Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What constitutes the "general welfare?"

---

Hello again, Steve:

I can tell you what it's NOT... Dying because you can't afford to see a doctor. Going bankrupt because you can't pay your medical bills. Going hungry, or going without shelter. Being denied rights that others have..

You know, stuff like that.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What constitutes the "general welfare?"

---

What Ex said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

I can tell you what it's NOT... Dying because you can't afford to see a doctor. Going bankrupt because you can't pay your medical bills. Going hungry, or going without shelter. Being denied rights that others have..

You know, stuff like that.

excon

---

No one has to die because they can't afford to go the doctor. Another bald-faced lie of the whole debate. And by the way, bankruptcy is a safety net, just like food stamps, Medicaid, housing assistance, SSA, SSD, and on and on and on.

No one in this country has to do without, there is no issue with access to health care, no shortage of access to contraceptives, no trouble getting clean water, no shortage of food. If you can't make your case without just plain making stuff up then the policy deserves to die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

No one in this country has to do without, there is no issue with access to health care, no shortage of access to contraceptives, no trouble getting clean water, no shortage of food. If you can't make your case without just plain making stuff up then the policy deserves to die.

---

Hello again, Steve:

When you look around at the world you live in, and determine that racism is over because we have a black president, that people live in the hood, BECAUSE THEY CHOOSE TOO, that everybody can get all the health care they want, that nobody is going hungry, and nobody wants to dirty up your water or your air, I suggest, Sir, that it's YOU who's making stuff up.

But, we've been here before.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Wikipedia 1/4 of the way down under the heading of, 'Concurrences'

Scalia addressing Stevens' dissent... Scalia stated that Stevens' dissent was in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment.. It(First Amendment) never shows why 'Freedom of Speech' that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form.

In other words, absence of evidence


Scalia then goes on to say that the First Amendment was written "in terms of speech, not speakers" and that the text offers no foothold for excluding the category of speakers.

In other words there is evidence of absence.

We could debate the merits or otherwise of his statement but that is not the issue here. For the purpose of this exercise we need to recognize that he has hypothesized in relation into the Amendment.

Why can't we hypothesize in a similar fashion when it comes to the Free exercise Clause?


Besides the state has always shown a compelling in these and similar matters./ Sometimes a broad interest sometimes a narrow interest. But the compelling interest is always there.


Tut

---

So in other words ;that quote is not in his dissent.

Quote:

---

For the purpose of this exercise we need to recognize that he has hypothesized in relation into the Amendment.

---

No hypothesis needed .It is clear cut in the amendment ;in the history of "free speech " ,and in the words of the founders that are not in the Constitution that Freedom of Speech also includes people in association.
"but the remedy of destroying the
liberty of some factions is worse than disease. Factions should be checked by
permitting them all to speak and by entrusting the people to judge what is true
and what is false."[Madison Federalist 10 ]

The truth of this is evident in that the left would at the same time restrict corporate speech ;they don't at the same time raise a fuss when their special interests groups become involved in campaigns.

Without insurance a doctor visit is 200 bucks. What part of can't afford is a lie? How much do you pay?

Hey Tom if Adelson makes his loot from China, and gives it to Mitt, is that foreign money?

I don't know Tal. If Soros makes his loot overseas should he fund special interest groups that support the President's campaign?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

When you look around at the world you live in, and determine that racism is over because we have a black president, that people live in the hood, BECAUSE THEY CHOOSE TOO, that everybody can get all the health care they want, that nobody is going hungry, and nobody wants to dirty up your water or your air, I suggest, Sir, that it's YOU who's making stuff up.

But, we've been here before

---

Yep we've been here before, I didn't say those things.

America is a wealthy country, our "poverty" is a joke. I've been over what America's "poor" have before; typically more than one car, more than one TV, A/C, cell phones, game consoles and cable or satellite TV.

When I look around at the world I live in I see those things, and those who don't have them need not go without food, clothing shelter and health care. That's just a plain fact, ex.

