MAGAThread XIII: The Summit of Putin

[Salandriagado]

From skimming the Wikipedia page, it looks like it's the opposite. The General Welfare clause has only gotten more broad, especially since 1936. Once again, Hamilton wins.

"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.'

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. Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power, but a qualification on the taxing power which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government."

It can really only be used as justification of spending federal revenue on something, but not for legislating laws.

"The mention in the preamble". Not the mention in Article 1, Section 8. See US v. Butler:

[T]he [General Welfare] clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution. … But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations. … [T]he powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.

[Wallenburg]

It's because Trump ran on building a wall. Doesn't matter that the wall won't appreciably reduce illegal immigration and cost American taxpayers a billion or two dollars. Trump promised his supporters that the wall would keep those filthy illegals from taking their jobs. He promised Mexico would pay for it, too. The wall plus "getting tough" on NAFTA and China would make everything better, reset the American economy to c. 1955.

Why anyone believed that con man causes me a headache just thinking about it.

He did have good points. Just what he said about the wall and immigration was incredibly ridiculous.

Trump's good points are that, presumably, a heart pumps his blood and a stomach digests his food.

[Vassenor]

It's because Trump ran on building a wall. Doesn't matter that the wall won't appreciably reduce illegal immigration and cost American taxpayers a billion or two dollars. Trump promised his supporters that the wall would keep those filthy illegals from taking their jobs. He promised Mexico would pay for it, too. The wall plus "getting tough" on NAFTA and China would make everything better, reset the American economy to c. 1955.

Why anyone believed that con man causes me a headache just thinking about it.

He did have good points. Just what he said about the wall and immigration was incredibly ridiculous.

Name them and explain what's good about them.

[Geneviev]

He did have good points. Just what he said about the wall and immigration was incredibly ridiculous.

Name them and explain what's good about them.

The American dream is dead. It's fairly accurate.

Obamacare had some issues. China is taking a lot of jobs. It's not as extreme as he claims, but it is accurate.

[Valrifell]

Name them and explain what's good about them.

The American dream is dead. It's fairly accurate.

Obamacare had some issues. China is taking a lot of jobs. It's not as extreme as he claims, but it is accurate.

The American Dream is dead but quite frankly I don't Republicans and many Democrats grasp what really helped the US stay #1 post-war. Affordable education, strong(er) labor protections, a large(r) safety net, all slowly repealed over the next half-century causing multiple recessions and setting the scene for the utter implosion of 08.

Obamacare has issues because they were put there as compromises by uncooperative politicians. The whole complaining about the problems without any real solutions shtick has gotten old, and it really shines through with how opponents of Obamacare deal with Obamacare.

I don't think there's a whole lot we can do about China, they're just willing to work for less than Americans. Though I think the focus on them is misguided when there's also Bangladesh and Cambodia, but they aren't as big or scary so make a less effective boogeyman.

[The East Marches II]

The American dream is dead. It's fairly accurate.

Obamacare had some issues. China is taking a lot of jobs. It's not as extreme as he claims, but it is accurate.

The American Dream is dead but quite frankly I don't Republicans and many Democrats grasp what really helped the US stay #1 post-war. Affordable education, strong(er) labor protections, a large(r) safety net, all slowly repealed over the next half-century causing multiple recessions and setting the scene for the utter implosion of 08.

Obamacare has issues because they were put there as compromises by uncooperative politicians. The whole complaining about the problems without any real solutions shtick has gotten old, and it really shines through with how opponents of Obamacare deal with Obamacare.

I don't think there's a whole lot we can do about China, they're just willing to work for less than Americans. Though I think the focus on them is misguided when there's also Bangladesh and Cambodia, but they aren't as big or scary so make a less effective boogeyman.

Not really, Bangladesh and Cambodia aren't actively trying to steal our industrial secrets on a massive scale nor building a fleet twice the size of ours. It's not anywhere close to the same level of issue. There is plenty to be done about China, it just requires willingness to sacrifice a few nice things and long term vision. Two things in critically short supply in this country.

They've stated openly in their books they think themselves in a state of war with us, it just hasn't gotten to shooting yet. I don't know how you can think that on the level of Bangladesh and Cambodia.

[The Flutterlands]

The death of democracy by the enemy-stacked court.

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1008716134395400192?s=09

[Washington Resistance Army]

The death of democracy by the enemy-stacked court.

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1008716134395400192?s=09

Seems like they did the same thing they did with the cake case, from what I can find they sidestepped the major issues and left them kinda open with no precedent.

Edit: The actual decision for anyone who wants to read it themselves. They pretty much just punted the case because they couldn't come up with anything is my takeaway.

[Gravlen]

The death of democracy by the enemy-stacked court.

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1008716134395400192?s=09

A 9-0 decision wherein the Court concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing, but gave them a chance to prove they have standing by remanding the case to the lower courts instead of outright dismissing their claims? That's the death of democracy?

