article 1 section 8

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

Hamilton and Madison actually switched sides on principle in the battle between Jefferson and Chief Justice Marshall. So in effect, they disagreed with each other and then with themselves.

cute eh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

It seems that there are an endless list of subjects in which you require remediation.

OK...now take notes:


1. In "A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law," Justice Antonin Scalia criticizes the tendency of federal judges to ignore the text of the Constitution or statues and to adopt “the attitude of the common-law judge -- the mind-set that asks, ‘What is the most desirable resolution of this case, and how can any impediments to the achievement of that result be evaded?’” Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, edited by Amy Gutmann (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997), p. 13. (Hereafter cited in the text as Scalia.)


2. He condemns their tendency to treat the Constitution as “the Living Constitution, a 'morphing' document that means, from age to age, what it ought to mean" (Scalia, p. 7). He urges judges instead to adopt a textualist approach where, in the words of Amy Gutmann, editor of the volume, their interpretations are "guided by the text and not by intentions or ideals external to it, and by the original meaning of the text, not by its evolving meaning over time" (Scalia, viii).



3. Since ascending the High Bench in 1986, Justice Scalia has assiduously and consistently pursued a textualist jurisprudence. He argues that primacy must be accorded to the text, structure, and history of the document being interpreted and that the job of the judge is to apply the clear textual language of the Constitution or statute, Thus, Scalia searches out the ordinary meaning of the words used when the provision was adopted, frequently consulting dictionaries of the era. In fact, Scalia consults dictionaries more often than any of his colleagues. See Note, "Looking It Up: Dictionaries and Statutory Interpretation," 107 Harvard Law Review 1437, 1439 (1994).


4. Faithful adherence to the text of a constitutional or statutory provision or, if that is ambiguous, to the traditional understanding of those who originally adopted it, reduces the danger that judges will substitute their beliefs for society's. As Scalia observed in response to a question by Senator Howard Metzenbaum during his Senate confirmation hearings:

[A] constitution has to have ultimately majoritarian underpinnings. To be sure a constitution is a document that protects against future democratic excesses. But when it is adopted, it is adopted by democratic process. That is what legitimates it. . . . f the majority that adopted it did not believe this unspecified right, which is not reflected clearly in the language, if their laws at the time do not reflect that that right existed, nor do the laws at the present date reflect that the society believes that right exists, I worry about my deciding that it exists. I worry that I am not reflecting the most fundamental, deeply felt beliefs of our society, which is what a constitution means, but rather, I am reflecting the most deeply felt beliefs of Scalia, which is not what I want to impose on the society. The Textualist Jurisprudence of Justice Scalia, Claremont McKenna College



Should the time every come to pass when you realize the efficacy of reading books, I recommend:

“Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate,” edited by Professor Steven G. Calabresi.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

It is that simple.

Which has nothing to do with anything.

Welfare is well-being. It always has been and still is

Right. But the Preamble says "Promote the General Welfare" not "Provide the General Welfare".

Also see; "Provide for the Common Defense".

ahhh, nuance and semantics?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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?

It seems that there are an endless list of subjects in which you require remediation.

OK...now take notes:


1. In "A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law," Justice Antonin Scalia criticizes the tendency of federal judges to ignore the text of the Constitution or statues and to adopt “the attitude of the common-law judge -- the mind-set that asks, ‘What is the most desirable resolution of this case, and how can any impediments to the achievement of that result be evaded?’” Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, edited by Amy Gutmann (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997), p. 13. (Hereafter cited in the text as Scalia.)


2. He condemns their tendency to treat the Constitution as “the Living Constitution, a 'morphing' document that means, from age to age, what it ought to mean" (Scalia, p. 7). He urges judges instead to adopt a textualist approach where, in the words of Amy Gutmann, editor of the volume, their interpretations are "guided by the text and not by intentions or ideals external to it, and by the original meaning of the text, not by its evolving meaning over time" (Scalia, viii).



3. Since ascending the High Bench in 1986, Justice Scalia has assiduously and consistently pursued a textualist jurisprudence. He argues that primacy must be accorded to the text, structure, and history of the document being interpreted and that the job of the judge is to apply the clear textual language of the Constitution or statute, Thus, Scalia searches out the ordinary meaning of the words used when the provision was adopted, frequently consulting dictionaries of the era. In fact, Scalia consults dictionaries more often than any of his colleagues. See Note, "Looking It Up: Dictionaries and Statutory Interpretation," 107 Harvard Law Review 1437, 1439 (1994).


4. Faithful adherence to the text of a constitutional or statutory provision or, if that is ambiguous, to the traditional understanding of those who originally adopted it, reduces the danger that judges will substitute their beliefs for society's. As Scalia observed in response to a question by Senator Howard Metzenbaum during his Senate confirmation hearings:

[A] constitution has to have ultimately majoritarian underpinnings. To be sure a constitution is a document that protects against future democratic excesses. But when it is adopted, it is adopted by democratic process. That is what legitimates it. . . . f the majority that adopted it did not believe this unspecified right, which is not reflected clearly in the language, if their laws at the time do not reflect that that right existed, nor do the laws at the present date reflect that the society believes that right exists, I worry about my deciding that it exists. I worry that I am not reflecting the most fundamental, deeply felt beliefs of our society, which is what a constitution means, but rather, I am reflecting the most deeply felt beliefs of Scalia, which is not what I want to impose on the society. The Textualist Jurisprudence of Justice Scalia, Claremont McKenna College



Should the time every come to pass when you realize the efficacy of reading books, I recommend:

“Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate,” edited by Professor Steven G. Calabresi.

