If universal health care is so great...

[Charles_Main]

"The Federal Government has the right to do whatever it deems necessary to promote the general welfare of it's citizens in whatever form it decides that to take."

Oh that's right, because that view is false, created by statists created during the FDR years to enable the illegal expansion of federal power.

The notion that the General Welfare clause has broad implications certainly predates the 20th century.

Here's Alexander Hamilton (a signer of the Constitution and author of many of the Federalist papers) writing on December 5, 1791:

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.​

The notion may have been around forever, however it does not make it any less wrong.

How can anyone imagine that the founders would write a document that sought to limit the power of the government it set up at every turn, and then include one line, in the preamble that they intended to be used as a blanket excuse for the government to use to justify just about anything?

yeah that would make a lot of sense.

it is in the preamble for a reason. Because it is not a power of the government. It is a reason for it. It is saying this is why we are setting up this government and restraining as we are. To promote the general welfare. It is in no way saying. The Government can do anything it wants in the name of general welfare.

 

[Charles_Main]

For gods sakes you guys. Anyone with half a brain can see the preamble is a list of reasons why the founders did what they did, not a list of powers for the government they set up.

Show me one place in the body of the document that says the government should supply direct welfare to the people? Who me one place where it says they can apply direct taxes to do it?

Even one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone can see that Charles Main unmasked the weakness of the Founders.

They could not foresee the future, thus to suggest that we should hold to "originalism" is the war cry of reactionary one-thinkers.

Good to know who they are, because they can be unmasked for what they are: the 21st century version of the 18th century loyalists or the 19th century secessionists.

They can't change for the better of the country and the citizens. So be it.

 

[Greenbeard]

The notion may have been around forever, however it does not make it any less wrong.

How can anyone imagine that the founders would write a document that sought to limit the power of the government it set up at every turn, and then include one line, in the preamble that they intended to be used as a blanket excuse for the government to use to justify just about anything?

To reiterate: Hamilton was a Founder. Not only was he a signer of the Constitution, he was one of its primary salesmen in the run-up to ratification (see: the Federalist papers).

How could I think some of the Founders took a broad view of the General Welfare clause? Because I just quoted one doing exactly that.

it is in the preamble for a reason. Because it is not a power of the government. It is a reason for it. It is saying this is why we are setting up this government and restraining as we are. To promote the general welfare. It is in no way saying. The Government can do anything it wants in the name of general welfare.

The quote from Hamilton isn't about the preamble, it's about Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 (i.e. the very first power of Congress laid down): "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"

 

[Charles_Main]

Anyone can see that Charles Main unmasked the weakness of the Founders.

They could not foresee the future, thus to suggest that we should hold to "originalism" is the war cry of reactionary one-thinkers.

Good to know who they are, because they can be unmasked for what they are: the 21st century version of the 18th century loyalists or the 19th century secessionists.

They can't change for the better of the country and the citizens. So be it.

Wait so because I want the government not to take powers never intended to be theirs? I am now the same as a loyalist to the king or a separatist in the civil war.

Now that's fucking funny.

 

[Charles_Main]

The notion may have been around forever, however it does not make it any less wrong.

How can anyone imagine that the founders would write a document that sought to limit the power of the government it set up at every turn, and then include one line, in the preamble that they intended to be used as a blanket excuse for the government to use to justify just about anything?

To reiterate: Hamilton was a Founder. Not only was he a signer of the Constitution, he was one of its primary salesmen in the run-up to ratification (see: the Federalist papers).

How could I think some of the Founders took a broad view of the General Welfare clause? Because I just quoted one doing exactly that.

it is in the preamble for a reason. Because it is not a power of the government. It is a reason for it. It is saying this is why we are setting up this government and restraining as we are. To promote the general welfare. It is in no way saying. The Government can do anything it wants in the name of general welfare.

The quote from Hamilton isn't about the preamble, it's about Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 (i.e. the very first power of Congress laid down): "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"

Um that is one founder not some.

 

[Greenbeard]

Um that is one founder not some.

George Washington tentatively embraced Hamilton's view when he chartered the First National Bank in 1791. Amazingly there were political disagreements--between the Founders--about the correct application of the Constitution even then.

 

[driveby]

Anyone can see that Charles Main unmasked the weakness of the Founders.

They could not foresee the future, thus to suggest that we should hold to "originalism" is the war cry of reactionary one-thinkers.

Good to know who they are, because they can be unmasked for what they are: the 21st century version of the 18th century loyalists or the 19th century secessionists.

