More Winning For The American People

[AlexBailey]

Are you still in your robe and curlers? It's kind of early for you.

“Promote the general welfare”

What does it mean to you?

 

[Rightguide]

“Promote the general welfare”

What does it mean to you?

In legal interpretation, the Supreme Court has ruled that "general welfare" does not give Congress unlimited authority. James Madison argued that the phrase was not a blanket authorization for expansive federal authority but rather a guiding principle limited by the specific enumerated powers in the Constitution.

 

[AlexBailey]

In legal interpretation, the Supreme Court has ruled that "general welfare" does not give Congress unlimited authority. James Madison argued that the phrase was not a blanket authorization for expansive federal authority but rather a guiding principle limited by the specific enumerated powers in the Constitution.

Okay, so you’ve lined out some of what you think it does not mean.

Again, what does “promote the general welfare” mean?

 

[Rightguide]

Okay, so you’ve lined out some of what you think it does not mean.

Again, what does “promote the general welfare” mean?

Not much. I believe the same as the founders, it primarily means that the federal government should promote policies that benefit the nation as a whole—ensuring stability, security, and prosperity. It doesn't mean enacting gigantic bankrupting welfare schemes such as we have seen since The Great Society programs of Lyndon Johnson.

 

[rainsol]

Drink!

Musk is your Soros. Enjoy that fact, Jack.

Dont be silly, Elon Musk never served with the Nazi s, Soros did

 

[eric_erosfan]

Reichguide reading the Daily Swastika.

View attachment 2498666

Lol.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Dont be silly, Elon Musk never served with the Nazi s, Soros did

I'm sure you have record of that, MAGAT.

 

[Rightguide]

Judge delays decision on whether to dismiss N.Y. Mayor Eric Adams' corruption case​

Adams was indicted in September on five counts, including bribery, fraud and soliciting illegal foreign campaign donations.


https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_focal-760x428,f_auto,q_auto:best/mpx/2704722219/2025_02/1740000544056_now_daily_b_nyc_adams_judge_250219_1920x1080-3uokq2.jpg



Feb. 19, 2025, 1:29 PM PST / Updated Feb. 19, 2025, 5:35 PM PST
By Tom Winter, Janelle Griffith, Jonathan Dienst and Chloe Atkins

A federal judge on Wednesday questioned a top Justice Department official who is seeking to dismiss corruption charges against embattled New York Mayor Eric Adams, a move that has led to the resignations of eight prosecutors.

U.S. District Judge Dale E. Ho did not make a decision at the 90-minute hearing after he instructed both parties to be prepared to discuss why the case should or should not be dismissed.

Emil Bove, the acting deputy attorney general, told Ho he was concerned that proceeding with the case would interfere with national security and immigration issues.

“What is set forth here is my conclusion that this case, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, should not proceed because it reflects, at minimum, appearances of impropriety that give cause for concern about abuse of the criminal justice process,” Bove said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna192581


The judge has no say in whether or not the DOJ can drop the charges. A federal judge cannot block the DOJ from dismissing charges unless there is clear evidence of abuse (e.g., dismissing and refiling to harass a defendant) which is not the case here. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and federal law all affirm that charging and dismissing cases is the DOJ's prerogative, not the judiciary’s.

Take note:

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 48(a))​

• Rule 48(a) states that “The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint.”
• However, the "leave of court" requirement does not grant judges the power to force prosecution. Courts have interpreted this to prevent prosecutorial harassment (e.g., repeated dismissals and refilings to burden a defendant), not to override the Executive Branch's authority.

Supreme Court Precedent (Separation of Powers Doctrine)​

• United States v. Nixon (1974) – Confirmed that prosecutorial discretion belongs to the Executive Branch, not the courts.
• Heckler v. Chaney (1985) – Held that decisions not to prosecute are generally not reviewable by courts because they are an Executive function.

The Court Cannot Compel Prosecution​

• A judge cannot force the DOJ to continue a case it wants to dismiss. The DOJ can drop charges before trial for virtually any reason, and courts can only intervene in cases of bad faith or harassment.
• In Fokker Services B.V. (2016), the D.C. Circuit ruled that judges cannot second-guess prosecutorial discretion, reaffirming that the Executive has exclusive power over charging decisions

This is just another case of inferior federal court judges trying to usurp Executive authority. It will fail

 

[DeluxAuto]

​

Judge delays decision on whether to dismiss N.Y. Mayor Eric Adams' corruption case​

Adams was indicted in September on five counts, including bribery, fraud and soliciting illegal foreign campaign donations.


https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_focal-760x428,f_auto,q_auto:best/mpx/2704722219/2025_02/1740000544056_now_daily_b_nyc_adams_judge_250219_1920x1080-3uokq2.jpg



Feb. 19, 2025, 1:29 PM PST / Updated Feb. 19, 2025, 5:35 PM PST
By Tom Winter, Janelle Griffith, Jonathan Dienst and Chloe Atkins

A federal judge on Wednesday questioned a top Justice Department official who is seeking to dismiss corruption charges against embattled New York Mayor Eric Adams, a move that has led to the resignations of eight prosecutors.