III
In cases where a plaintiff fails to demonstrate Article III standing, we usually direct the dismissal of the plaintiff ’s claims. See, e.g., DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 354 (2006). This is not the usual case. It concerns an unsettled kind of claim this Court has not agreed upon, the contours and justiciability of which are unresolved. Under the circumstances, and in light of the plaintiffs’ allegations that Donohue, Johnson, Mitchell, and Wallace live in districts where Democrats like them have been packed or cracked, we decline to direct dismissal. We therefore remand the case to the District Court so that the plaintiffs may have an opportunity to prove concrete and particularized injuries using evidence—unlike the bulk of the evidence presented thus far—that would tend to demonstrate a burden on their individual votes. Cf. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus, 575 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8 ) (remanding for further consideration of the plaintiffs’ gerrymandering claims on a district-by-district basis). We express no view on the merits of the plaintiffs’ case. We caution, however, that “standing is not dispensed in gross”: A plaintiff ’s remedy must be tailored to redress the plaintiff ’s particular injury. Cuno, 547 U. S., at 353

[Jerzylvania]

Name them and explain what's good about them.

The American dream is dead. It's fairly accurate.

Obamacare had some issues. China is taking a lot of jobs. It's not as extreme as he claims, but it is accurate.

Wages for middle class jobs have been stagnant for 45 years and Trump's policies are only exacerbating things. Damn right the American Dream is dead.

[Ism]

The death of democracy by the enemy-stacked court.

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1008716134395400192?s=09

Seems like they did the same thing they did with the cake case, from what I can find they sidestepped the major issues and left them kinda open with no precedent.

Yeah, according to this, they just sort of kicked the can down the road. Certainly not something to freak out about, just maintaining the status quo.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Seems like they did the same thing they did with the cake case, from what I can find they sidestepped the major issues and left them kinda open with no precedent.

Yeah, according to this, they just sort of kicked the can down the road. Certainly not something to freak out about, just maintaining the status quo.

Can't say I'm too shocked tbh, though it does make me wonder how it's gonna go once the court actually does rule on the topic.

[Geneviev]

The American dream is dead. It's fairly accurate.

Obamacare had some issues. China is taking a lot of jobs. It's not as extreme as he claims, but it is accurate.

Wages for middle class jobs have been stagnant for 45 years and Trump's policies are only exacerbating things. Damn right the American Dream is dead.

It's a shame, too. Some people still believe in the American dream.

[Vassenor]

The death of democracy by the enemy-stacked court.

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1008716134395400192?s=09

A 9-0 decision wherein the Court concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing, but gave them a chance to prove they have standing by remanding the case to the lower courts instead of outright dismissing their claims? That's the death of democracy?

III
In cases where a plaintiff fails to demonstrate Article III standing, we usually direct the dismissal of the plaintiff ’s claims. See, e.g., DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 354 (2006). This is not the usual case. It concerns an unsettled kind of claim this Court has not agreed upon, the contours and justiciability of which are unresolved. Under the circumstances, and in light of the plaintiffs’ allegations that Donohue, Johnson, Mitchell, and Wallace live in districts where Democrats like them have been packed or cracked, we decline to direct dismissal. We therefore remand the case to the District Court so that the plaintiffs may have an opportunity to prove concrete and particularized injuries using evidence—unlike the bulk of the evidence presented thus far—that would tend to demonstrate a burden on their individual votes. Cf. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus, 575 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8 ) (remanding for further consideration of the plaintiffs’ gerrymandering claims on a district-by-district basis). We express no view on the merits of the plaintiffs’ case. We caution, however, that “standing is not dispensed in gross”: A plaintiff ’s remedy must be tailored to redress the plaintiff ’s particular injury. Cuno, 547 U. S., at 353

Plus stacking the court was something Trump has been open about wanting to do since long before the election.

[Washington Resistance Army]

A 9-0 decision wherein the Court concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing, but gave them a chance to prove they have standing by remanding the case to the lower courts instead of outright dismissing their claims? That's the death of democracy?

III
In cases where a plaintiff fails to demonstrate Article III standing, we usually direct the dismissal of the plaintiff ’s claims. See, e.g., DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 354 (2006). This is not the usual case. It concerns an unsettled kind of claim this Court has not agreed upon, the contours and justiciability of which are unresolved. Under the circumstances, and in light of the plaintiffs’ allegations that Donohue, Johnson, Mitchell, and Wallace live in districts where Democrats like them have been packed or cracked, we decline to direct dismissal. We therefore remand the case to the District Court so that the plaintiffs may have an opportunity to prove concrete and particularized injuries using evidence—unlike the bulk of the evidence presented thus far—that would tend to demonstrate a burden on their individual votes. Cf. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus, 575 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8 ) (remanding for further consideration of the plaintiffs’ gerrymandering claims on a district-by-district basis). We express no view on the merits of the plaintiffs’ case. We caution, however, that “standing is not dispensed in gross”: A plaintiff ’s remedy must be tailored to redress the plaintiff ’s particular injury. Cuno, 547 U. S., at 353

Plus stacking the court was something Trump has been open about wanting to do since long before the election.

