Collectivism Written Into US Constitution: General Welfare

[OohPooPahDoo]

fishing and bait....


lesson 1


there will be a test in Wednesday

I think you should stop doing LSD.

No one should stop doing LSD. It's outta sight, man!!!!

I sure knew when I had had enough.

 

[Koios]

I think you should stop doing LSD.

No one should stop doing LSD. It's outta sight, man!!!!

I sure knew when I had had enough.

You were doing it wrong. Here; let me help:

8 am ... wake up, take massive dose of LSD

Noon ... up the dose of LSD

5 pm ... realize we are all one in the universe connected by a single thread of thought energy, making us the organism we call god. Then take more LSD.

9 pm ... Sleep.

Repeat next day.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No one should stop doing LSD. It's outta sight, man!!!!

I sure knew when I had had enough.

You were doing it wrong. Here; let me help:

8 am ... wake up, take massive dose of LSD

Noon ... up the dose of LSD

5 pm ... realize we are all one in the universe connected by a single thread of thought energy, making us the organism we call god. Then take more LSD.

9 pm ... Sleep.

Repeat next day.

I was on more of a once Saturday and once Wednesday schedule.

 

[Koios]

I sure knew when I had had enough.

You were doing it wrong. Here; let me help:

8 am ... wake up, take massive dose of LSD

Noon ... up the dose of LSD

5 pm ... realize we are all one in the universe connected by a single thread of thought energy, making us the organism we call god. Then take more LSD.

9 pm ... Sleep.

Repeat next day.

I was on more of a once Saturday and once Wednesday schedule.

Probably best. That leaves Sun - Tues open for Meth. Then Thursday - Friday are crack days.

All good.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You were doing it wrong. Here; let me help:

8 am ... wake up, take massive dose of LSD

Noon ... up the dose of LSD

5 pm ... realize we are all one in the universe connected by a single thread of thought energy, making us the organism we call god. Then take more LSD.

9 pm ... Sleep.

Repeat next day.

I was on more of a once Saturday and once Wednesday schedule.

Probably best. That leaves Sun - Tues open for Meth. Then Thursday - Friday are crack days.

All good.

I only did meth for a summer. Was a bad idea.

Crack was a once or twice a year thing. Mmmmm. Crack. So good. For me crack was always a self-fixing drug - I always felt like such a crackhead after doing it, the last thing I wanted was to score more crack.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The "current intepretation" ?

LOL!

Are you telling me that at some point the clause did not mean literally what it says - that the Congress may raise taxes to provide for the general welfare? That is literally what it says - does it mean something other than that?

There are other schools of thought on the clause.

The Hamilton interpretation is the one we seem to be following.

Alexander Hamilton contended that Congress’s taxing authority is “plenary, and indefinite,” and that “the objects to which it may be appropriated [i.e., the general welfare] are no less comprehensive.”

Madison and Jefferson shared a different opinion. It holds that the preamble’s General Welfare Clause, right before the Constitution’s exacting enumeration of Congress’s powers, merely makes clear that Congress has the authority to raise revenue and spend in furtherance of those specified powers.

Tell me which do you prefer: The blank check approach of Hamilton that got us where we are today or the restrictive approach favored by Jefferson and Madison that would not allow the government to spend money on anything but its enumerated powers?

Its not a blank check. It does not allow congress to regulate for the general welfare - nor does it allow them to tax and spend for any purpose they choose.. It only allows them to tax and spend and only for the general welfare and common defence. If you'd read Hamilton you'd know this.

EDIT: It is a very broad power, no doubt. But it is hardly infinite. It does not allow Congress to, for instance, require every American eat 3 servings of vegetables a day. That's isn't taxing and spending, that's regulating behavior - its not allowed by the GW clause. Nor does it allow Congress to spend money to supplement the diets of only the poor people in Vermont - the benefit must be general in scope.

But any power not enumerated in the Constitution belongs to the states.

So quite frankly the federal government has no authority to fund welfare programs with our taxes.

The government can promote the general welfare only by staying in the bounds of its defined powers. Anything else is the responsibility of the individual states.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There are other schools of thought on the clause.

The Hamilton interpretation is the one we seem to be following.

Alexander Hamilton contended that Congress’s taxing authority is “plenary, and indefinite,” and that “the objects to which it may be appropriated [i.e., the general welfare] are no less comprehensive.”

Madison and Jefferson shared a different opinion. It holds that the preamble’s General Welfare Clause, right before the Constitution’s exacting enumeration of Congress’s powers, merely makes clear that Congress has the authority to raise revenue and spend in furtherance of those specified powers.

Tell me which do you prefer: The blank check approach of Hamilton that got us where we are today or the restrictive approach favored by Jefferson and Madison that would not allow the government to spend money on anything but its enumerated powers?

