article 1 section 8

[emilynghiem]

Dear One Cut: The First and Fourteenth Amendment also provide checks and balances on how govt policies are made applied and interpreted. You basically cannot abuse govt to discriminate against people's religion and equal protection of the law.

If the health care mandates, for example, merely required people NOT to impose costs on others without ability to pay and required people to "find some way to cover their costs" (without dictating how, such as requiring insurance which is not the same as directly paying for one's costs), that would not have been intrusive on people's free choice.

The bill went too far by requiring people specifically to "buy insurance" and furthermore, by the govt regulating which people's religious affiliations qualify for exemption or not,
where some people are basically penalized by religious discrimination DEFINED and enforced by govt.

That is clearly unconstitutional. Nor can I see how any liberal politician can continue to make pro-choice arguments against penalizing people if they choose abortion while in this case penalizing taxpayers for choosing to pay directly for health care instead of paying indirectly through insurance!

If people CONSENT to mandates, people have the right to pass laws through govt as "social contracts" the affected parties AGREE to. In general, the spirit of Constitutional law is consent of the governed, equal protection and representation, but the health care mandates violate such standards -- by overriding the consent of the governed, excluding representation of interests, and penalizing people while exempting others based on religious conditions regulated by govt.

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.

You cannot put the letter of the law before the spirit of the law, and expect to make a consistent statement, no matter how "educated and literate" you are at making your arguments. If you fail to include representation and protection of all people's interests EQUALLY, that is political abuse of govt authority to impose a bias in policy. This happens so much, with political bullying by majority-rule and coercion by media, that it has become accepted as commonplace. But that doesn't justify such manipulation of the democratic process, and technically it is against the spirit of Constitutional law as a social contract between people and public institutions based on consent of the governed.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Dear One Cut: The First and Fourteenth Amendment also provide checks and balances on how govt policies are made applied and interpreted. You basically cannot abuse govt to discriminate against people's religion and equal protection of the law.

If the health care mandates, for example, merely required people NOT to impose costs on others without ability to pay and required people to "find some way to cover their costs" (without dictating how, such as requiring insurance which is not the same as directly paying for one's costs), that would not have been intrusive on people's free choice.

The bill went too far by requiring people specifically to "buy insurance" and furthermore, by the govt regulating which people's religious affilitions qualify for exemption or not,
where some people are basically penalized by religious discrimination enforced by govt.

That is clearly unconstitutional. Nor can I see how any liberal politician can continue to make pro-choice arguments against penalizing people if they choose abortion while in this case penalizing taxpayers for choosing health care alternatives instead of insurance!

If people CONSENT to mandates people have the right to pass laws as social contracts the public agree to. In general, the spirit of Constitutional law is consent of the governed, equal protection and representation, but the health care mandates violate such standards.

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.

You cannot put the letter of the law before the spirit of the law, no matter how educated and skilled you are at making such an argument. If you don't include representation and protection of all people's interests EQUALLY, that is political abuse of govt authority.

The government already requires you buy old age, survivors, and disability insurance.


Actually the government already requires you buy health insurance, you just can't use it until your old.

 

[Navy1960]

Guy T. Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and William M. Welch, Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Massachusetts, The Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Boston, Petitioners,
vs.

George P. Davis, Respondent.

"Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare". Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison"

Social Security Online History Pages

Many ask why we do not have the authors view of the constitution today, that is why.

 

[grunt11b]

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.

If you dont understand it by now, there is no point in explaining it to you again.

 

[grunt11b]

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.

Was or was there not a welfare system back when the founders wrote this document? No there was not.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

What did they originally mean by the term "General Welfare"

As a person who feels the constitution should be read and interpreted according to its original intent this is a specific question I've pondered a lot. Here is what I have to say.

"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 in letter to James Robertson

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined. This differs from most modern interpretations including your own!

Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders and they were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. However another founder, Alexander Hamilton, saw it in a little differently.

"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

"No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore nconstitutional.



So, to use the founder's own opinions to answer your original question, the congress does not have the power to tax and spend for any social program they see fit according to the founders and the original intent of the constitution.


Also look into what the rest of section 8 goes on to say, it is obvious they were talking about foreign affairs when they used the term general welfare and not domestic policies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

" ...the Judicial Branch alone ruling on challenges."

Depends what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Correctly stated, "the Judicial Branch is the final ruler on challenges."


In theory, in the best of all worlds, the Congress, when it passes a bill, is assuring that it has carefully considered the legislation in the light of the Constitution. They are verifying that it is constitutional.
I said 'in theory.'

[This is where one inserts arguments about the efficacy of political parties.]

Then the President agrees to the bills constitutionality before he puts his signature on same.

Now...someone with standing, objects to the law, and bring it to court....up the ladder, until the Supremes take a shot. The should give due respect to the fact that the other two branches claimed constitutionality....

...and do exactly what Justice Roberts did: sought a view of the Constitution that would uphold the judgments of the two other branches.


The decisions of the Supreme Court cannot be severed either from the true power, the people, nor from the 'supreme law of the land,' the Constitution.
That's how I see it.

 

[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

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.

thank you

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".

The states refers to the state governments. The people refers to an entity separate from the states. The United States would be the national (Federal) government: the Government.

