Correct, the term "general welfare", taken by itself does not confer any power to congress. Very good!

The complete statement "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" which includes the phrase "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" means something else entirely. By something else entirely I am referring to the meaning of the two words "general welfare" when used as a complete sentence. General welfare.

So to quote an earlier post by you on this forum "Cornell's opinion about the flexibility in the language of the Constitution is irrelevant. The opinions of the Supreme Court regarding flexibility are irrelevant. Only the Constitution itself matters." I don't know why you would link to a website other then the constitution, after preaching the latter.

Since the exact wording of the constitution gives Congress this power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, then Radar, you are correct: the Constitution can not be wrong. It is very clear. It is not ambiguous. Just read the words.

P.S. the question about the legal term of shoving something up your ass was sarcasm. A type of humor. You may recognize that.

Yes, and what it means is that the U.S. government may create a DEFENSIVE military to be used when America is attacked or invaded by hostile military forces (common defense) and allowing the people of America "The enjoyment of peace and prosperity or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government." (The definition of general welfare)

The term "general welfare" does not give the government carte blanche to write any laws it chooses in any area. In fact they are only allowed to create or enforce laws pertaining to the specific 18 enumerated areas in which they are granted limited powers....and NOTHING else.

The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions.

Shit aint what it used to be - If you want things like they were in the 1800's - then go build a time machine and fly your nutty ass back there. If you want to live in the real world of TODAY then get with it. This is way past senseless and annoying.

The Constitution isn't worded in general terms. It's worded in specific and restrictive terms. The Constitution isn't vague or ambiguous, or general. It was written specifically to restrict and limit the powers of government while not restricting the rights of citizens. All things NOT enumerated in the Constitution (the phrase "general welfare" is not an enumerated power) are PROHIBITED for the federal government to take part in or to legislate.

That's pretty cut and dry.

If you don't want a government with limited powers that must abide by the U.S. Constitution, get the hell out of America because it will be that way either peacefully or violently.

The founding fathers wisely worded the Constitution in very specific and restrictive terms but also allowed it to be changed through the amendment process if such changes were needed.

Was that in the constitution? Cus if not it is meaningless. You said nothing else matters, no? Or is it just the stuff that refutes your points doesn't matter?

That is pretty cut & dry too.

Nothing else matters in a Constitutional debate other than the words in the Constitution. The phrase "general welfare" means allowing citizens to enjoy peace and prosperity or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government...nothing more and nothing less. It does not grant any powers to the federal government.

I was merely posting the opinion of what one of the framers of the Constitution, for dramatic effect. :)

The Founding Fathers wisely worded the Constitution in very specific and restrictive terms and were clear that it was meant to be taken literally and that the federal government was to have zero implied powers and could only gain powers through the amendment process.

This is cut, dry, and unlike yours....accurate.

They said Congress shall rule naturalization. They didn't say how, when, where and how much. That's general terms.

And Congress shall rule naturalization. Naturalization of course is not the same thing as immigration and does not encompass immigration.

Naturalization is the process by which an immigrant may become a citizen. Congress absolutely can make all rules regarding the process by which an immigrant may become a citizen, but not over the process of immigrating here in the first place.

But non-citizens don't have Constitutional rights.

I think we're getting closer here.

Citizens don't have Constitutional rights. Our rights don't come from the Constitution. All human beings have the same human rights.

Rrriight, but the US Constitution protects the rights of US Citizens.

I highlighted the "or to the people" because I think what that means is up for discussion.

You are totally splitting hairs here.

The tax or duty is specific to importation, but the clause also refers to migration, separately.