article 1 section 8

[tjvh]

This is a question for the strict constitutionalists who believe we take the constitution literally, exactly as written.

Section 8 of Article 1 in known as the "enumerated powers" section. Here is where the various powers granted the congress are spelled out. The first article in that section is quoted, verbatim, below.

Section 8

1: 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;

Taking that literally, strictly as written, how does that limit the power of congress to legislate on any social program it chooses so long as it provides for the "general welfare"?

It is quite simple. The founders were educated and very literate. How can you interpret that any other way? Remember though, you are not supposed to interpret, you are to take it literally.

this (below) is what passes for intelligent discussion around here...

.

The current day definition of "welfare" was not in use when the founding fathers wrote our constitution.

It is that simple.

That response is good enough for me.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They actually said that the party system would be our undoing. Of course they were correct.

not true. do not confuse factionalism with parties. and it is Madison you speak of?

John Adams, specifially:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

Although, most had no high regard a party system. Madison was my favorite founder though.

The context of what Adams was speaking? Adams was speaking of the intent and actions of a party, not of opposition to parties themselves. Adams, Hamilton, and others were in opposition to positions and ideas of Jefferson, Madison, and others.

Factionalism. Madison warned against it. Suggested how to control it. No one of these men was silly enough to suggest human nature should be banned. What they all suggested was that human nature be considered when contemplating how we would form a system of government and over how we would be governed.

Jefferson is my least favorite. Was a kind of hybird of Ron Paul followers mixed with an WSOccupier: Agrarian Utopia my arse

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[SIZE=-1]However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]~GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796[/SIZE]​

That is not an argument against political parties, it is a warning about abuse and human nature.

And parties are made up of what?

FAIL

are you seriously mentally challenged? have you been seen by a professional?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The people ratified the US Constitution and it contains an amendment that allows, asks, the people to change it at will. The process is made difficult because they knew a bit about human nature

I see nothing wrong with it. The founders were right about both. Our leaders are consistently wrong about the constitution. They are abusing the propositions of common defence and general welfare. It is they that need to go....not the constitution.

Dante never said the US Constitution needs to go, so I do not understand your pronouncements.

By what standards and reality do you claim our elected leaders are consistently wrong? Where has this ever been proven? Abuses of power upset you?

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and others were accused of abusing Presidential power. It appears to be an American tradition

Do you not see our debt as a problem? Constantly borrowing, to appease your base, whatever your ideology, so long as to keep power.....at the behest of the nation as a whole. Many countries, through the annals of history, have fallen on to the ash heap due to the same injustices that we are now accumulating. Surely, you can see that.

 

[Navy1960]

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

Seems simple enough, when taken in context.

but the phrase is 'general welfare of the United States' - 'of' - general welfare of - of who/whom?

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

“United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

James Madision Fed. 41

"general welfare," as used in the Constitution, is defined by the enumerated powers listed directly afterward, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

This is a question for the strict constitutionalists who believe we take the constitution literally, exactly as written.

Section 8 of Article 1 in known as the "enumerated powers" section. Here is where the various powers granted the congress are spelled out. The first article in that section is quoted, verbatim, below.

Section 8

1: 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;

Taking that literally, strictly as written, how does that limit the power of congress to legislate on any social program it chooses so long as it provides for the "general welfare"?

It doesn't. Congress may spend money for any general welfare purpose. That's what the SCOTUS has held, and its rooted in Hamilton's views on the Constitution.

Prepare for a barage of idiotic replies from the right, who will now pretend like James Madison was the sole author of the Constitution and that the SCOTUS doesn't even matter.

It is quite simple. The founders were educated and very literate. How can you interpret that any other way? Remember though, you are not supposed to interpret, you are to take it literally.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

As long as that illegal government plans not to be restricted, or even influenced by, the United States Constitution.


You're not endorsing that, are you?

As far as I know, the USA has never had an illegal government. The USA has had laws ruled unConstitutional.

The only law that the citizenry of this nation agreed to be governed by is the Constitution.

Not the whims of judges who find their notions superior to the Constitution.

