What is a major difference between Democrat and Republican voters? GOVERNMENT CHEESE


#1

See: 81% of people receiving public housing benefits vote Democratic – and that’s just the tip of the handout iceberg

***”But as solid as the statistics Krugman provided might seem, we’re left with one glaring problem: States aren’t people. Could it be possible that liberals within conservative states are the ones taking the welfare dollars?

A survey by the Maxwell Poll on the political affiliation of those receiving government aid showed this to be the case.”***

Keep in mind our federal government’s primary directive as stated in Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution is, ”… to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” Following this directive there is a specific list of particulars for which Congress may lay and collect taxes, and the list does not include such things as food stamps, public housing, public schools, or other appropriations designed to meet the economic needs of individuals. As a matter of fact, under federalism, our Constitution’s plan, all such appropriations, if found necessary, are the responsibility of state governments. And this fact is confirmed in Federalist No. 45:

*** “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”***

The unfortunate truth is, America’s most productive and hardworking citizens have been made into tax slaves by democrat voters who use their vote to elect politicians who in turn promise to use their office of public trust to keep the federal government’s free cheese wagon coming their way.

JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama / Hillary Clinton Administration’s, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obama/Hillarycare along with FREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ the Obama / Hillary Clinton Administration’s Free Cheese Democracy, designed to establish a federal plantation which confiscates and then redistributes wealth that wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.


#2

What is a major difference between Democrat and Republican voters?
.
I was thinking one is clueless & one isn’t. But I guess that there could be other differences. (wink)


#3

So after dinner I came back to get on line & kill some time & as I signed in I got (of course) a story about Hillary. It said:
.
Hillary Clinton told an audience of donors that half of Donald Trump’s supporters fall into “the basket of deplorables,” meaning people who are racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic.
.
So I’m a Trump supporter (or more accurately a never Hillary supporter) & I thought that it would be interesting to find out what everybody is. I know I’m not a racist, because I really don’t care about race. I can’t say that I’m a sexist because again I don’t care but on the other hand if a girl in a bikini walks by I’m probably going to look so maybe? Homophobic, well again I don’t care but on the other hand if I look down & some guy is down there the odds are he’s going to get hit, so again maybe? Xenophobic, heck I don’t know what that is & I don’t care enough to look it up so maybe?
.
So it comes down to me not knowing what I am. I had always figured that I just hated lying bitches that would sell out their country for money but that wasn’t one of the choices. I guess that I’m puzzled. How about you?


#4

Well I guess you wake up each morning and all you have to do is decide whether to squat or stand…LOL


#5

How does this comment not at least be equal to the Romny comment about the low income people that would vote with Him?

I know answer. Hillery is a Democrat, and a Democrat say anything that is bigoted or stupid, and be instantly forgiven. The Democracts are for “the little people” except when they aren’t voting for Hillary. Then they are bigoted and deserve to be condemned.


#6

Wrong! Neither The Declaration of Independence NOR the U.S. Constitution say anything about “PROVIDING the general welfare.” The term used is PROMOTE the general welfare. I REALLY wish lefties could actually READ.


#7

Article 1, Section 8:

“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”

JWK


#8

In regard to the general welfare clause it is well worth to document how our Supreme Court spat upon the founder’s meaning of the phrase “general welfare” stated during the framing and ratification of our Constitution and engaged in judicial tyranny to uphold FDR’s Social Security Act. The two cases upholding the Social Security Act are Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), and Steward Machine Co.

In this case the Court stated:


“Congress may spend money in aid of the ‘general welfare.’ Constitution, art. 1, 8; United States v. Butler, … There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents”


What is important to note is, the Court cites the Butler decision decided the previous year and goes on to assert Hamilton’s view concerning the phrase “general welfare” prevails over that of Madison, and, the Court will not “resurrect the contest”. In other words, the Court is not interested in reviewing the historical record of the making of our Constitution to document the meaning of “general welfare” as it was understood by our founders during its framing and ratification process. Instead, the Court is eager to use an irrelevant comment made by Hamilton concerning the phrase “general welfare” which was made after the Constitution had been adopted in order to uphold the progressive’s Social Security Act as being constitutional.

But, the historical fact is, the Hamilton “view” which the Court relied upon was not made during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution. It was made after the Constitution had been ratified when Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury, and was made to gain support for appropriating revenue from the federal treasury to be used to encourage specific manufactures.

In his report on Manufactures, Hamilton writes with reference to the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, See Page 136

“These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are providing for the common defense and general welfare. The terms “general welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded: otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the “general welfare;” and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.”