U.S. District Judge Dale E. Ho did not make a decision at the 90-minute hearing after he instructed both parties to be prepared to discuss why the case should or should not be dismissed.

Emil Bove, the acting deputy attorney general, told Ho he was concerned that proceeding with the case would interfere with national security and immigration issues.

“What is set forth here is my conclusion that this case, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, should not proceed because it reflects, at minimum, appearances of impropriety that give cause for concern about abuse of the criminal justice process,” Bove said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna192581


The judge has no say in whether or not the DOJ can drop the charges. A federal judge cannot block the DOJ from dismissing charges unless there is clear evidence of abuse (e.g., dismissing and refiling to harass a defendant) which is not the case here. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and federal law all affirm that charging and dismissing cases is the DOJ's prerogative, not the judiciary’s.

Take note:

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 48(a))​

• Rule 48(a) states that “The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint.”
• However, the "leave of court" requirement does not grant judges the power to force prosecution. Courts have interpreted this to prevent prosecutorial harassment (e.g., repeated dismissals and refilings to burden a defendant), not to override the Executive Branch's authority.

Supreme Court Precedent (Separation of Powers Doctrine)​

• United States v. Nixon (1974) – Confirmed that prosecutorial discretion belongs to the Executive Branch, not the courts.
• Heckler v. Chaney (1985) – Held that decisions not to prosecute are generally not reviewable by courts because they are an Executive function.

The Court Cannot Compel Prosecution​

• A judge cannot force the DOJ to continue a case it wants to dismiss. The DOJ can drop charges before trial for virtually any reason, and courts can only intervene in cases of bad faith or harassment.
• In Fokker Services B.V. (2016), the D.C. Circuit ruled that judges cannot second-guess prosecutorial discretion, reaffirming that the Executive has exclusive power over charging decisions

This is just another case of inferior federal court judges trying to usurp Executive authority. It will fail

Is Adams corrupt?

 

[Rightguide]

Is Adams corrupt?

I think so but that isn't the point and the media's whining about quid pro quos is childish. Prosecutors are all about quid pro quo's

Plea Bargains: Offering reduced sentences or dropped charges in exchange for guilty pleas, even when the defendant may not be guilty.
Cooperation Deals: Reducing penalties for defendants who agree to testify against others.
Selective Prosecution: Pursuing cases based on political or personal gain rather than objective legal standards.
Deferred Prosecution Agreements: (DPAs) Allowing corporations or individuals to avoid trial in exchange for financial penalties and compliance programs.

Every example offers a quid pro quo. The issue here, I believe, is the DOJ wants something from Adams and Adams wants something from the DOJ. Perfectly legal and constitutional. If the Judge tries to stop what is happening absent the conditions I've already noted, he will lose.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I think so but that isn't the point and the media's whining about quid pro quos is childish. Prosecutors are all about quid pro quo's

Plea Bargains: Offering reduced sentences or dropped charges in exchange for guilty pleas, even when the defendant may not be guilty.
Cooperation Deals: Reducing penalties for defendants who agree to testify against others.
Selective Prosecution: Pursuing cases based on political or personal gain rather than objective legal standards.
Deferred Prosecution Agreements: (DPAs) Allowing corporations or individuals to avoid trial in exchange for financial penalties and compliance programs.

Every example offers a quid pro quo. The issue here, I believe, is the DOJ wants something from Adams and Adams wants something from the DOJ. Perfectly legal and constitutional. If the Judge tries to stop what is happening absent the conditions I've already noted, he will lose.

Donald Trump's DOJ is dangling a pardon over Adams' head to get him to do the President's bidding. That's blatant corruption.

 

[ll74]

I think so but that isn't the point and the media's whining about quid pro quos is childish. Prosecutors are all about quid pro quo's


Every example offers a quid pro quo. The issue here, I believe, is the DOJ wants something from Adams and Adams wants something from the DOJ. Perfectly legal and constitutional. If the Judge tries to stop what is happening absent the conditions I've already noted, he will lose.

Multiple prosecutors have resigned and given extensive reasoning regarding the misconduct they observed.

If the government truly believed the prosecution was political and invalid, they should dismiss with prejudice. Instead, they moved to dismiss without prejudice.

 

[Rightguide]

Donald Trump's DOJ is dangling a pardon over Adams' head to get him to do the President's bidding. That's blatant corruption.