Therefore, any Supreme Court, or any court, decision, not grounded in the text, and meaning of the Constitution, is, essentially illegal.
And this applies to a government that is informed by such laws.


"A mere change in public
opinion since the adoption of the Constitution, unaccompanied
by a constitutional amendment, should not change the
meaning of the Constitution. A merely temporary majoritarian
groundswell should not abrogate some individual liberty truly
protected by the Constitution."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



Unless, of course, this is your opinion:

Justice Wm. Brennan, jr…1985 Georgetown speech supported the “transformative purpose” of the Constitution, in which he argued for an “aspiration to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity…”

Who decides whether a court ruling is sufficiently grounded in the text? You?

 

[The T]

That is not an argument against political parties, it is a warning about abuse and human nature.

And parties are made up of what?

FAIL

are you seriously mentally challenged? have you been seen by a professional?

Project much?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

Seems simple enough, when taken in context.

but the phrase is 'general welfare of the United States' - 'of' - general welfare of - of who/whom?

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

“United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

James Madision Fed. 41

"general welfare," as used in the Constitution, is defined by the enumerated powers listed directly afterward, nothing more and nothing less.

Hamilton did not agree with Madison. Why should Hamilton's view be rejected in favor of Madison?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

As long as that illegal government plans not to be restricted, or even influenced by, the United States Constitution.


You're not endorsing that, are you?

As far as I know, the USA has never had an illegal government. The USA has had laws ruled unConstitutional.

The only law that the citizenry of this nation agreed to be governed by is the Constitution.

Not the whims of judges who find their notions superior to the Constitution.

okay. but if you want to be the judge of what is a constitutional opinion and what is a whim...go at it.

Therefore, any Supreme Court, or any court, decision, not grounded in the text, and meaning of the Constitution, is, essentially illegal.
And this applies to a government that is informed by such laws.

The framers disagree with you here. I've listed the facts in many a past thread. You are simply in error here

"A mere change in public
opinion since the adoption of the Constitution, unaccompanied
by a constitutional amendment, should not change the
meaning of the Constitution. A merely temporary majoritarian
groundswell should not abrogate some individual liberty truly
protected by the Constitution."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

Chief Justice Rehnquist was no textualist. In the above the Chief Justice is speaking about public opinion.

Unless, of course, this is your opinion:

Justice Wm. Brennan, jr…1985 Georgetown speech supported the “transformative purpose” of the Constitution, in which he argued for an “aspiration to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity…”

Justice Brennen laid out his reasoning. Do you disagree with specifics of his reasoning?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I see nothing wrong with it. The founders were right about both. Our leaders are consistently wrong about the constitution. They are abusing the propositions of common defence and general welfare. It is they that need to go....not the constitution.

Dante never said the US Constitution needs to go, so I do not understand your pronouncements.

By what standards and reality do you claim our elected leaders are consistently wrong? Where has this ever been proven? Abuses of power upset you?

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and others were accused of abusing Presidential power. It appears to be an American tradition

Do you not see our debt as a problem? Constantly borrowing, to appease your base, whatever your ideology, so long as to keep power.....at the behest of the nation as a whole. Many countries, through the annals of history, have fallen on to the ash heap due to the same injustices that we are now accumulating. Surely, you can see that.

I see history. The debt has been high before. Alarmists have predicted the end of life as we know it. Time passed, things were fixed and here we are.

Like the markets, politics and economics go in cycles. The end is only near if we do nothing. I have more faith in America than most conservatives claim to. Why? History. My faith is based on the data, not emotion.

 

[Navy1960]

but the phrase is 'general welfare of the United States' - 'of' - general welfare of - of who/whom?

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

“United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

James Madision Fed. 41

"general welfare," as used in the Constitution, is defined by the enumerated powers listed directly afterward, nothing more and nothing less.

Hamilton did not agree with Madison. Why should Hamilton's view be rejected in favor of Madison?

I would submit to you that Hamiltons view was not rejected and is very much the current system in which we live. Still further, until the 30's and several Supreme Court cases on the issue that swung towards the Hamiltonian view.