But this comment made by Hamilton after the Constitution is adopted is in direct conflict with what Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 83 to gain support for the adoption of the Constitution. In No. 83 Federalist and in explaining the meaning of the Constitution, Hamilton, in crystal clear language, refers to a “specification of particulars” which he goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“.

Hamilton writes:

***"…the power of Congress…shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended…"


This view expressed by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers during the framing and ratification debates is also in harmony with what Madison states during the framing and ratification debates:

Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:


"It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes…to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the 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 [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction…But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?..For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power…But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning…is an absurdity.”


Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution: ***“the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.”***[3 Elliots 95]
Also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out "was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes…"

Similarly , George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention

"The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.". [3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.

And so, when progressives hang their hat on “the so-called general welfare clause” as a power granted to the federal government to provide for the personal economic needs of individuals, they are ignoring the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which requires the documented intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted to be enforced and obeyed. This rule is stated as follows:

***“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”***— numerous citations omitted, Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

JWK

***Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean. ***


#9

What has happened is that Congress and the POTUS have taken the Welfare clause and turned it into welfare for the masses. They have taken a few phrases from the Constitution and other founding documents and expanded them into being able to do ANYTHING you can imagine

There are 2:

  1. “promote the general welfare”

  2. “The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”

These 2 have been leveraged by Congress and the President to the point there is NOHING off limits…sad


#10

You have just explained why I have taken so much time to document our founder’s meaning as expressed by them during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution. It is not difficult to expose the lies and distortions made about the true meaning of our Constitution. What is difficult is to hold accountable those who use their office of public trust to pretend our Constitution means whatever they wish it to mean.

JWK

*** "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.*** ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)


#11

Alas, the Constitution does. “Promote” is in the preamble, but “provide” is in Article I:

Although if the Founders knew how this was being used for socialist claptrap, they’d be spinning in their graves.


#12

They should have more specific about delegation of powers.


#13

Thomas Jefferson nailed it 1791 in his opinion on the constitutionality of a U.S. Bank:

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. "

The entire text is here: Avalon Project - Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791


#14

Actually, they were very specific with regard to the powers delegated. But if questions do arise, the rule is to discover our founders intentions by resorting to the debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified. Keep in mind these debates give context to the text of our Constitution, and are an essential source in determining what our Constitution means if questions should arise.

Our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903) emphasizes the importance of legislative intent:

But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

“A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law.”

In the case of our Constitution, We, the People of the united States, are the lawmaker.

This very rule concerning legislative intent is also stated by Jefferson in the following words:

***“On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”***–Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

And the noteworthy Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858) puts it as follows:

*** "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.***

You may also find a recent Supreme Court decision quite interesting in which the SCOTUS references the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to document the intent of our Constitution and enforce it. See:UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, (1995). Also see: GREGORY v. ASHCROFT, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) and: Nixon v. United States (91-740), 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

Unfortunately, we have law students who are no longer taught the most fundamental rule of constitutional law [enforcing the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted]. They are taught case law, and then to apply “precedent” as set by our Supreme Court. But the fact is, our Constitution is the ultimate “precedent” and not supreme court rulings designed to circumvent the very intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

Also note that under the rules of constitutional construction
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally

***”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…***”__ (my emphasis) The Court is not free to make the words or phrases in our Constitution mean whatever they so desire, but are confined to their original understanding as understood by our founding fathers. This fundamental rule was not followed in the Kelo decision in which Justice Stevens in delivering the opinion in Kelo effectively expanded the meaning of “public use” to allow the taking of private property for purposes other than what our Constitution declares.

But let us now look at a few other authoritative sources:


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.***_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

***“A constitutional provision is to be construed, as statutes are, to the end that the intent of those drafting and voting for it be realized."***(Mack v Heuck (App) 14 Ohio L Abs 237)

***“No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it.”***Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .

"Where language used in a constitution is capable of two constructions, it must be so construed as to carry into effect the purpose of the constitutional convention.” Ratliff v Beal, 74 Miss.247,20 So 865 .

***"In construing federal constitutional provisions, the United States Supreme Court has regularly looked for the purpose the framers sought to accomplish.”***Everson v Board of Education, 330 US 1, 91 L Ed 711,67 S Ct 504, 168 ALR 1392.

"The primary principle underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law." Rasmussen v Baker, 7 Wyo 117, 50 P 819.

I could provide countless other quotes to establish the fact that enforcing the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted is one of the courts primary functions, but heck, our very own Congress is aware it is required to be obedient to the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted although they ignore it today:

***“In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it…A construction which would give the phrase…a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution.”***_____ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

JWK

***Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean. ***