General Welfare Clause

[Votto]

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.

 

[Oddball]

Liberoidals have bastardized that and the interstate commerce clause to basically claim federal jurisdiction over anything and everything.

 

[Votto]

Liberoidals have bastardized that and the interstate commerce clause to basically claim federal jurisdiction over anything and everything.

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?

 

[jasonnfree]

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.

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.

 

[Oddball]

Liberoidals have bastardized that and the interstate commerce clause to basically claim federal jurisdiction over anything and everything.

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, can we safely say that Wilson's notion of a federal Congress better representing the populace better than a state legislature is full of poo?

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.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

 

[Listening]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Votto]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Votto]

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

 

[OKTexas]

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.

 

[Votto]

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.

At times SCOTUS has stood up to the federal powers, like when FDR tried to pass his New Deal programs and social security. Originally they declared them unconstitutional, but then FDR tried to unseat them by his court packing scheme. Even though the scheme failed in Congress, SCOTUS seemed spooked enough to change course and pass everything his hearts desire.

Today we have a Supreme Court that declares legislation unconstitutional, but then changes the legislation by declaring it to be really a tax so it could work via Obamacare. By in large SCOTUS is merely a place where the federal government gains legitimacy in the eyes of the public. To think we have checks and balances is absurd.

 

[OKTexas]

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 so unlimited 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.

The "general welfare clause" is not a stand alone clause as interpreted by the courts, it is part of the taxing clause and general welfare and common defense are basically the two catagories for which government was intented to spend their money. Those two catagories were further limited by the remainder of Article 1, Section 8, where they defined allowable subcatagories. You don't have to be a Constutituonal expert to understand it, the founder said it was written so the simplest of farmers could understand it. It's onlly when the lawyers get involved when it is made complicated.

 

[Votto]

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.

Do you have a link?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

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.

Then you misunderstand.

It is not ‘progressives’ or democrats or republicans, for that matter, who interpret the GWC as affording Congress the power to tax pursuant to the general welfare and a legitimate end, but the Supreme Court.

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.

Have you ever read the opinions of the Supreme Court on the issue? It alone has the authority to determine what the Constitution means.

Here the Court acknowledges the Hamiltonian position to be the correct understanding:

While…the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

United States v. Butler

Butler was reaffirmed in South Dakota v. Dole (1987):

[O]bjectives not thought to be within Article I's "enumerated legislative fields[]" may nevertheless be attained through the use of the spending power and the conditional grant of federal funds.

SOUTH DAKOTA, Petitioner, v. Elizabeth H. DOLE, Secretary, United States Department of Transportation. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

It is therefore accepted and settled law as to Congress’ taxing and spending authority; consequently there is no ‘nanny state,’ which is merely an inane contrivance of the right.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

At times SCOTUS has stood up to the federal powers, like when FDR tried to pass his New Deal programs and social security. Originally they declared them unconstitutional, but then FDR tried to unseat them by his court packing scheme. Even though the scheme failed in Congress, SCOTUS seemed spooked enough to change course and pass everything his hearts desire.

Today we have a Supreme Court that declares legislation unconstitutional, but then changes the legislation by declaring it to be really a tax so it could work via Obamacare. By in large SCOTUS is merely a place where the federal government gains legitimacy in the eyes of the public. To think we have checks and balances is absurd.

Yep, I'm fully aware of this, but I still put the blame on the court for not standing their ground and honoring their oath.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” - Lysander Spooner

 

[Votto]

Have you ever read the opinions of the Supreme Court on the issue? It alone has the authority to determine what the Constitution means.

Here the Court acknowledges the Hamiltonian position to be the correct understanding:

[.

Yes, I know, progressives cling to the skirt of Hamilton, because they have nothing else. Too bad he is not known for being the father of the Constitution like Madison.

A brilliant legal mind can argue anything..........ANYTHING. In fact, I'm amused by how Obama got out of answering to Congress for the war in Libya by simply stating that it was not really a war.

 

[OKTexas]

In US v. Butler and adopting Hamilitons view the court accomplished two thing, they gave the feds the authority to spend outside the enumerated powers and granted themselves juridiction over that spending. It was a calculate power grab by the supremes.

 

[Listening]

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.

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.

Then you misunderstand.

It is not ‘progressives’ or democrats or republicans, for that matter, who interpret the GWC as affording Congress the power to tax pursuant to the general welfare and a legitimate end, but the Supreme Court.



Have you ever read the opinions of the Supreme Court on the issue? It alone has the authority to determine what the Constitution means.

Here the Court acknowledges the Hamiltonian position to be the correct understanding:

While…the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

United States v. Butler

Butler was reaffirmed in South Dakota v. Dole (1987):

[O]bjectives not thought to be within Article I's "enumerated legislative fields[]" may nevertheless be attained through the use of the spending power and the conditional grant of federal funds.

SOUTH DAKOTA, Petitioner, v. Elizabeth H. DOLE, Secretary, United States Department of Transportation. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

It is therefore accepted and settled law as to Congress’ taxing and spending authority; consequently there is no ‘nanny state,’ which is merely an inane contrivance of the right.

Oh, how I love this kind of trash.....

The SCOTUS gets to tell us what the Constitution means.

Only according to John Marshall....nothing is ever "settled".

 

[Votto]

In US v. Butler and adopting Hamilitons view the court accomplished two thing, they gave the feds the authority to spend outside the enumerated powers and granted themselves juridiction over that spending. It was a calculate power grab by the supremes.

If it were not for men like Jefferson and Madison, the Federalist party and their ilk, like Hamilton, would have created a centralized bohemouth much sooner. In fact, the tide turned on the Federalists with the attempt at the Sedition Acts, which attempted to limite freedom of speech.