Christian Dems take on debt ceiling in new ads

[mpok1519]

No, our government is a CONSTITUTIONAL Republic. At least that is what the founding fathers gave us but since the Constitution is now treated as a document you can just ignore if you don't like its restrictions you're about right, ours is a mobocracy.

okay, sure, we have a constitutional republic ran by who, We the people, the ones ultimately responsible for charity.

A republic is the people, and people are responsible for charity, hence, the republic is repsonsible for charity as well.

 

[MachZer0]

"Gay marriage" and abortion" are not addressed in the Constitution or the Preamble, but that doesn't stop conservatives trying to use federal laws and the Supreme Court to enforce their moral agenda.

The homosexual marriage issue involves 2 points, one, a Constitutional amendment which means it would be in the Constitution and two, any time a state rules against homosexual marriage, some court overrules the will of the people, as has been done in California. that leaves the federal approach the only avenue available. Regarding abortion, it became a federal issue when the SCOTUS literally wrote it into law. The prolife approach then has to center around overturning Roe v Wade, returning the issue to the states where it belongs.

 

[mpok1519]

And yet when Democrats call out Republicans for allegedly ignoring Biblical principles regarding our laws, we hear nothing but chirp, chirp

A point made and not some vague sense of rhetorical superiority would have been nice.

 

[MachZer0]

A point made

And it was

and not some vague sense of rhetorical superiority would have been nice.

What you perceive as a vague sense of rhetorical superiority was in fact a clear exposure of a double standard from the left side of the aisle

 

[thaumaturgy]

We don't cherry pick from the Constitution. Rather we recognize that the gov't must provide for the general welfare within the bounds of the enumerated powers.

And the enumerated powers include:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

Seems that we were doing that pretty well. I don't think anyone would want us to bankrupt ourselves and borrow too much, but certainly we have the right to borrow money on our credit (which up until we default on Aug 2 was among the best in the world, but now it is likely already tarnished. Even if we don't default we've manufactured a "crisis" that, even if NOTHING ELSE has probably already damaged our credit rating.

So the GOP and Tea Party in their efforts to get us to clean up our act have ensured that we will likely pay more for credit in the future.

And interestingly enough the COngress has that right to borrow money. But we've now just burdened ourselves.

Bravo.

And there is no enumerated power that allows welfare payments to individuals

What limitation do you find in the Constitution that delineates that?

which, by the way, would be providing specific welfare rather than for the general welfare.)

Strongly disagree. Since welfare is not arbitrarily provided but generally available and is instituted precisely to stabilize all who qualify and was enacted to lead to a more stable society, "individual welfare" is nothing more than a "general welfare" concept.

It is nearly impossible to think of an example of individual welfare that does not go to the general welfare.

Even the GOP itself believes in "welfare" for the rich that supposedly serves the greater good (however that does not seem to have ever been proven to be true). We bail out banks and corporations to ensure the general welfare. We provide tax rates that are lower for the rich who gain their income from "capital gains" than for people who pay the bulk of their taxes in the form of excise and payroll taxes.

So if welfare must be eliminated (because the poor have it too good in the U.S. apparently) then it must be eliminated across the board. Tax loopholes closed without offsetting tax breaks, etc.

Frankly I don't want to live in a country that can't see it's way to taking care of the least among us. But then I tend to worry for my fellow person as opposed to loving my money above all else. That's why I vote to increase my own tax rate when I have a chance...even for things that don't benefit me and never will (like increased funding to public schools...I don't have any kids, ergo, it will not benefit me in the slightest. But I see a value for society in general).

And since I am part of the "government" (as are we all) I think the government SHOULD and WILL do all the good we can!

 

[jgarden]

The homosexual marriage issue involves 2 points, one, a Constitutional amendment which means it would be in the Constitution and two, any time a state rules against homosexual marriage, some court overrules the will of the people, as has been done in California. that leaves the federal approach the only avenue available. Regarding abortion, it became a federal issue when the SCOTUS literally wrote it into law. The prolife approach then has to center around overturning Roe v Wade, returning the issue to the states where it belongs.

What is the rationale for making "gay marriage" a constitutional matter, while returning decisions on "abortion" back to the states.

For gay marriages and abortion to be legal in some states and not another is a legal nightmare - but since neither are addressed in the constitution, what are the legal grounds for prohibiting either?

 

[MachZer0]

And the enumerated powers include:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

The enumerated powers there are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. Paying debts, providing for the common defense and general welfare are goals, not enumerated powers. So meeting those goals has to be done within the confines of other enumerated powers. Note the Constitutions enumeration of powers regarding defense issues. Here is what Madison said regarding the general welfare:

Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made.