Its not a blank check. It does not allow congress to regulate for the general welfare - nor does it allow them to tax and spend for any purpose they choose.. It only allows them to tax and spend and only for the general welfare and common defence. If you'd read Hamilton you'd know this.

EDIT: It is a very broad power, no doubt. But it is hardly infinite. It does not allow Congress to, for instance, require every American eat 3 servings of vegetables a day. That's isn't taxing and spending, that's regulating behavior - its not allowed by the GW clause. Nor does it allow Congress to spend money to supplement the diets of only the poor people in Vermont - the benefit must be general in scope.

But any power not enumerated in the Constitution belongs to the states.

Article I Section 8 Clause 1 of the Constitution is in the Constitution. I can't believe you are so fucking stupid that I have to point that out.

So quite frankly the federal government has no authority to fund welfare programs with our taxes.

Sure - if you completely ignore the part of the Constitution that says - literally - Congress may tax to provide for the general welfare - you're right.

The government can promote the general welfare only by staying in the bounds of its defined powers. Anything else is the responsibility of the individual states.

It says in Article I Section 8 Clause 1 it may PROVIDE for the general welfare. I feel like we've been here before. Do you have memory problems?

 

[Katzndogz]

The general welfare clause in the Constitution pertained to the states and the general welfare of the nation. If you think that it means the government sends out a check every month they you just don't understand the Constitution.

It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to “help” individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

general welfare

Liberals disregard the meaning of the term general welfare and substitute their own. It makes them look ignorant and foolish, but no one could ever accuse a liberal of the pursuit of knowledge.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Its not a blank check. It does not allow congress to regulate for the general welfare - nor does it allow them to tax and spend for any purpose they choose.. It only allows them to tax and spend and only for the general welfare and common defence. If you'd read Hamilton you'd know this.

EDIT: It is a very broad power, no doubt. But it is hardly infinite. It does not allow Congress to, for instance, require every American eat 3 servings of vegetables a day. That's isn't taxing and spending, that's regulating behavior - its not allowed by the GW clause. Nor does it allow Congress to spend money to supplement the diets of only the poor people in Vermont - the benefit must be general in scope.

But any power not enumerated in the Constitution belongs to the states.

Article I Section 8 Clause 1 of the Constitution is in the Constitution. I can't believe you are so fucking stupid that I have to point that out.

So quite frankly the federal government has no authority to fund welfare programs with our taxes.

Sure - if you completely ignore the part of the Constitution that says - literally - Congress may tax to provide for the general welfare - you're right.

The government can promote the general welfare only by staying in the bounds of its defined powers. Anything else is the responsibility of the individual states.

It says in Article I Section 8 Clause 1 it may PROVIDE for the general welfare. I feel like we've been here before. Do you have memory problems?

It can provide insofar as it does not exceed it's enumerated powers.

It is not a blank check as you seem to think. It is exactly your take that has got us into the financial shit house.

The government has gone beyond its authority creating and funding shit it had no right to.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There are other schools of thought on the clause.

The Hamilton interpretation is the one we seem to be following.

Alexander Hamilton contended that Congress’s taxing authority is “plenary, and indefinite,” and that “the objects to which it may be appropriated [i.e., the general welfare] are no less comprehensive.”

Madison and Jefferson shared a different opinion. It holds that the preamble’s General Welfare Clause, right before the Constitution’s exacting enumeration of Congress’s powers, merely makes clear that Congress has the authority to raise revenue and spend in furtherance of those specified powers.

Tell me which do you prefer: The blank check approach of Hamilton that got us where we are today or the restrictive approach favored by Jefferson and Madison that would not allow the government to spend money on anything but its enumerated powers?

Its not a blank check. It does not allow congress to regulate for the general welfare - nor does it allow them to tax and spend for any purpose they choose.. It only allows them to tax and spend and only for the general welfare and common defence. If you'd read Hamilton you'd know this.

EDIT: It is a very broad power, no doubt. But it is hardly infinite. It does not allow Congress to, for instance, require every American eat 3 servings of vegetables a day. That's isn't taxing and spending, that's regulating behavior - its not allowed by the GW clause. Nor does it allow Congress to spend money to supplement the diets of only the poor people in Vermont - the benefit must be general in scope.

But any power not enumerated in the Constitution belongs to the states.

So quite frankly the federal government has no authority to fund welfare programs with our taxes.

The government can promote the general welfare only by staying in the bounds of its defined powers. Anything else is the responsibility of the individual states.

the 9th: just because a right is not enumerated does not = it doesn't exist. more rights exist than are enumerated

not bad:

Recapitulation

The Ninth Amendment explicitly bars denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution, but this amendment does not explicitly bar denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain powers in the Constitution.[16] It is to that enumeration of powers that the courts have pointed, in order to determine the extent of the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment.[16] Scholars are divided about whether to seek a different and more powerful role for this amendment.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Recapitulation

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There are other schools of thought on the clause.