Poor is living on less than a dollar a day. Poor is Bangladesh and Sudan where 16 percent of the children suffer from wasting because they have no food. Poor is having no clean water, no sanitation - poor is Niger. And the thing is, these poor probably don't realize they're poor while our "poor" think they're entitled to be cared for by the rest of us.

Why should our "poor" be treated to a lifetime of care while that Nigerian child goes without a clean glass of water?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Without insurance a doctor visit is 200 bucks. What part of can't afford is a lie? How much do you pay?

---

Apparently there are no clinics or ERs in anywhere but Amarillo, TX?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

So in other words ;that quote is not in his dissent.


No hypothesis needed .It is clear cut in the amendment ;in the history of "free speech " ,and in the words of the founders that are not in the Constitution that Freedom of Speech also includes people in association.
"but the remedy of destroying the
liberty of some factions is worse than disease. Factions should be checked by
permitting them all to speak and by entrusting the people to judge what is true
and what is false."[Madison Federalist 10 ]

The truth of this is evident in that the left would at the same time restrict corporate speech ;they don't at the same time raise a fuss when their special interests groups become involved in campaigns.

---

Hi Tom,


Scalia is getting stuck into Stevens for his dissenting opinion. He is critical of Stevens' conclusions because he see Stevens'dissent being arrived at without any regard to the actual wording of the First Amendment.

Scalia gives his reasons as to why the conclusion can be reached just by consulting the wording of the Amendment alone. I am very sure there are other supporting texts, such as Federalist Number 10. As you have pointed out. I am not disputing that at this stage.

Firstly.What I am saying is that Scalia is giving Stevens a lesson in how to interpret the text correctly.

Secondly, In doing so Scalia is using the 'absence of evidence' approach (as I have pointed out earlier).

Thirdly, In doing so he must be hypothesizing.

As I said, at this stage I am not disputing the Federalist Papers as evidence. It may well be the case that no further evidence was necessary when arriving at the majority decision.

I am saying Scalia is hypothesizing in relation to the wording of the Amendment. I say this because this is exactly what he is doing.


Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What constitutes the "general welfare?"

---

Hi Steve,

The answer to that question is, a social contract. Your Constitution is a social contract.

I would be surprised if you couldn't find the words, 'general welfare' in there somewhere.


Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Yep we've been here before, I didn't say those things.

America is a wealthy country, our "poverty" is a joke. I've been over what America's "poor" have before; typically more than one car, more than one TV, A/C, cell phones, game consoles and cable or satellite TV.

When I look around at the world I live in I see those things, and those who don't have them need not go without food, clothing shelter and health care. That's just a plain fact, ex.

Poor is living on less than a dollar a day. Poor is Bangladesh and Sudan where 16 percent of the children suffer from wasting because they have no food. Poor is having no clean water, no sanitation - poor is Niger. And the thing is, these poor probably don't realize they're poor while our "poor" think they're entitled to be cared for by the rest of us.

Why should our "poor" be treated to a lifetime of care while that Nigerian child goes without a clean glass of water?

---

I have to disagree with your description of what poor people have, just from my own observations, and don't think its fair to compare America to any where else in the world. And the poor I know don't think they are entitled, they are stuck because of a lack of guidance, and opportunity that keeps them on the day to day struggle of dealing with nothing, and they attitude of others like yourself that are prejudiced against them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Steve,

The answer to that question is, a social contract. Your Constitution is a social contract.

I would be surprised if you couldn't find the words, 'general welfare' in there somewhere.


Tut

---

I was looking for someone to define the scope of the "general welfare." How broad? How narrow?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I was looking for someone to define the scope of the "general welfare." How broad? How narrow?

---

Hello again, Steve:

We've been discussing that since the founding of the Republic..

I think it's safe to say, however, that in terms of social issues, liberals think it's broader than conservatives do.. In terms of security issues, conservatives think it's broader than liberals do...