The people, are 'we the people' a national people separate from the state governments and a people in each of the states.

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.

Madison himself said on more than one occasion not to look to the intent and meanings of the framers (himself included) in interpreting the Constitution. Madison said one must look to the understandings the ratifiers had (the people) for meanings and intent in interpreting the Constitution.

Why do Madison and others constantly speak of interpretation if the text is so clear?

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.

While I agree in the long run, about Hamilton's views prevailing...

Jefferson and Madison set up the very first opposition party with the purpose and express intent of de-legitimizing Hamilton's views. Jefferson and Madison;s views held sway for a period of time (Jackson?)

 

[tjvh]

Yes... "General welfare of the United States" when written in 1776, was not referring to Government blocks of free cheese.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Was or was there not a welfare system back when the founders wrote this document? No there was not.

there was not a government welfare system in the way we view it. What does that have to do with anything? can you explain yourself or is this a rant and rave and score imbecile points post?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

The principle author of the Constitution? Chief Justice Marshall solidified an already well made argument, that the SCOTUS was the final arbiter in constitutional arguments

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yes... "General welfare of the United States" when written in 1776, was not referring to Government blocks of free cheese.

The Constitution wasn't written in 1776 you fucking moron.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

The Constitution didn't have a "principle author"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

" ...the Judicial Branch alone ruling on challenges."

Depends what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Correctly stated, "the Judicial Branch is the final ruler on challenges."

In theory, in the best of all worlds, the Congress, when it passes a bill, is assuring that it has carefully considered the legislation in the light of the Constitution. They are verifying that it is constitutional.

I said 'in theory.'

[This is where one inserts arguments about the efficacy of political parties.]

Then the President agrees to the bills constitutionality before he puts his signature on same.

Now...someone with standing, objects to the law, and bring it to court....up the ladder, until the Supremes take a shot. The should give due respect to the fact that the other two branches claimed constitutionality....

...and do exactly what Justice Roberts did: sought a view of the Constitution that would uphold the judgments of the two other branches.


The decisions of the Supreme Court cannot be severed either from the true power, the people, nor from the 'supreme law of the land,' the Constitution.
That's how I see it.

" ...the Judicial Branch alone ruling on challenges."

Depends what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Correctly stated, "the Judicial Branch is the final ruler on challenges."

"in favor of the Judicial Branch alone ruling on challenges"

In theory, in the best of all worlds, the Congress, when it passes a bill, is assuring that it has carefully considered the legislation in the light of the Constitution. They are verifying that it is constitutional.

I said 'in theory.'

[This is where one inserts arguments about the efficacy of political parties.]

Then the President agrees to the bills constitutionality before he puts his signature on same.

Now...someone with standing, objects to the law, and bring it to court....up the ladder, until the Supremes take a shot. The should give due respect to the fact that the other two branches claimed constitutionality....

...and do exactly what Justice Roberts did: sought a view of the Constitution that would uphold the judgments of the two other branches.

The decisions of the Supreme Court cannot be severed either from the true power, the people, nor from the 'supreme law of the land,' the Constitution.
That's how I see it

I thought I said as much or implied this, but...

 

[Sallow]

The general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES.. as in the union.. not each and every individual and their personal needs...

Taking the statement completely, it is easy to understand

Have to agree with Dave on this one. Strictly speaking, I've always thought it was meant to be the welfare of the country, and not the welfare of the citizenry. Same with defense, of the country, but it's not the Government's job to defend me at all times from all threats.

That's incorrect.

A "country" is an abstract concept and a concept that includes populating the "country" with citizens.

Thus the general welfare clause explicitly refers to the citizenry..

 

[Dick Tuck]

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.

If you want to discuss the founders intent, I suggest you read the July, 1798 law, "An act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen", that was signed by Adams. BTW, at the time, virtually all 13 states had imported into their own laws a version of "British Poor Law", sans the workhouse.

 

[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?

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.

The answer goes beyond the concept of Originalism, which entered the debate when? Bork? Meese?

Textualism, Strict textualism. Originalism, and more...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Both Hamilton and Madison were original authors of the Constitution, so you can't choose which view to accept based on which is the original view.

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

Ours doesn't have the force of law.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES.. as in the union.. not each and every individual and their personal needs...

Taking the statement completely, it is easy to understand

Have to agree with Dave on this one. Strictly speaking, I've always thought it was meant to be the welfare of the country, and not the welfare of the citizenry. Same with defense, of the country, but it's not the Government's job to defend me at all times from all threats.

That's incorrect.

A "country" is an abstract concept and a concept that includes populating the "country" with citizens.

Thus the general welfare clause explicitly refers to the citizenry..

Actually he is correct as the power of the govt to tax and spend for the general welfare was specifically enumerated as follows

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Anything outside of those specific enumerations is not covered under the term general welfare according to the founders (see my post on the previous page)

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

If you want to discuss the founders intent, I suggest you read the July, 1798 law, "An act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen" BTW, at the time, virtually all 13 states had imported into their own laws a version of "British Poor Law", sans the workhouse.

The Founder's intent isn't at issue. Also, I think most people wrongly assume it is the intent of the Framers that matters. Well, Madison on numerous occasions argued that one look to the intent of the ratifiers and NOT to the intent of the framers.