And here's what Jefferson said about the same issue:

[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.

And yet more for Madison:

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.

 

[MachZer0]

What is the rationale for making "gay marriage" a constitutional matter, while returning decisions on "abortion" back to the states.

I pointed out that the people are being overruled by the courts. That's the rationale. the only way to stop a tyranny by the courts would be a Constitutional amendment.

For gay marriages and abortion to be legal in some states and not another is a legal nightmare - but since neither are addressed in the constitution, what are the legal grounds for prohibiting either?

I would certainly support a Constitutional amendment that specified that the 5th Amendment applied to the unborn

 

[thaumaturgy]

any time a state rules against homosexual marriage, some court overrules the will of the people

Not here. In California a church headquartered in another state (granted with adherents in our state, but the command and control appear to be largely from out of state) poured significant amounts of money into our political process to ensure that a vote WE Californians should have had sole say in was driven by interests from outside of California.

Hence we got Prop Hate.

, as has been done in California.

Might want to check how Prop H8 worked out. AND more importantly how religious organizations from outside of Cali had a strong say in that particular piece of "legislation" (I use the term loosely because laws should never be enacted to eliminate someone's rights...but hey, I am funny that way.)

that leaves the federal approach the only avenue available. Regarding abortion, it became a federal issue when the SCOTUS literally wrote it into law. The prolife approach then has to center around overturning Roe v Wade, returning the issue to the states where it belongs.

Please let's call it for what it is: Anti-Choice. Since no one is required to have an abortion, the only reason to make Abortion illegal anywhere in the U.S. is because a group of people want to impose their will to restrict access to a medical procedure based on their religious views.

That of course means that the State has established a religion which does go against the Establishment clause.

That sounds rather unconstitutional. And adjudicating whether laws are unconstitutional seems to be right in the purview of SCOTUS.

Like Gay Marriage, abortion is one of those things that if you don't like it, don't do it.

The desire for the Right to not only be allowed to have their religion, but actively force its restrictions on OTHERS who are not in the same religion seems to run afoul of this all the time.

 

[MachZer0]

Not here. In California a church headquartered in another state (granted with adherents in our state, but the command and control appear to be largely from out of state) poured significant amounts of money into our political process to ensure that a vote WE Californians should have had sole say in was driven by interests from outside of California.

People from outside the state did not vote. Californians voted and they voted against homosexual marriage. Prior to that, they also voted against homosexual marriage by defining marriage between one man and one woman. Californians have spoken very clearly on the issue.

 

[thaumaturgy]

What is the rationale for making "gay marriage" a constitutional matter, while returning decisions on "abortion" back to the states.

For gay marriages and abortion to be legal in some states and not another is a legal nightmare - but since neither are addressed in the constitution, what are the legal grounds for prohibiting either?

Obviously it is to ensure that one religious interpretation gets pushed forward by whatever means necessary.

If it must be done at national level (gay marriage, which like all marriage is subject to the "full faith and credit" clause) to ensure that the religion's desires are manifest then it must be in the Constitution.

If it is more likely that they will get their particular religious ideals enacted on a state-by-state basis (thereby eliminating choice from the poorest people) then it must be driven back to the states.

It is very important that God's needs be met by our country so that we may gain favor in His sight.

Any means necessary.

 

[thaumaturgy]

People from outside the state did not vote.

And of course a LOT of money and influence was put into the campaign from outside of the state. And as we all know now; money is speech here in the U.S.

It was undue influence from parties not affected directly by the vote, no matter how it is "parsed" or spun.

Californians voted and they voted against homosexual marriage.

And the campaign was rather strong. I wonder where a lot of the money came that pushed that campaign? Interesting.

Prior to that, they also voted against homosexual marriage by defining marriage between one man and one woman. Californians have spoken very clearly on the issue.

Yes, we have a law now that restricts a random group of people's rights. We have said to a small fraction of our population that YOU ARE NOT WELCOME.

I am ever so proud that we wound up with a law that refuses a right to a small subclass of people.

Again, as a Californian I did NOT appreciate as much money poured into our electoral process (and yes, campaigns are clearly part of the electoral process and yes we understand "Money is speech") as came from parties not affected by our vote.

But I guess for a good conservative, meddling in other people's governance is OK as long as it is for religious purposes, right?

 

[chaz345]

will to restrict access to a medical procedure based on their religious views.

There are plenty of non-religious reasons to oppose abortion. How about the fact that in the HUGE majority of cases it violates a doctor's oath to do no harm. The HUGE majority of abortions are in cases were there is zero threat to the mother's life and it very definitely does harm another life.

 

[NotreDame]

The laws in the Bible requiring certain help to the poor.