The Hamilton interpretation is the one we seem to be following.

Alexander Hamilton contended that Congress’s taxing authority is “plenary, and indefinite,” and that “the objects to which it may be appropriated [i.e., the general welfare] are no less comprehensive.”

Madison and Jefferson shared a different opinion. It holds that the preamble’s General Welfare Clause, right before the Constitution’s exacting enumeration of Congress’s powers, merely makes clear that Congress has the authority to raise revenue and spend in furtherance of those specified powers.

Tell me which do you prefer: The blank check approach of Hamilton that got us where we are today or the restrictive approach favored by Jefferson and Madison that would not allow the government to spend money on anything but its enumerated powers?

Its not a blank check. It does not allow congress to regulate for the general welfare - nor does it allow them to tax and spend for any purpose they choose.. It only allows them to tax and spend and only for the general welfare and common defence. If you'd read Hamilton you'd know this.

EDIT: It is a very broad power, no doubt. But it is hardly infinite. It does not allow Congress to, for instance, require every American eat 3 servings of vegetables a day. That's isn't taxing and spending, that's regulating behavior - its not allowed by the GW clause. Nor does it allow Congress to spend money to supplement the diets of only the poor people in Vermont - the benefit must be general in scope.

But any power not enumerated in the Constitution belongs to the states.

So quite frankly the federal government has no authority to fund welfare programs with our taxes.

The government can promote the general welfare only by staying in the bounds of its defined powers. Anything else is the responsibility of the individual states.

Incorrect.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied, including the power to tax and spend for the general welfare:

The Supreme Court has recognized that Congress’s power to tax is extremely broad. In United States v. Doremus [1919], the Court stated that “f the legislation enacted has some reasonable relation to the exercise of the taxing authority conferred by the Constitution, it cannot be invalidated because of the supposed motives which induced it.”46

Recently, the Supreme Court, in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (NFIB),47 upheld a requirement in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act/ACA)48 beginning in 2014, that most individuals carry health insurance or pay a penalty for noncompliance as a valid exercise of Congress’ authority to levy taxes. Chief Justice Roberts, in his opinion, stated that “the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’ constitutional power to tax.”

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40846.pdf

Moreover, the constitutionality of pubic assistance is predicated upon 5th and 14th Amendment due process and equal protection jurisprudence:

Judicial recognition of welfare benefits as a right of all needy individuals also pervaded many statutory decisions challenging state practices under federal welfare laws. See Forbath, supra note 1, at 1859-62 (discussing King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1968), and lower court cases recognizing private rights of action against state welfare agencies, invalidating income attribution rules and restrictions on welfare eligibility, and making injunctive relief available for statutory violations).

http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/sites/default/files/articles/Liu.pdf

In Goldberg v.Kelly [1970], where the Court held that due process rights attach to welfare benefits, the Court stated,

From its founding the Nation’s basic commitment has been to foster the dignity and wellbeing of all persons within its borders.... Welfare, by meeting the basic demands of
subsistence, can help bring within the reach of the poor the same opportunities that are
available to others to participate meaningfully in the life of the community.... Public
assistance, then is not mere charity, but a means to “promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40846.pdf

See also: Department of Agriculture v. Moreno (1973), USDA v. Murray (1973), Lyng v. Castillo (1986).

Consequently, the Federal government does indeed have the authority to fund ‘welfare’ with our taxes, as it is staying within the bounds of its defined powers, the power to tax and spend.

The states are authorized to enact their own public assistance programs as they see fit, but so too is the Federal government authorized to afford the people of every state Federal public assistance programs when the states are unwilling or unable to do so, and use the tax dollars of citizens to realize that legitimate end.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Its not a blank check. It does not allow congress to regulate for the general welfare - nor does it allow them to tax and spend for any purpose they choose.. It only allows them to tax and spend and only for the general welfare and common defence. If you'd read Hamilton you'd know this.

EDIT: It is a very broad power, no doubt. But it is hardly infinite. It does not allow Congress to, for instance, require every American eat 3 servings of vegetables a day. That's isn't taxing and spending, that's regulating behavior - its not allowed by the GW clause. Nor does it allow Congress to spend money to supplement the diets of only the poor people in Vermont - the benefit must be general in scope.

But any power not enumerated in the Constitution belongs to the states.

So quite frankly the federal government has no authority to fund welfare programs with our taxes.

The government can promote the general welfare only by staying in the bounds of its defined powers. Anything else is the responsibility of the individual states.

the 9th: just because a right is not enumerated does not = it doesn't exist. more rights exist than are enumerated

The government doesn't have rights.