Appointing one Justice =/= stacking the court, go read about FDR if you want someone who wanted to rig the court.

[Petrasylvania]

A 9-0 decision wherein the Court concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing, but gave them a chance to prove they have standing by remanding the case to the lower courts instead of outright dismissing their claims? That's the death of democracy?

III
In cases where a plaintiff fails to demonstrate Article III standing, we usually direct the dismissal of the plaintiff ’s claims. See, e.g., DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 354 (2006). This is not the usual case. It concerns an unsettled kind of claim this Court has not agreed upon, the contours and justiciability of which are unresolved. Under the circumstances, and in light of the plaintiffs’ allegations that Donohue, Johnson, Mitchell, and Wallace live in districts where Democrats like them have been packed or cracked, we decline to direct dismissal. We therefore remand the case to the District Court so that the plaintiffs may have an opportunity to prove concrete and particularized injuries using evidence—unlike the bulk of the evidence presented thus far—that would tend to demonstrate a burden on their individual votes. Cf. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus, 575 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8 ) (remanding for further consideration of the plaintiffs’ gerrymandering claims on a district-by-district basis). We express no view on the merits of the plaintiffs’ case. We caution, however, that “standing is not dispensed in gross”: A plaintiff ’s remedy must be tailored to redress the plaintiff ’s particular injury. Cuno, 547 U. S., at 353

Plus stacking the court was something Trump has been open about wanting to do since long before the election.

Court packing is only bad when Democrats want to do it.

[Jerzylvania]

Wages for middle class jobs have been stagnant for 45 years and Trump's policies are only exacerbating things. Damn right the American Dream is dead.

It's a shame, too. Some people still believe in the American dream.

The worst shame of it now after 45 years is not that many people are actually around that can testify first hand accounts as to what it was like to the up and coming. Even more so, same goes for those that endured and fought the rise of fascist regimes in Europe 85 years ago. Those word of mouth accounts of those times were very valuable in holding the line and passing the torch. That line is no longer holding back the onslaught as it has faded into old age and further as they are buried in cemetery plots. Democracy and freedom standing the test of time is the hard task due to the nature of our generational existence.

[The Flutterlands]

Plus stacking the court was something Trump has been open about wanting to do since long before the election.

Court packing is only bad when Democrats want to do it.

Actually the reverse is true. It's only okay when progressives like FDR do it.

[Valrifell]

Plus stacking the court was something Trump has been open about wanting to do since long before the election.

Appointing one Justice =/= stacking the court, go read about FDR if you want someone who wanted to rig the court.

Are you implying that a 213 member SCOTUS is a bad idea?

[Vassenor]

Plus stacking the court was something Trump has been open about wanting to do since long before the election.

Appointing one Justice =/= stacking the court, go read about FDR if you want someone who wanted to rig the court.

You mean the Justice that was Obama's to appoint?

[Painisia]

"Uniting"

Fourth Reich is not uniting.

Tbqh though it would probably be good for Europe if Germany started some shit again. It's been too long and the Euro's have grown complacent, we need another great war to get them back into shape.

We don't need more suffering for Europe to reconstructed

[Washington Resistance Army]

Appointing one Justice =/= stacking the court, go read about FDR if you want someone who wanted to rig the court.

Are you implying that a 213 member SCOTUS is a bad idea?

Yes lol

Appointing one Justice =/= stacking the court, go read about FDR if you want someone who wanted to rig the court.

You mean the Justice that was Obama's to appoint?

Sure, that still doesn't mean they packed the court though. Quite the opposite really, the courts structure didn't change at all because of what they did. It was literally just a continuation of the status quo.

[Hittanryan]

Are you implying that a 213 member SCOTUS is a bad idea?

Yes lol

You mean the Justice that was Obama's to appoint?

Sure, that still doesn't mean they packed the court though. Quite the opposite really, the courts structure didn't change at all because of what they did. It was literally just a continuation of the status quo.

If it’s preservation of the status quo we’re after, then Trump and the Republicans will need to appoint a liberal justice to replace a retiring liberal justice. Chances of that happening are fuck all, so I’m pretty sure Gorsuch’s appointment was just a power play.

[Petrasylvania]

Yes lol



Sure, that still doesn't mean they packed the court though. Quite the opposite really, the courts structure didn't change at all because of what they did. It was literally just a continuation of the status quo.

If it’s preservation of the status quo we’re after, then Trump and the Republicans will need to appoint a liberal justice to replace a retiring liberal justice. Chances of that happening are fuck all, so I’m pretty sure Gorsuch’s appointment was just a power play.

The Republican dream Supreme Court would sound exactly like the Swedish Chef.

[Ifreann]

I'm gathering from Twitter that the CBP want people to know that the cages they're keeping children in shouldn't be called cages. They don't like that term.

Possibly the best take on this so far is that any news media that comply and stop calling them cages are effectively government propagandists.