• 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!

A Parchment Barrier Needs Enforcement

Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

Spending has to provide for the general welfare and common defense, along with paying the debts.

We should cut our warfare-State spending before any welfare-State spending.

OK, Congress spends money on military aid to the Ukraine and claims it is to provide for the general welfare.

Congress could claim this on any project it sees fit to spend money on.
 
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

OK, Congress spends money on military aid to the Ukraine and claims it is to provide for the general welfare.

Congress could claim this on any project it sees fit to spend money on.

lol. not at the expense of actual welfare spending like the right wing would prefer.
 
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

lol. not at the expense of actual welfare spending like the right wing would prefer.

Who is to say it is or is not ?


Is there anything specifically you think Congress can't spend money on ?
 
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

Who is to say it is or is not ?


Is there anything specifically you think Congress can't spend money on ?

The right wing believes we should cut welfare spending in favor of the general warfare and common offense; but, still blame the Poor.
 
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

The right wing believes we should cut welfare spending in favor of the general warfare and common offense; but, still blame the Poor.

Under Trump the federal budget got even bigger.


I reiterate, there is nothing Congress can't spend money on. Literally nothing.
 
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

Under Trump the federal budget got even bigger.


I reiterate, there is nothing Congress can't spend money on. Literally nothing.

i agree to disagree. Spending must be within the scope of the general welfare and common defense.
 
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

i agree to disagree. Spending must be within the scope of the general welfare and common defense.

And it always will be.

Congress will continue to spend as much money as it wants or whatever it wants and say it is "in the scope of the general welfare"



What is so hard about this for you to fail to understand ?
 
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

And it always will be.

Congress will continue to spend as much money as it wants or whatever it wants and say it is "in the scope of the general welfare"



What is so hard about this for you to fail to understand ?

I subscribe to the federal doctrine?

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.

The Federalist Number Forty-One
 
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

I subscribe to the federal doctrine?

So do I


Congress will continue to spend as much money as it wants on whatever it wants and say it is "in the scope of the general welfare"



What is so hard about this for you to fail to understand ?
 
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

So do I


Congress will continue to spend as much money as it wants on whatever it wants and say it is "in the scope of the general welfare"



What is so hard about this for you to fail to understand ?

The Federalist Number Forty-One explains the concept pretty well. I understand it, why don't you?
 
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

The Federalist Number Forty-One explains the concept pretty well. I understand it, why don't you?

Yes.

Congress will continue to spend as much money as it wants on whatever it wants and say it is "in the scope of the general welfare"...always has and always will.



What is so hard about this for you to fail to understand ?
 
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

Yes.

Congress will continue to spend as much money as it wants on whatever it wants and say it is "in the scope of the general welfare"...always has and always will.



What is so hard about this for you to fail to understand ?

The concept is not difficult, but it is also not true. Many laws have been struck down as unConstitutional and void from Inception as the complete waste of money and time, they were.
 
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

The concept is not difficult, but it is also not true. Many laws have been struck down as unConstitutional and void from Inception as the complete waste of money and time, they were.

So what ? You're going off on a tangent talking about unconstitutional laws.

Congress will continue to spend as much money as it wants on whatever it wants and say it is "in the scope of the general welfare"...always has and always will.
Can you name a single expenditure in the federal budget that has ever been "struck" down as unconstitutional ???


When you come up with zero, perhaps then you'll understand.
 
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

So what ? You're going off on a tangent talking about unconstitutional laws.

Congress will continue to spend as much money as it wants on whatever it wants and say it is "in the scope of the general welfare"...always has and always will.
Can you name a single expenditure in the federal budget that has ever been "struck" down as unconstitutional ???


When you come up with zero, perhaps then you'll understand.

I am a federalist; there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine; only lousy implementation.
 
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

I am a federalist; there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine; only lousy implementation.

Once again;

Congress will continue to spend as much money as it wants on whatever it wants and say it is "in the scope of the general welfare"...always has and always will.
Can you name a single expenditure in the federal budget that has ever been "struck" down as unconstitutional ???
 
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

Once again;

Congress will continue to spend as much money as it wants on whatever it wants and say it is "in the scope of the general welfare"...always has and always will.
Can you name a single expenditure in the federal budget that has ever been "struck" down as unconstitutional ???

On other Constitutional grounds except for the general welfare.

I simply agree to disagree. Congress has entire staffs and are getting paid to "know better".
 
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

On other Constitutional grounds except for the general welfare.

I simply agree to disagree. Congress has entire staffs and are getting paid to "know better".

And they will tax and borrow and spend it on what they like and claim it is for the general welfare of the people.

You continually refuse to disprove this.

No US budget I am aware of has ever been challenged as unconstitutional



In short the proof that Congress can spend money on what it wants is that no-one has challenged a single expenditure on constitutional grounds or ever could.