They can't change for the better of the country and the citizens. So be it.

Jesus Christ, you're the clown that ENJOYS the attention of having a "kick me" sign taped on his back......

 

[JakeStarkey]

Driveby, you offer nothing, so drive on by!

You are Dude Jr, I guess. No stick, lots of balls.

 

[Big Fitz]

"The Federal Government has the right to do whatever it deems necessary to promote the general welfare of it's citizens in whatever form it decides that to take."

Oh that's right, because that view is false, created by statists created during the FDR years to enable the illegal expansion of federal power.

The notion that the General Welfare clause has broad implications certainly predates the 20th century.

Here's Alexander Hamilton (a signer of the Constitution and author of many of the Federalist papers) writing on December 5, 1791:

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.​

I will refute it with James Madison's own words from Federalist #41.

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

The Federalist #41

As he points out using the contrary, that the very statement that the general welfare clause is unlimited and critics are being disingenuous by calling it such, is because of the enumerations of power that follow.

Therefore, even with such convoluted language, the General Welfare Clause IS limited to enumerated powers only, and has flexible language in as much as the methods in which it deals with the mechanics of providing for these enumerated powers.

Consider also that we are talking about a time in history where there was a near universal distrust for all government by those who crafted our form of government. Hamilton being one of the lone standouts for he only wanted a new King and English system of nobility, not a new form of government. Burr's bullet at least put a stop to that.

They stole language from the articles of confederation that did include such words as General Welfare, but again, it was always constrained on what type of general welfare was the perview of government as well. This leads for an originalist view that corresponds with the idea that the general welfare is not an all encompassing clause. None of the states would have ratified it, for none of them would want to have lost their own sovereignty.

Consider this too. When the constitution was ratified, it was not ratified as subservient states that abdicated their sovereignty, but as willing and free participants in the Union. All states still hold this nature, even today. Lincoln brought the south to heel. Although the morality of ending slavery is NOT the point some long debate can be done whether or not it was the right thing to do, in regards to states rights which were trampled on tremendously.

We are rapidly coming to a point in our history where the federal government has vastly overstepped it's authority and the states may have to rise up again and potentially put the federal government back in it's place as the weaker sister in this Union, returning us back to our patchwork quilt of 50 laboratories in democracy.

 

[Big Fitz]

"The Federal Government has the right to do whatever it deems necessary to promote the general welfare of it's citizens in whatever form it decides that to take."

Oh that's right, because that view is false, created by statists created during the FDR years to enable the illegal expansion of federal power.

The notion that the General Welfare clause has broad implications certainly predates the 20th century.

Here's Alexander Hamilton (a signer of the Constitution and author of many of the Federalist papers) writing on December 5, 1791:

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.​

I will refute it with James Madison's own words from Federalist #41.

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

The Federalist #41

As he points out using the contrary, that the very statement that the general welfare clause is unlimited and critics are being disingenuous by calling it such, is because of the enumerations of power that follow.

Therefore, even with such convoluted language, the General Welfare Clause IS limited to enumerated powers only, and has flexible language in as much as the methods in which it deals with the mechanics of providing for these enumerated powers.

Consider also that we are talking about a time in history where there was a near universal distrust for all government by those who crafted our form of government. Hamilton being one of the lone standouts for he only wanted a new King and English system of nobility, not a new form of government. Burr's bullet at least put a stop to that.

They stole language from the articles of confederation that did include such words as General Welfare, but again, it was always constrained on what type of general welfare was the perview of government as well. This leads for an originalist view that corresponds with the idea that the general welfare is not an all encompassing clause. None of the states would have ratified it, for none of them would want to have lost their own sovereignty.

Consider this too. When the constitution was ratified, it was not ratified as subservient states that abdicated their sovereignty, but as willing and free participants in the Union. All states still hold this nature, even today. Lincoln brought the south to heel. Although the morality of ending slavery is NOT the point some long debate can be done whether or not it was the right thing to do, in regards to states rights which were trampled on tremendously.

We are rapidly coming to a point in our history where the federal government has vastly overstepped it's authority and the states may have to rise up again and potentially put the federal government back in it's place as the weaker sister in this Union, returning us back to our patchwork quilt of 50 laboratories in democracy.

 

[Bern80]

Anyone can see that Charles Main unmasked the weakness of the Founders.

They could not foresee the future, thus to suggest that we should hold to "originalism" is the war cry of reactionary one-thinkers.