Oh, since the government isn't made up of people commands to people don't apply to our leaders?

In other words you have no textual evidence from the Bible to support your claim God's commandto help the poor was a mandate to government. A commandment to leaders of government is not the same as a command to the government itself. Your equivocation of the two is fallacious.

 

[NotreDame]

- establish Justice
- insure domestic Tranquility
- provide for the common defence
- promote the general Welfare
- secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

"Promote the general welfare" was one of the 5 guiding principles that the courts have interpreted as "reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."

Perhaps "MachZer0" and "NotreDame" could explain why the Founding Fathers" would include "Pomote the general welfare" was an intention/"guiding principle" but that it "should not be erroneously construed to think it is a grant of power for the federal government to exercise."

Why go to the trouble of articulating an intention/"guiding principle" in the Preamble and then not provide some mechanism(s) within the Constitution, itself, to ensure that this principle is achievable?

It is the responsibility of the President, Congress and the Supreme Court to determine what constitutes "promot(ing) the general welfare" in the best interests of "We the People" at any given time, and then to take the appropriate action to achieve it.

Promote the general welfare is not and has never been a power for the government to exercise. The preamble has never been a grant of power. The governments powers are in article one, two and three of the US Constitution. Those principles are only achievable by the enumerated powers in articles one, two, or three. Otherwise, those articles enumerating government powers makes no sense if other powers are located elsewhere.

The preamble is nothing more than a declaration. We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In other words, this is why we do ordain and establish this Constitution, as opposed to, here are the powers of the government under the U.S. Constitution.

Then, Article One reads, "
Article I

Section 1.

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Then under section 8 there is the phrase, "Section 8. The Congress shall have power to

So, Congress' powers are enumerated in Article One, and the Framers designated Article One as the section for Congressional power.

Article II reads, in part, and begins by stating, "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America..." and subsequently, the powers of the executive are enumerated. Article III reads in a similar or identical manner.

So the Framers were careful to enumerate the powers of the government in articles one, two or three. It is interesting the phrases "power of" is conspicuously absent and missing from the preamble, precisely and exactly because the preamble is not a grant of power to any branch of government.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Promote the general welfare is not and has never been a power for the government to exercise.

So if I give you a $20 with which to order a pizza you are saying that you don't have the "power" to order a pizza? You do not think you have not only the "power" but an actual mandate to order the pizza?

What else are you going to do with that money I gave you?

The money is taken in (in part) to promote the general welfare.

That's what the money is for.

I cannot imagine any way for that to not be a direct indication that "general welfare promotion" is a government power.

 

[mpok1519]

And it wasWhat you perceive as a vague sense of rhetorical superiority was in fact a clear exposure of a double standard from the left side of the aisle

lolol

 

[KarateCowboy]

The Federal government did not have the power to tax individuals at the time of its writing. Therefore, the general welfare clause cannot mean what socialists and other benevolent dictators would like it to mean.

The general welfare applied to the maintenance of the states as parts of a unified republic. It did not mean things like giving food, housing, tuition, clothes, and mp3 players to individuals.

That said, if you believe in expropriation and state malfare programs then you should get a bill passed whereby you may overpay your taxes. The extra would be used for the programs as the government sees fit. Put your money where your mouth is and get to it. For the 'greater good' and 'general welfare', could you 'chip in' and give up 70% of your earnings? Could you do without it? Then show us.

 

[KarateCowboy]

So if I give you a $20 with which to order a pizza you are saying that you don't have the "power" to order a pizza? You do not think you have not only the "power" but an actual mandate to order the pizza?

What else are you going to do with that money I gave you?

The money is taken in (in part) to promote the general welfare.

That's what the money is for.

I cannot imagine any way for that to not be a direct indication that "general welfare promotion" is a government power.

Most sensible people will agree that power tends to corrupt. But if you really believe that the government does good with tax dollars, then why not support a bill that lets you overpay your taxes for the 'general welfare'? If what you say is true then you and all those who agree with you would certainly put your money where your mouth is, and do without 50% or more of you income. Certainly that would prove the worthiness of expropriation.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Most sensible people will agree that power tends to corrupt. But if you really believe that the government does good with tax dollars, then why not support a bill that lets you overpay your taxes for the 'general welfare'? If what you say is true then you and all those who agree with you would certainly put your money where your mouth is, and do without 50% or more of you income. Certainly that would prove the worthiness of expropriation.

I DO PUT MY MONEY WHERE MY MOUTH IS:

1. I have in the past voted for tax increases on myself for increased funding to public schools. I don't even have children.

2. I have worked with a grassroots organization that would get single payer healthcare in California knowing full well it would increase my taxes!

What more do I need to do?

I live up to my rhetoric.