservative...
 
repeter said:
It outlines government as a whole. That you think that is false is a clear indictment of your understanding of the government.
Click to expand...

Outlines you say. I wonder what that implies.
 
repeter said:
Two words: Elastic Clause.
Click to expand...

You mean the thing that is still talking about the powers that are listed. You can fail less whenever you wish.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
You mean the thing that is still talking about the powers that are listed.
Click to expand...

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
 
repeter said:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Click to expand...

That clause is the necessary and proper clause and I know exactly what it does. You however haven't a clue.

I will correct myself on one little thing though. It doesn't grant powers outside of the scope of the already granted powers. It does however do something, I will let you figure that out on your own.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
That clause is the necessary and proper clause and I know exactly what it does. You however haven't a clue.
Click to expand...

You want to address how, specifically, it does not allow the provisions from the Preamble? I'm sure Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Washington would heartily disagree with whatever you have to say.
 
repeter said:
You want to address how, specifically, it does not allow the provisions from the Preamble? I'm sure Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Washington would heartily disagree with whatever you have to say.
Click to expand...

Lets look it up...hmm..

a statement in the U.S. constitution (Article I, Section 8) granting Congress the power to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the enumerated list of powers.

You know what that last bit is talking about? Any clue what so ever?

You are barking up a tree boy and if you were wise you would stop.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Lets look it up...hmm..

a statement in the U.S. constitution (Article I, Section 8) granting Congress the power to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the enumerated list of powers.
Click to expand...

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

What you provided is an abridged version of the actual language. If the abridged version was the actual version, you would have more of an argument. As it stands, "All other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States" includes the Preamble of the Constitution.

You know what that last bit is talking about? Any clue what so ever?
Click to expand...

Stop being rude.
 
repeter said:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

What you provided is an abridged version of the actual language. If the abridged version was the actual version, you would have more of an argument. As it stands, "All other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States" includes the Preamble of the Constitution.



Stop being rude.
Click to expand...

Stop being an idiot. That is the definition of what it literally does. I deal with idiots like idiots. If you don't want to be treated like one, don't act like one.
 
Necessary and Proper Clause-Wiki

Although the court in McCulloch v. Maryland held that all Federal laws need not be "absolutely necessary" to be necessary and proper and noted "The clause is placed among the powers of Congress, not among the limitations on those powers," it also noted "Should Congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the Constitution, or should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the Government, it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land." (a reference to judicial review established by the court earlier in Marbury v. Madison.) Whether various federal laws are necessary and proper exercises of Constitutional power or violations of Constitutional limits on federal power and whether the Supreme Court has ruled properly in cases where this question is at issue seems a constant matter of deep controversy.
Click to expand...

Chief Justice Marshall and the Supreme Court already countered your argument against Social Security, and backed up my argument for its continued constitutionality in McCulloch v. Maryland.
 
Henrin said:
Stop being an idiot. That is the definition of what it literally does. I deal with idiots like idiots. If you don't want to be treated like one, don't act like one.
Click to expand...

You can say whatever you want, and think whatever you want to think, but the fact of the matter is, you are wrong, and I am right. Now, if you want to specifically show how the Preamble and its provisions are not powers given the the United States Government, go ahead. I'm still waiting.
 
UtahBill said:
Isn't the current SCOTUS tilted in the conservative direction? If so, it isn't partisan to say they are conservative...
Click to expand...

It was from another thread where I made a point in telling him the partisan politics is an cancer in the courts. He however just keep repeating himself that the courts were the law of the land. Ignoring that the law of the land is the constitution, not the people that say what is what, ignoring that they have been wrong in the past, ignoring what he calls a conservative court. From my eyes he was saying it was perfect and maybe I jumped on it a bit, but all in all I think I was right in my thinking.
 
repeter said:
You can say whatever you want, and think whatever you want to think, but the fact of the matter is, you are wrong, and I am right. Now, if you want to specifically show how the Preamble and its provisions are not powers given the the United States Government, go ahead. I'm still waiting.
Click to expand...

Which provision should I do next?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom