Legitimate Rape and Abortion- Republicans back-pedal

[Symmetry]

Neither is ok. Although, you could give an equal amount of money to everyone, which would be a general welfare distribution, not specific.

That wouldn't then contribute toward the general welfare of the nation, though would it?

[tzor]

And yet, so many people seem to think "provide for the general welfare" means just that..

And others will disagree. Madison on the "General Welfare" of America: His Consistent Constitutional Vision

Sorenson’s thesis, based primarily on Federalist No. 41, is that Madison regarded the enumeration as defining the objects entailed within the general welfare and the other general clauses that make up the Preamble (i.e., justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, and liberty). But those objects are the broad ends or purposes of the Constitution, not just means or powers. Therefore, states Sorenson, Madison understood the general terms of the Preamble to enlarge the dominion of government beyond the enumeration itself, although not to confer plenary power. Madison’s public position, ascribed to him by Crosskey, was that substantive powers are defined by specifying their number, kind, and application. On the contrary, Sorenson’s explanation is that (1) Madison perceived the Preamble of the Constitution as prescribing a limited number of limited ends; (2) the enumeration defines those ends more precisely; (3) the general welfare and other clauses that make up the Preamble vest particular powers beyond the enumeration, but only to accomplish the limited ends; and (4) the particular powers thus vested can be identified only through an examination of the enumerated powers themselves, in their relation to the authorized ends.

Not that it matters, as mark Levin says we live in a post-constitutional society which he calls "Ameritopia."

[Night Strike]

Neither is ok. Although, you could give an equal amount of money to everyone, which would be a general welfare distribution, not specific.

That wouldn't then contribute toward the general welfare of the nation, though would it?

Why wouldn't it? The only way to provide for the general welfare is for the government to punish one group while giving handouts to another?

[stahrgazer]

Where in the Constitution does it state that?

The purpose of a constitution is not to tell the government what it cannot do, but what it can do. So if it is not an enumerated power the Federal Government doesn't have the power under the Constitution and under the Constitution the power goes to the states or to the people.

And yet, so many people seem to think "provide for the general welfare" means just that..

Except, it's not provide for the general welfare. In order to... provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare.

[puppydog85]

Neither is ok. Although, you could give an equal amount of money to everyone, which would be a general welfare distribution, not specific.

That wouldn't then contribute toward the general welfare of the nation, though would it?

I fail to see how that would not. If everyone got some then all the nation would benefit right? Special welfare is when only a particular group gets the benefits "ie. the auto industry"

[Ray Rider]

Neither is ok. Although, you could give an equal amount of money to everyone, which would be a general welfare distribution, not specific.

That wouldn't then contribute toward the general welfare of the nation, though would it?

I fail to see how that would not. If everyone got some then all the nation would benefit right? Special welfare is when only a particular group gets the benefits "ie. the auto industry"

This "free" money distributed to all, where would this money come from? Printed out of thin air by a central bank causing devaluation of the currency and inflation, perhaps? Would this be beneficial to the nation?

[Symmetry]

Neither is ok. Although, you could give an equal amount of money to everyone, which would be a general welfare distribution, not specific.

That wouldn't then contribute toward the general welfare of the nation, though would it?

Why wouldn't it? The only way to provide for the general welfare is for the government to punish one group while giving handouts to another?

Huh? I get that I was being a bit general and talking about a nation, but elaborate on the specifics you object to,

[Woodruff]

Neither is ok. Although, you could give an equal amount of money to everyone, which would be a general welfare distribution, not specific.

That wouldn't then contribute toward the general welfare of the nation, though would it?

Why wouldn't it? The only way to provide for the general welfare is for the government to punish one group while giving handouts to another?

Huh? I get that I was being a bit general and talking about a nation, but elaborate on the specifics you object to,

OBAMA!!!

[Symmetry]

Neither is ok. Although, you could give an equal amount of money to everyone, which would be a general welfare distribution, not specific.

That wouldn't then contribute toward the general welfare of the nation, though would it?

Why wouldn't it? The only way to provide for the general welfare is for the government to punish one group while giving handouts to another?

Huh? I get that I was being a bit general and talking about a nation, but elaborate on the specifics you object to,

OBAMA!!!

Ok, I laughed.

[oVo]

Isn't Legitimate Rape just an ugly label for Global Corporate Democracy?

[tzor]

Isn't Legitimate Rape just an ugly label for Global Corporate Democracy?

No, it's just an ugly label. It's not a label for anything, it's just ugly.