General Welfare Clause

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Votto, Nov 3, 2012.

  1. Votto
    Offline

    Votto Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2012
    Messages:
    9,336
    Thanks Received:
    1,589
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,810
    From my uderstanding, progressives, both Democrat and Republican alike, use the General Welfare Clause of the Contitution to give the nanny state legitimacy. They interpret it to say that Congress has the power to tend to the general welfare of the public at large, so any taxpayer money spent to that end is legitimate.

    However, have they ever read the writings of the Father of the Constitution who is James Madison? He wrote about the General Welfare Clause because he wrote it himself, and this was what he said about it.

    "If Congress can supply money indefinately to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the welfare, they may appoint teachers in every state, country, and parish and pay them out of their public treasury, they may take into their own hands the education of the children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union; they may assume the provision of the poor, they ma undertake the regulations of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything from the highest objects of state legislation down to the minute objects of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress......were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundation, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."

    After reading what the author had to say about the General Welfare Clause, how can progressives falsely interpret it to defend the nanny state? I would have more respect for them had they just disagreed with the Constitution and tried to amed it.

    Consider yourselves subverted and transmuted. The only hope I have is that since progressives have chosen to ignore the Constitution, they have provided a vehicle to perhaps challenge their legitimacy to power at some point. It may be a small window of hope, but it is better than nothing.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 5
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2012
  2. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Liberoidals have bastardized that and the interstate commerce clause to basically claim federal jurisdiction over anything and everything.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 4
  3. Votto
    Offline

    Votto Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2012
    Messages:
    9,336
    Thanks Received:
    1,589
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,810
    It is because they have destroyed Federalism, that is, the power of the states to govern themselves. Here is logic progressives used at the beginning of the 20th century to erradicate the power of the states. Woodrow Wison wrote,

    "The old theory of the sovereignty of the states, which used to engage our passions, has lost its vitality. The war between the states established at least this principle, that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers. Furthermore, we are impatient of state legislatures because they seem to us less representative of the thoughtful opinion of the country Congress is. We know that our legislatures do not think alike, but we are not sure that our people do not think alike."

    From the perspective of a progressive like Wilson, the Civil War proved that state sovereignty was a failure. However, what if the federal government at that time was like it is today and dominated state rights? Furthermore, what if that federal government had sided with the slave owners?

    And lastly, with an approval rating of around 10% for the Congress of the United States today, and falling, can we safely say that Wilson's notion of a federal Congress better representing the populace than a state legislature has been successfully debunked?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2012
  4. jasonnfree
    Offline

    jasonnfree Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    6,296
    Thanks Received:
    894
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,750
    This country and every other modern industrial country with high literacy rates and low mortality rates has provided for the general welfare through taxation. How would schools, roads, education, police and fire protection etc. be paid for otherwise?
    So maybe this was Madison's thinking at that time. He also didn't object to slavery and to having only propertied white males allowed to vote.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Wilson's regime set the stage for the mess we have today.

    He's easily one of the top three worst presidents of all time.
     
  6. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251
    I could pull up several quotes from our founders on this clause. All of them warning that if it was interpreted to mean the Government can do anything in the name of "the General Welfare" that it's so unlimited a power as to threaten our Republic.

    I have to agree. The Left basically argues that anything, anything at all can be done by the Fed Government under this incredibly general and Vague Clause.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2012
  7. Listening
    Offline

    Listening Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    14,989
    Thanks Received:
    1,642
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +2,045
    This is the typical Red Herring crap.

    STATES can tax and build as many roads as they like.

    The General Welfare Clause we are referencing is in the United States Constitution which has direct sway over the Federal Government.

    I could give a rats ass about other "industrialized" countries. We could kick their highly literate asses in just about anything.
     
  8. Votto
    Offline

    Votto Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2012
    Messages:
    9,336
    Thanks Received:
    1,589
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,810
    The General Welfare Clause was establishing Federal power, not state power. The power you speak of belongs to the states if the people so chose to do so.
     
  9. Votto
    Offline

    Votto Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2012
    Messages:
    9,336
    Thanks Received:
    1,589
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,810
    I see that you beat me to it. It is hard to imagine that are federally sponsored public schools are not teaching this stuff to our kids. Shocking!!! :ack-1:
     
  10. OKTexas
    Offline

    OKTexas New Life Member of the NRA 12/15 Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    23,927
    Thanks Received:
    3,727
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Near Magnolia, TX
    Ratings:
    +11,118
    The only place to lay blame is the Supreme Court, they are singularly responsible for allowing politicians and lawyers to violate their oaths to support and defend the Constitution. The founders knew politicans would do exactly what they have done, the Supreme Court was to be the anchor to keep the country from drifting off its foundation and they have failed.

    The only hope now can be found in Article 5, where the States were given the right to demand an amendment convention to rght the Union. At this point all 50 States have made more than 600 requests collectively for a convention only to be ignored by congress and the courts.

    Several groups have tried to persue this in the courts only to have the cases dismissed for lack of standing. So it is now left to the States to sue for their rights under the Constutition, so far none have had the balls to do so. I have written my representatives on this subject, but State level politicians have their eye on a federal level office and most have no interest in deminishing they power they hope to have one day. This is the very reason the words "professional" and "politician" sould never be uttered in the same sentence.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2

Share This Page