I know, I know... You actually BELIEVE that conservatives are for small government. But, when it comes to using government power to achieve YOUR objectives, you have NO problem with it... Need I mention the drug war?

In fact, government spending promoted by YOUR side is bankrupting us too, if not faster than social programs are.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I was looking for someone to define the scope of the "general welfare." How broad? How narrow?

---

As broad as it need be to cover all of us, and as narrow as it takes to be effective, that's what general means. It's a problem I think to be locked into a preconceived notion of what the boundaries are because we are then very unprepared for emergency situations, or unplanned events, especially the ones we cannot control.

Natural disasters, and power outages come to mind, along with sudden recessions, or depressions, death of a breadwinner, or the business cycle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I have to disagree with your description of what poor people have, just from my own observations, and don't think its fair to compare America to any where else in the world. And the poor I know don't think they are entitled, they are stuck because of a lack of guidance, and opportunity that keeps them on the day to day struggle of dealing with nothing, and they attitude of others like yourself that are prejudiced against them.

---

First, you can disagree all you want but facts are facts and I thought you liked facts.

Second, I have no prejudice against anyone - especially the poor - which is why I keep mentioning the children in countries that are truly poor. I mean really, Tal, duh! And if you don't compare their plight to the "poor" in America then you have no basis to judge what poverty really is.

My wife and I feel enough compassion and sympathy and have the love to support 4 truly poor children every month, 2 in Guatemala, 1 in El Salvador and 1 in Peru. I may feel sympathy for struggling Americans but I don't feel a bit guilty about not helping them pay their cell phone bill while children are actually starving.

That's the point I've made over and over about the church, reaching out to the entire world to care for "the least of these" is what the church does and does it infinitely more efficiently than the federal government, and you guys on the left want to screw that up. I've said many times now, you're going to miss the church when you tie her hands from carrying out their ministries because you think women deserve free contraceptives.

I cannot believe how pathetically stupid of an idea that is and yet liberals/progressives have made destroying the church and replacing her ministries with faceless, incompetent bureaucrats a fundamental tenet.

If women get those free contraceptives, then churchgoers and other compassionate people won't have to waste some of their precious income on poor and starving children in this country and in others.

I love facts, but am careful about who defines it, and why. It's the American standard that applies, and the issues of the rest of the world are an entirely different subject of which free contraceptives here, and the churches position are contrary to what the goal is, not making unplanned children, for the ones financially challenged for whatever reason, and to eliminate the need for abortions. That's one way to have less poor people in my view.

The well to do don't have that problem, but the poor don't have that option. Your link suggest that Americas poor need NO help, and should be grateful, and that is baloney. FACT is they are not in some third world country, and should not be treated as such, and their needs ignored.

I take issue with that mentality. Is that why you can build jails and NOT schools?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

and I thought you liked facts.

you guys on the left want to screw that up. I've said many times now, you're going to miss the church when you tie her hands from carrying out their ministries because you think women deserve free contraceptives.

---

Hello again, Steve:

Have you noticed that the Republicans are using the phrase, "patient centered care" these days?? Maybe not just yet, but you'll be hearing it a LOT. Those words don't mean anything, really. They're a euphemism for free market care, but Republicans have been told by Frank Luntz that they can't use the words free market... They're hoping that THEIR words will replace the truth.

In that same sense, you wingers want the words "free contraceptives" to replace the words "medicine that's paid for by INSURANCE"... You certainly don't think your medical care is free, do you??

Your words, free contraceptives, are right wing talking points. They are NOT fact.. Indeed, it's a bald faced LIE, and you bought it hook, line and sinker.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

If women get those free contraceptives, then churchgoers and other compassionate people won't have to waste some of their precious income on poor and starving children in this country and in others.

---

So birth control pills here are going to prevent pregnancies abroad. That's some pretty useless logic.

P.S. I don't consider feeding a hungry child a "waste" of my personal income.