Obama's Second Bill of Rights is coming

reply to post by XPLodER


And what usually happens is the large monoplies failing make room for smaller businesses to move up and have a chance, we need a constant changeover for the market to work.

"Obama’s second inaugural did not refer explicitly to the Second Bill of Rights,” he said, in the Bloomberg report, “but it had an unmistakably Rooseveltian flavor."

Riiiiight. And that's proof enough. Don't forget that before his first term, he's going to get rid of the American flag, hire blacks in every WH post, declare Sharia law and make Islam the official religion. Oh wait....that didn't happen either.

Complete and utter right-wing alarmist horseshìt. We're talking Glen Beck territory. batshìt crazy territory. I'm not a big fan of the President but, so far....all the conspiracies have been far off and far from reality.

You should be embarrassed...delete your post and we can all pretend it didn't happen.

reply to post by timetothink


Your sources are hilarious. Obviously written by a bunch of far-right wingers.
Seriously, take your own advice from your username and think.

You say that it's talking about the welfare of the government....ever heard of "We the people."

reply to post by Ghost375


I never said the welfare of the government and neither did they. The constitution leaves the welfare of the states up to the states themselves, but does not mean to provide "welfare" for individuals.

Check a dictionary from that time yourself.

Read the federalist papers yourself.

You are wrong and so are your fellow socialists.


You are saying they are wrong because of their affiliation, but the quotes from the founders are their for you to see.

But I understand your unwillingness to understand it because it goes against the agenda you favor.


Unlike you I do think, for myself from what I research, you on the other hand believe what "they" tell you.

Originally posted by timetothink

Unlike you I do think, for myself from what I research, you on the other hand believe what "they" tell you.

dude, I read the constitution and made up my own mind about it. no one told me what it meant.

YOU are the one who is listening to what other people(who are obviously far-right wingers) say about it.

reply to post by Ghost375


Maybe the Supreme Court is a better source for you?

In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in

the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."[2][3] Moreover, the Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[4][5]

Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[4][6] but a qualification on the taxing power[4][7][8] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[4][9][10] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[4] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[11]

As such, these clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[12]

So philosophically and legally, your understanding is incorrect.

reply to post by Ghost375


The federalist papers explained the meanings behind everything put in the constitution.

Revisionist history doesn't work as long as they exist.

So I guess your side will have to do away with them.

Nope. Not even close. Greed from unscrupulous lenders caused it. Ever hear of a "white out artist"? lenders that would change the information that clients gave them get loans that they knew their clients could never afford. Predatory lending. If honest lenders had said nope that's too much house for you, then their never would have been a bubble.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I'm losing track of the comparisons to what President he and his people most want to say he's like? Is it Lincoln, Roosevelt or Reagan? They'd have us believe, it seems sometimes, they are all interchangeable.

Titles are not important….intent is.

Regardless what you call it, Obama wants an entitlement society and he wants to rule it.

“The right to own a home”?? Isn’t that the kind of crap that gave us the Fanny-Freddie housing bubble fiasco?

reply to post by timetothink

Are you #in serious?

Let's look at all of your source:

According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation

Many of the founding fathers agreed with me. Note specifically it was Hamilton's view.
That was before the part you quoted.

Now let's look what your source says after the part you quoted:

Though the Court decided that Butler was consistent with Madison's philosophy of limited federal government, it adopted Hamilton's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, which gave Congress broad powers to spend federal money.

So the Supreme Court did agree with me. Way to spin that!

