General Welfare Clause

[BasicGreatGuy]

To be succinct, Article 1, Section 8 is about the enumerated delineation and proper separation of powers between the federal government and the respective states.

There is a reason why the term "general" is not capitalized. The reason "general" is not capitalized, is because of the separation of powers subsequently delineation further on in Article 1, Section 8. Where that not the case, the term "general" would have been capitalized and there would have been no need for further delineation of the specificities between the powers of Congress, and the respective states.

Contrary to popular belief by many people, the Constitution is not wholly national nor is it wholly federal. Madison makes that clear in the Federalist Papers.

The argument over this clause is nothing new.

While the SCOTUS has authored many bastardized "opinions" on this matter, we must remember, that they are just that, "opinions. The SCOTUS does not create law.

The source of the problem is not the SCOTUS, it is with "We The People," who (for a variety of reasons) continue to look to and call for the federal government to be their parent and their bank.

 

[rdean]

Republicans complaining about Democrats and the constitution. Republicans want to put an officer in every bedroom. Regulate people's sex lives and the most funny of all, helped Iraq's write their constitution:

Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

They invaded Iraq. Killed a hundred thousand people and then helped them write this? Seriously?

 

[Votto]

t.

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".

It's like listening to Dawkins interpret the Bible.

 

[Listening]

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.

Aaron Burr is my hero...if only for the fact that he parked one between Hamilton's eyes.

There is a reason Hamilton went away...he would have destroyed this country.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Republicans complaining about Democrats and the constitution. Republicans want to put an officer in every bedroom. Regulate people's sex lives and the most funny of all, helped Iraq's write their constitution:

Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

They invaded Iraq. Killed a hundred thousand people and then helped them write this? Seriously?

If this thread was the "rant about whatever you want in politics thread," your post would have some merit. What you posted has nothing to do with the subject matter of the thread.

 

[Votto]

Republicans complaining about Democrats and the constitution. Republicans want to put an officer in every bedroom. Regulate people's sex lives and the most funny of all, helped Iraq's write their constitution:

Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

They invaded Iraq. Killed a hundred thousand people and then helped them write this? Seriously?

Wut the.......

Stop with the talking points and take a deep breath and actually read what is being said.

 

[Listening]

Republicans complaining about Democrats and the constitution. Republicans want to put an officer in every bedroom. Regulate people's sex lives and the most funny of all, helped Iraq's write their constitution:

Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

They invaded Iraq. Killed a hundred thousand people and then helped them write this? Seriously?

Those classes you took on talking out your ass seem to be paying off.

 

[OKTexas]

Republicans complaining about Democrats and the constitution. Republicans want to put an officer in every bedroom. Regulate people's sex lives and the most funny of all, helped Iraq's write their constitution:

Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

They invaded Iraq. Killed a hundred thousand people and then helped them write this? Seriously?

I don't give a crap what you do in your bedroom unless you ask me to pay for what you do there. At that point it is my business.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Do you understand the difference between Congress and the city council? My guess is the answer to that is no, or you wouldn't be talking about police in a thread about the constitution of the United States of America.

 

[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 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.

Oh I understand it well enough. But clearly many people on the left do not. To follow their logic, basically the Government can raise any tax at all, for just about any reason, and say it's being done for the General Welfare of the Country.

Exactly what the founders warned about when commenting on the clause. Which despite the facts you laid out, Most on the Left act as if is a stand alone Clause granting unlimited Power to the Government.

I actually had a Lib once laugh and me and say, you people on the right say you are all about the Constitution, yet you are against Welfare (which of course I am not, but he just assumed like they all do). He went on to say it even says Welfare in the Constitution. As if when they wrote Welfare they meant Food stamps, and what not. lol

I mean that is the level of Ignorance we deal with.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You expect me to believe that no one ever argued that the General Welfare Clause applied to more than taxes before the Supreme Court said it did? I am not that stupid, even if you are.

 

[Votto]

Republicans complaining about Democrats and the constitution. Republicans want to put an officer in every bedroom. Regulate people's sex lives and the most funny of all, helped Iraq's write their constitution:

Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

They invaded Iraq. Killed a hundred thousand people and then helped them write this? Seriously?

I don't give a crap what you do in your bedroom unless you ask me to pay for what you do there. At that point it is my business.

Now, now, where is your compassion? You must pay for his rubbers and abortions and his perks for marriage via taxpayer money.........because monogomous sex demands to be subsidized by the taxpayers......even if they are not monogomous.........I think.

 

[Votto]

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:

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.

You expect me to believe that no one ever argued that the General Welfare Clause applied to more than taxes before the Supreme Court said it did? I am not that stupid, even if you are.

Now, now, we must be civil and politically correct when using the term "stupid" or "retard"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Republicans complaining about Democrats and the constitution. Republicans want to put an officer in every bedroom. Regulate people's sex lives and the most funny of all, helped Iraq's write their constitution:

Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

They invaded Iraq. Killed a hundred thousand people and then helped them write this? Seriously?

Did you even read the OP? He actually said that both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of misinterpreting the Constitution, and you respond by proving you are a brain dead idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Republicans complaining about Democrats and the constitution. Republicans want to put an officer in every bedroom. Regulate people's sex lives and the most funny of all, helped Iraq's write their constitution:

Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

They invaded Iraq. Killed a hundred thousand people and then helped them write this? Seriously?

If this thread was the "rant about whatever you want in politics thread," your post would have some merit. What you posted has nothing to do with the subject matter of the thread.

It's rdean, you are lucky the post is comprehensible.

 

[Votto]

Republicans complaining about Democrats and the constitution. Republicans want to put an officer in every bedroom. Regulate people's sex lives and the most funny of all, helped Iraq's write their constitution:

Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

They invaded Iraq. Killed a hundred thousand people and then helped them write this? Seriously?

Did you even read the OP? He actually said that both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of misinterpreting the Constitution, and you respond by proving you are a brain dead idiot.

Just so he knows, we don't want you to run from the conversation, we only wish that you would engage the conversation. We know you can do it!!!

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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:

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.

You expect me to believe that no one ever argued that the General Welfare Clause applied to more than taxes before the Supreme Court said it did? I am not that stupid, even if you are.

If you would like to read about litigation and other items related to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 try this link.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

 

[Charles_Main]

Republicans complaining about Democrats and the constitution. Republicans want to put an officer in every bedroom. Regulate people's sex lives and the most funny of all, helped Iraq's write their constitution:

Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

They invaded Iraq. Killed a hundred thousand people and then helped them write this? Seriously?

Did you even read the OP? He actually said that both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of misinterpreting the Constitution, and you respond by proving you are a brain dead idiot.

Of course they do, Because Power Corrupts.

It's not secret that Both Parties, for example, Just love to Expand, and Abuse the power of the Executive when they hold the white house. It also seems as if Congress is content to sit by and let it happen.

Definitely not one side or the other to blame when it comes to trashing out Constitution, However the left clearly holds the title when it comes to doing it in the name of the General Welfare Clause.

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

Most people in this day and age believe the feds can pledge funds for internal improvements like roads. Does that radical interpretation of the Constitution make them all progressives?

 

[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.

Most people in this day and age believe the feds can pledge funds for internal improvements like roads. Does that radical interpretation of the Constitution make them all progressives?

But it does not end there, does it? Many also believe that the feds can provide them a retirement, health care, food stamps, a new house once on Staten Island, a "decent wage", etc, etc, etc.

In short, once you go down that road where do you draw the line? I realize this way of thinking seems radical and subversive to many, but do realize this his how the country started out. Perhaps what is radical and subversive is what is going on today.