No, it isn't because Adams isn't being coerced. If there is corruption it's the fact that he was illegally targeted by the Biden DOJ as soon as he agreed to follow federal law and help with deportations.

 

[ll74]

No, it isn't because Adams isn't being coerced. If there is corruption it's the fact that he was illegally targeted by the Biden DOJ as soon as he agreed to follow federal law and help with deportations.

Then it should be dismissed with prejudice or Adams should be pardoned.

 

[AlexBailey]

Not much. I believe the same as the founders, it primarily means that the federal government should promote policies that benefit the nation as a whole—ensuring stability, security, and prosperity. It doesn't mean enacting gigantic bankrupting welfare schemes such as we have seen since The Great Society programs of Lyndon Johnson.

You’re wrong to say “the founders” collectively held this position.

Alexander Hamilton believed the "general welfare clause" in the Constitution should be interpreted broadly, allowing Congress to spend money on anything that would benefit the general welfare of the nation, not just the specific powers listed elsewhere in the Constitution; essentially viewing it as a separate, expansive power to act for the national good, as long as the spending was not localized to a specific area.

You cherry pick your definition and facts to support your claims, ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court has also upheld the Social Security Act. But I suppose SS is in your crosshairs too.

 

[Rightguide]

You’re wrong to say “the founders” collectively held this position.

Alexander Hamilton believed the "general welfare clause" in the Constitution should be interpreted broadly, allowing Congress to spend money on anything that would benefit the general welfare of the nation, not just the specific powers listed elsewhere in the Constitution; essentially viewing it as a separate, expansive power to act for the national good, as long as the spending was not localized to a specific area.

You cherry pick your definition and facts to support your claims, ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court has also upheld the Social Security Act. But I suppose SS is in your crosshairs too.

Not at all. There were dozens of Founders. The Federalist Papers are full of their opinions on every aspect of the Constitution. But Hamilton never believed in a welfare structure like we have today. He would have had all of the people behind it all executed.

 

[AlexBailey]

Not at all. There were dozens of Founders. The Federalist Papers are full of their opinions on every aspect of the Constitution. But Hamilton never believed in a welfare structure like we have today. He would have had all of the people behind it all executed.

Yeah, no.

Your credibility is zeroed out by your gross mischaracterization of Hamilton and ignoring of the legality of Social Security.

Spin, shill. Spin, spin, spin.

 

[Rightguide]

Yeah, no.

Your credibility is zeroed out by your gross mischaracterization of Hamilton and ignoring of the legality of Social Security.

Spin, shill. Spin, spin, spin.

We're talking about what the Founders thought not about our contemporary nonsense.

 

[DeluxAuto]

think so but that isn't the point

It was most certainly the fucking point a few months ago according to you back then.

media's whining about quid pro quos is childish.

Your president acts childish yet that doesn't bother you.

Your hypocrisy is palpable.

 

[AlexBailey]

We're talking about what the Founders thought not about our contemporary nonsense.

You have admitted that there were many founders yet you only choose to acknowledge one position - Madison’s. Madison and Hamilton were not in agreement yet both were founders.

Ie : you cherry pick and misrepresent the one you prefer as being representative of all of the founders.

You’re a shill.

 

[Politruk]

The free press was eliminated by the Democrat Party and its cancel culture. Inventive American patriots formed a new media space in which the right to free speech is held in high regard.

The free speech in Musk's Twitter ain't any improvement.

 

[DeluxAuto]

We're talking about what the Founders thought not about our contemporary nonsense.

The Founders are rolling over what's happening now. You disrespect their philosophies on our Nation daily.

 

[Politruk]

President Trump EO Seeks to End the Nanny State’s Assault on the Constitution​

By J.D. Rucker • Feb. 20, 2025

(American Political Report)—One of President Donald Trump’s latest executive orders is causing a stir from the left as he moves to reduce government control over Americans’ lives. It will require federal agencies to evaluate all of their regulations that could violate the Constitution.
According to Fox News:

Legacy media is, of course, trying to paint this as a power grab by the administration. But the argument is dramatically weakened by the fact that Democrats have exerted similar control over “independent” agencies for decades without a peep left-leaning media. Moreover, the control leveled by Democrats has always been to increase the scope of the “Nanny State” whereas President Trump’s order is to rein it in.

https://thelibertydaily.com/president-trump-eo-seeks-end-nanny-states-assault/

Deconstructing the Biden Deep State.

"Nanny state" and "government weaponized against the American people" are antonyms. Nannies are never "weaponized against" their charges.

 

[Rightguide]

So far at least four federal court judges have ruled against Democrat lawsuits to halt DOGE.

 

[ll74]

So far at least four federal court judges have ruled against Democrat lawsuits to halt DOGE.

And at least four have ruled against 47. Over 50 lawsuits are pending.