The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money. Hamilton

 

[Moonglow]

The people are the nation.

 

[DiamondDave]

The people are the nation.

No... the people are citizens of the nation

 

[DiamondDave]

This is a question for the strict constitutionalists who believe we take the constitution literally, exactly as written.

Section 8 of Article 1 in known as the "enumerated powers" section. Here is where the various powers granted the congress are spelled out. The first article in that section is quoted, verbatim, below.

Section 8

1: 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;

Taking that literally, strictly as written, how does that limit the power of congress to legislate on any social program it chooses so long as it provides for the "general welfare"?

It doesn't. Congress may spend money for any general welfare purpose. That's what the SCOTUS has held, and its rooted in Hamilton's views on the Constitution.

Prepare for a barage of idiotic replies from the right, who will now pretend like James Madison was the sole author of the Constitution and that the SCOTUS doesn't even matter.

It is quite simple. The founders were educated and very literate. How can you interpret that any other way? Remember though, you are not supposed to interpret, you are to take it literally.

WRONG

Not ANY 'general welfare' purpose

you, like the rest of your ilk, take only the part of the statement that suits you... it is the general welfare of the United States, AKA the UNION itself.. not inherently each individual within the union and not things pertaining to their personal welfare

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

Seems simple enough, when taken in context.

but the phrase is 'general welfare of the United States' - 'of' - general welfare of - of who/whom?

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

“United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

James Madision Fed. 41

"general welfare," as used in the Constitution, is defined by the enumerated powers listed directly afterward, nothing more and nothing less.

The Federalist were used to convince New Yorkers (and others) of the wisdom of an up or down vote in the affirmative. Many of the founders disagreed with the framers...they were called anti-Federalists.

10th: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

the states, or the people. two separate entities.

You do know the states did not ratify the US Constitution? The people ratified the Us Constitution. The framers purposefully left out the state governments from the ratification process. The document was sent out to the people with the option of an up or down vote

 

[Moonglow]

Dante never said the US Constitution needs to go, so I do not understand your pronouncements.

By what standards and reality do you claim our elected leaders are consistently wrong? Where has this ever been proven? Abuses of power upset you?

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and others were accused of abusing Presidential power. It appears to be an American tradition

Do you not see our debt as a problem? Constantly borrowing, to appease your base, whatever your ideology, so long as to keep power.....at the behest of the nation as a whole. Many countries, through the annals of history, have fallen on to the ash heap due to the same injustices that we are now accumulating. Surely, you can see that.

I see history. The debt has been high before. Alarmists have predicted the end of life as we know it. Time passed, things were fixed and here we are.

Like the markets, politics and economics go in cycles. The end is only near if we do nothing. I have more faith in America than most conservatives claim to. Why? History. My faith is based on the data, not emotion.

I too have much faith in the US of A and it's people. We have been through harder times than this and we will always have chicken littles.
It is disheartening to hear such, but I remember that the one does not represent the many hard working faithful patriots of our nation.
To those that speak of fear and loss from strife I remind them of the eagle, how majestically it flies and soars looking for food, and never once have you seen that eagle in flight just give up flying and drop to the ground, refusing to give up on living.

 

[California Girl]

OP is getting his ignit ass handed to him on this one.

LOL

You left out a word..... 'again'. Handed to him, again.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

John Adams...

gave us the Alien and Sedition Acts



careful when appealing to Authority

 

[Moonglow]

but the phrase is 'general welfare of the United States' - 'of' - general welfare of - of who/whom?

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

“United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

James Madision Fed. 41

"general welfare," as used in the Constitution, is defined by the enumerated powers listed directly afterward, nothing more and nothing less.

The Federalist were used to convince New Yorkers (and others) of the wisdom of an up or down vote in the affirmative. Many of the founders disagreed with the framers...they were called anti-Federalists.

10th: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

the states, or the people. two separate entities.

You do know the states did not ratify the US Constitution? The people ratified the Us Constitution. The framers purposefully left out the state governments from the ratification process. The document was sent out to the people with the option of an up or down vote

Strange how the people were allowed to vote on the Constitution, but not the executive branch of the early government.