If you doubt this name a single historical or hypothetical future expenditure that would or could be considered unconstitutional ?
And don't just say "badware" - what is the criteria for that and what would be an example ?
 
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

And they will tax and borrow and spend it on what they like and claim it is for the general welfare of the people.

You continually refuse to disprove this.

No US budget I am aware of has ever been challenged as unconstitutional



In short the proof that Congress can spend money on what it wants is that no-one has challenged a single expenditure on constitutional grounds or ever could.


If you doubt this name a single historical or hypothetical future expenditure that would or could be considered unconstitutional ?
And don't just say "badware" - what is the criteria for that and what would be an example ?

Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are extra-Constitutional and a waste of money. There is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause; as there must be to enact a warfare-State over our expressly enumerated welfare-State.
 
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are extra-Constitutional and a waste of money. There is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause; as there must be to enact a warfare-State over our expressly enumerated welfare-State.

OK

Spending money on enforcing US laws can easily be constitutionally justified

You might think the war on drugs is a waste of money and the USA should allow them in unchecked, most people would disagree and say preventing drugs from coming into the USA prevents drug use and is therefore part of general welfare.

As for anti-terrorism, you're joking right ? The USA shouldn't fight terrorism ?
Have you never heard of 9/11 - for some reason most people in the USA view it as a bad thing.
 
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

OK

Spending money on enforcing US laws can easily be constitutionally justified

You might think the war on drugs is a waste of money and the USA should allow them in unchecked, most people would disagree and say preventing drugs from coming into the USA prevents drug use and is therefore part of general welfare.

As for anti-terrorism, you're joking right ? The USA shouldn't fight terrorism ?
Have you never heard of 9/11 - for some reason most people in the USA view it as a bad thing.

You only appeal to emotion not "the Purse".

According to a 2008 study published by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron, the annual savings on enforcement and incarceration costs from the legalization of drugs would amount to roughly $41.3 billion, with $25.7 billion being saved among the states and over $15.6 billion accrued for the federal government. Miron further estimated at least $46.7 billion in tax revenue based on rates comparable to those on tobacco and alcohol ($8.7 billion from marijuana, $32.6 billion from cocaine and heroin, remainder from other drugs).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs#Costs_to_taxpayers

Our alleged War on Terror is even more destructive.

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice of life and property that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment due to a war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. Therefore, we demand ruthless confiscation of all war profits.

Tax Cut economics means it cannot be, really really important under Capitalism where we should get what we Pay for.

Enact real times of War tax rates, right wingers, if you are really really serious.
 
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

You only appeal to emotion not "the Purse"....

Nope, only that was an easy example of how Congress can spend money on anything and claim it is for the general welfare - though in truth all expenditures can be.


...our alleged War on Terror is even more destructive....

You are confused

You're confusing spending money to achieve an aim with how the agency in receipt of those funds goes about achieving that aim

If you want to criticize how agencies fro the FBI to the US Army go about defeating terrorist organisations, then go right ahead
But it's not unconstitutional for Congress to have such a goal and spend money in the hope of achieving it - they are after all, supposed to be the experts

In another example, the US Dept of Defense has wasted countless billions on projects designed to defend the USA

...Tax Cut economics means it cannot be, really really important under Capitalism where we should get what we Pay for.

Enact real times of War tax rates, right wingers, if you are really really serious.


Tax cuts are unconstitutional ?

Did you mean that - in which case please explain.
 
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

Did you just now learn about Might Makes Right?

So the idea of killing your opponents works for you? Amazing!
 
Last edited:
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

People seem to treat the US constitution as holy writ rather than a document written in the 18th century for 18th century conditions. It is too restrictive for modern government. It should be completely re-written so that it can be easily updated as society evolves to deal with changing social needs.
 
Re: A “Parchment Barrier” Needs Enforcement

Nope, only that was an easy example of how Congress can spend money on anything and claim it is for the general welfare - though in truth all expenditures can be.




You are confused

You're confusing spending money to achieve an aim with how the agency in receipt of those funds goes about achieving that aim

If you want to criticize how agencies fro the FBI to the US Army go about defeating terrorist organisations, then go right ahead
But it's not unconstitutional for Congress to have such a goal and spend money in the hope of achieving it - they are after all, supposed to be the experts

In another example, the US Dept of Defense has wasted countless billions on projects designed to defend the USA


Tax cuts are unconstitutional ?

Did you mean that - in which case please explain.

Only if Persons in Congress are unfaithful to our Constitution. We only need, Ten simple Commandments from a God, for free; not the Expense of Government if the subjective value of morals is involved.

You also seem to be missing the point about spending. There is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause. Our welfare clause is General not Common.

Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are extra-Constitutional and are not Capitally necessary nor proper if the Richest, refuse to pay real and not fake times of wartime tax rates.
 
Back
Top Bottom