The text of the Constitution clearly states Congress may tax and spend for the general welfare.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

The General Welfare clause does not literally mean welfare.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

It is that simple.

Which has nothing to do with anything.

Welfare is well-being. It always has been and still is

Right. But the Preamble says "Promote the General Welfare" not "Provide the General Welfare".

Also see; "Provide for the Common Defense".

Article I Section 8 says PROVIDE for the common defence and general welfare.

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;

See?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What many think of welfare, that is helping indigent Americans, was done by the states. During the Great Depression states could not meet their responsiblity to the poor the federal government took on the task. Today, that task is shared by federal and state governments.
The nation of the founder's Constitution has changed. With a nation of 13 states, mostly farmers, few corporations and our manufacturing just beginning, the government began helping manufacturers with tariffs, internal improvments and Court decisions that removed powers from the states.
Perhaps the biggest error the founders made was not providing for political parties.

1. "Private sector or government bureaucracy? In 1887, Congress passed a bill appropriating money to Texas farmers who were suffering thorough a catastrophic drought. President Grover Cleveland’s veto included this response:

“And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

Cleveland was correct: “So he challenged private citizens to come forward. And here’s perhaps the weirdest part: They responded. A number of newspapers adopted the relief campaign and in the end Americans donated not $10,000 but $100,000 to the afflicted farmers.”
Obama's plan to stimulate the economy should be to do nothing.

2. Do you happen to know the amount of voluntary charity Americans donated last year? Let me know if you would like to know. I'd be happy to tell you.



3. "The nation of the founder's Constitution has changed. With a nation of 13 states,..."

In 1887 there were 38 states that made up what was known as the United States of America

I wonder why you would think that principles vary with the number of states, or individuals....or hours and days?

Do yours?

While some people argued that the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government should be the final arbiter of what is and is not constitutional, that argument was laid to rest ages ago -- in favor of the Judicial Branch alone ruling on challenges.

The Executive (Cleveland) and the Legislative Branch can suggest what is constitutional, they are not the final word.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

We look about as graceful as a one winged turkey right now. Yes, we will always have chicken littles....too many that turn their back to the imminent dangers while keeping their hand out in respite.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The people are the nation.

No... the people are citizens of the nation

"We the people" mean anything to you?

 

[Pho_King]

Apparently the OP and the rest of the OWS parasites believe that, as long as a claim is made that it is for the public good, all federal action falls under the general welfare clause, no matter how few people it may benefit. That is the parasite way. They think that if you just give the parasite that which they want, then their happiness and exuberance will actually benefit the rest of the country. hence, their belief in what constitutes a public good, and what general welfare includes.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

We still have a federalist system. Hamilton won. Suggesting we do not have a federalist system anymore is silly

 

[Pho_King]

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.

Holy shit that is funny! Thanks, moonbeam!

 

[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.

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

The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in eleven states. It went into effect on March 4, 1789.[1] The first ten constitutional amendments ratified by three-fourths of the states in 1791 are known as the Bill of Rights. The Constitution has been amended seventeen times (for a total of 27 amendments) and its principles are applied in courts of law by judicial review.

It seems quite clear that the constitution in the 10th makes it known that those not in the constitution or prohibited by it are reserved to the states or the people, it does not say to the United States, or more specifically it says the word "people". Had the original intent in Article 1 Sec. 8 been to promote the "General Welfare" of the "PEOPLE" then it would have mentioned it, rather than the United States and has Madison it's author pointed out, General Welfare means those rights made known in the Article itself. All if this does not matter however, because Hamiltons view has prevailed however for many years now in that the legislature had broad powers under this to not only promote but to PROVIDE for the "General Welfare" and has used its broad tax and spend powers to do so.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Huh? The Powers of the Executive Branch were listed in the Constitution. What are you trying to say?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

That's actually a pretty good question.

I hope that you can see that an answer to same requires, first, an understanding of the differences between the concepts of Originalism, and that of a 'living Constitution.'


Then, one chooses which is correct.
With understanding and exposure to debate on both sides, your opinion becomes the answer to your question.

Again...once informed, your opinion, or mine, is as valid as any lawyer or Justice.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

We look about as graceful as a one winged turkey right now. Yes, we will always have chicken littles....too many that turn their back to the imminent dangers while keeping their hand out in respite.

Your remind me of the alarmists who scream because a single battle is lost, oh woe...the war is lost. Process. We may look one-winged now, but that is just because your perspective is skewed by a few things too numerous to list here

 

[Navy1960]

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.

We still have a federalist system. Hamilton won. Suggesting we do not have a federalist system anymore is silly

I don't think I suggested that at all, I simply pointed out that the principle author of the constitution made it clear what the clause meant, the Federalist view notwithstanding. You and I both know that is why we have a Supreme Court and since the 30's that view has prevailed, that said it does not mean those views will not or never change.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

.