Does the US Constitution Say "Provide for the General Welfare""?

[Goobieman]

So what, tell me why the interpretation I think is best is wrong? This is an ad hominem. Attack his argument not the man.

The point you are missing is that he argues against himself. Hs own words negate his own words. the best argument against his argumentis his argument. You -choose- to accept one of his arguments becaue it suits you, not because it is correct; th ebest argument against it being conrrect is where he argues the oppsing view.

You asked me for a more authoritative reponse, apperntly because my opinion is not good enough and my views were "unfounded." Then you tell me its an appeal to authority. Obviously this is a strawman. Please respond directly to my interpretation.

Tell me -- if the court says that the sun revolves around the earth, would that make it so?
Would your reference to that decision support your cliam to that effect?
No? Good - now you understand why you are dripping with fallacy.

And I am going to have to honestly ask you to re-read that passage you underlined, because it says exactly what my argument is:

This is silly. The passage I underlined states exactly what I have been arguing, that your interpretation would result a grant of power that would not require any further enumeration of powers, and that said interpration has never been accepted.

Once again, this taintedness is an ad hominem. Please directly refute the interpretation.

This has been addressed, above.

 

[Goobieman]

Please argue without beggin the question. Why is there no logical reason? I told you a logical reason, and all you can come up with to refute it is, there is no logical reason.

The argument is clear:

If there was a general grant of legislative authority, then no further grant of power was necessary.
A further grant of power -was- necessary, and so there was no general grant of legislative authority.

Thus, your 'general and specific' grant of power argument fails, as the necessity for the latter negates the existence of the former.

 

[drz-400]

The argument is clear:

If there was a general grant of legislative authority, then no further grant of power was necessary.
A further grant of power -was- necessary, and so there was no general grant of legislative authority.

Thus, your 'general and specific' grant of power argument fails, as the necessity for the latter negates the existence of the former.

I think this lies on a false premise, hence my earlier responses:

"If I told congress to legislate for the general welfare, would everyone necessarily think that includes all of the particular powers? No, because the words general welfare are very ambigious. So particular powers could be enumerated in addition to make the clause less ambiguous."