Originally posted by DaesDaemar
reply to post by Honor93

 

Well, the public health system in Australia has worked just fine for me, but that's just one. What of those people without the means to be 'self-reliant' etc? Are you 'self-reliant' or do you in fact rely on a lot of other people for your needs?

truth be told, quite a bit of both actually.
details not needed.
why, would that be 'bad' vs 'good' ??

self-reliant and all the others does not translate to isolation.
in case you missed it, i suggested being the best you can be so you can help a neighbor.
it's a cycle ... but you must find your place in it.

this may not sound like it but it is a serious question ... have you ever 'built'/made a pot of stone soup ?? if not, i'd suggest you learn how.

i've not visited Australia so i have -0- experience with life there or healthcare.
as an American, i can tell you that ours has its good points and bad.
however, i do wonder ... if the plan Romney set up in Mass (which i'm presuming is similar to yours) was so grand, why are they complaining constantly ??
and financially stressed

reply to post by Ghost375


I think you are having comprehension problems.

the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution.


Can you read where it says "THE US SUPREME COURT INVALIDATED THE FEDERAL SPENDING PROGRAM"

in·val·i·date
/inˈvaliˌdāt/
Verb

Make (an argument, statement, or theory) unsound or erroneous.
Deprive (an official document or procedure) of legal efficacy because it contravenes a regulation or law.

"[D]espite the breadth of the legislative discretion," the Court continued, "our duty to hear and to render judgment remains." The Court then rendered the federal agricultural spending program at issue invalid under the Tenth Amendment.

reply to post by Ghost375



I told the truth, you are the one spinning in circles. the Supreme court ruled against the unconstitutional spending.

so... is this true?

hard to believe if obama is as evil as the bulk of this website seems to think.
i mean it all looks so..... positive.

reply to post by SweetChild


The government pushed this fraud, they wanted Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie to sell mortgages, whatever it took. It was part of the social justice plan. when everything went belly up, they left the banks out to dry.

I think that the responsibility that the Democrats had may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” – Former President Bill Clinton (D-AR), September 25, 2008

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.” – Congressman Artur Davis (D-AL) , September 30, 2008

Clinton passed legislation to ensure banks were giving loans out in poor areas, even if people couldn't afford it.

In 1995, the Clinton Administration changed the law governing GSEs’ mission — the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) — to encourage more lending in poor neighborhoods. Previously, the CRA directed government to monitor banks’ lending practices to make sure they did not violate fair lending rules in poor neighborhoods.

With the 1995 change, the government published each bank’s lending activity and started giving bank ratings based primarily upon the amount of lending it performed in poor neighborhoods.

These changes empowered community organizations, such as ACORN, to pressure banks to increase lending activities in poorer neighborhoods — which involved reducing mortgage loan standards — or face backlash from those organizations’ private and political associates.

For instance, if Chase made 100 mortgages in a poor Chicago district, and Countrywide 150, the government would likely give Chase a lower CRA rating, and community organizers could pressure politicians to make it more difficult for Chase to get licensed to do full ranges of business in new areas of the country. Low CRA ratings could also disadvantage Chase with regard to government lending programs and make it more difficult for Chase to participate in mergers and acquisitions.

tjhancock.wordpress.com...

This is what happens when the government gets involved in business, where it doesn't belong.

This article is very informative, nice timeline of the mess from the 90's up.

America. The only country stupid enough to oppose providing the needy with adequate care and dignity, instead opting for stripping the lower and middle classes of their wealth and transfering it upwards to the 1%.

They forgot one major right all Americans deserve.

The right to be hand fed food and drink.

------

I don't know about you, but feeding myself is hard work. I may have to move, and decide what I want to eat.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Awww you forgot JFK and Camelot. Remember how they tried to make Muchelle seem like the essence of Jackie O?

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
America. The only country stupid enough to oppose providing the needy with adequate care and dignity, instead opting for stripping the lower and middle classes of their wealth and transfering it upwards to the 1%.

BALONEY! Pick any country and we spend more money feeding others than the country you picked. Do not forget to add private charities and govt spending for things like tsunamis and other disasters.

reply to post by XPLodER


You're blaming New Zealand's problems on us? Oh give me a BREAK!

reply to post by seabag


OMG! Entitlement run crazy! That's insane .. and so very Soviet. (and we know how that worked out for them!!) Geeeze ... the freeloaders and the moochers would be in heaven. I can't wait for Atlas to shrug ...