Good to know who they are, because they can be unmasked for what they are: the 21st century version of the 18th century loyalists or the 19th century secessionists.

They can't change for the better of the country and the citizens. So be it.

The lame excuse of someone attempting a power grab. The framers didn't screw anything up. If you want to change the constitution the instructions are there on exactly how you can do that. But you don't get to ignore just because it's inconvenient for social program x. I ask again, if you don't hold to originalism what legal leg are you going to have to stand on when government finally makes a power grab you don't like? The answer is you won't. You have, in small increments, given away your freedom by YOUR choice and then weasel's like yourself are going to wake the fuck up one day, wonder where it went and blame everyone but yourself for it.

 

[Bern80]

The notion may have been around forever, however it does not make it any less wrong.

How can anyone imagine that the founders would write a document that sought to limit the power of the government it set up at every turn, and then include one line, in the preamble that they intended to be used as a blanket excuse for the government to use to justify just about anything?

To reiterate: Hamilton was a Founder. Not only was he a signer of the Constitution, he was one of its primary salesmen in the run-up to ratification (see: the Federalist papers).

How could I think some of the Founders took a broad view of the General Welfare clause? Because I just quoted one doing exactly that.

But even Hamilton maintained that the clause taken alone still must be complied with in the way it was written. He stated the general welfare clause is not a free ticket for government to do what it wants. First of all it stated TAXES are to be collected FOR the general welfare. Which means, yes you can do things for the general welfare via tax revenue, but the tax must applied evenly and the benefits of it must apply to EVERYONE. Meaning if a weasel wanted to ignore the enumerated powers that follow the clause, the government providing health care and/or taxing people for not purchasing insurance, would STILL be unconstitutional.

 

[Big Fitz]

You know... by the same logic Greenbeard espoused, say some uber right wing Christian radical like Fred Phelps got elected president with a complicit congress. He could have being gay made a crime and execute them summarily, and fund it by taxing atheists in a super high tax bracket. After all, it's for the general welfare of the nation!

Hmmm... What a sick sad world the unlimited General Welfare clause definition would be. But it'd be atheist and gay free!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep, go back to slavery, no women voting, and so forth and so on. You, my friend, are a Loyalist.

 

[Political Junky]

We can afford to BRIBE AFghanistani warlords so we can build roads in AFghanistan.

We can piss away $1.1 trillion in misadventures in Asia

But we cannot afford HC for Americans.

What's wrong with that picture?

Oh, so much is wrong with that.

 

[Bern80]

Yep, go back to slavery, no women voting, and so forth and so on. You, my friend, are a Loyalist.

More blatant, intellectual dishonesty by the weasel. Shocker.

 

[Big Fitz]

That's why I have him on ignore Bern. He has a case of terminal stupidity I am just not willing to entertain anymore.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The centrists and the liberals will tolerate nonsense from Big Fits and Bern80. We correct them, we slap them upside of the head, we pull their arguments apart, we make them realize how stupid they look. We will not tolerate their nonsense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern, in other words, you are unhappy that you can't dictate the debate. Why? Because you are more worried about 'winning' than you are about learning. Big Fitz and Yurt have the same exact problem.

But, if you want to engage, then go ahead and post your contention that the government can't do it constitutionally. You will lose, but that's OK because you might learn.

Again you told me a negative can not be proven. Maybe you better just tell me what you think that means first because it appears you don't understand it. You said I am arguing an affirmative. Proving the government CAN'T do something would be a negative. Make up your fucking mind. Tell me what affirmative I am suppossed to argue or get your facts straight.

An aside: name calling means a fellow has fail in a discussion. Word to the wise.

No I haven't. I understand my opponent. I understand that you are intellectually dishonest, that you reframe discussions and speak in vagueries to avoid having to admit you're wrong and a liar. When your inconsistancies and outright lies are put right in front of your face (see below AGAIN), you avoid. Instead of trying to provide evidence for your stance you keep yours vagee and tell others what they are required to argue regardless if that is their position or what the discussion is really about. The record shows that you are one that cares more about winnng than intellectual honesty. My position has never changed. It is the same as that of the OP. That government providing health care is uncosntitutional, not whether they can discuss reform. The shortened term for that type of behavior in an honest discussion is called being a weasel.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.



Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread

So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?

to which you replied....

The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.

It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.

What Bern does not get is that he is not a constitutional expert.

He is entitled to his opinion, and we all have one.

He needs some clear and convincing evidence to support his claim: he doesn't, though.