Legislating Morality

[Nemo]

If morality is the basis of the law, then the question is: Whose morals should be applied ( your morals, my morals, Justice Antonin Scalia’s morals - the so-called “moral majority”)? It’s impracticable - it simply doesn’t work. The problem is that people don’t understand this, and insist that it be otherwise.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

OK, you provide some clarification on your position with that point. There is no public purpose for laws saying how people can and cannot get fucked up. There's a clear public purpose of penalizing them for driving while fucked up. Do we agree on that point?

If we really wanted to get drunks off the street it's actually somewhat easy. Put an interlock device into cars standard. That will drive down the rate of drunk driving a hell of a lot more than jail time, fines, suspended licenses, counselling, blah, blah, blah that drunks don't give a shit about but makes a lot of people a lot of money.

Perfect example....where creativity levels the playing-field, for ALL involved!!!

Problem? It might also impact those folks who feel they're entitled to a "pass", by virtue of their bank-account.​

 

[BluePhantom]

I think the OP is dead on the nose and I have made this argument several times. It's not the role of government to save us from ourselves; that's our job. I have a Mother and don't need another one...particularly one that fails at just about everything they do in regards to social functions.

Government should keep us safe from the threat of invasion, establish a financial environment that is conducive to trade, establish and enforce laws that apply only to instances wherein actual harm is done to our citizens, and then shut the fuck up and let us live our lives.

One thing that people seem to not understand is that laws do not stop people from doing a damn thing; they only punish those who get caught doing it. This is why people laugh so hard at the left when they come up with brilliant ideas like: "in the wake of the Gabby Giffords incident we need to pass a law that you can't carry a gun within 500 ft of an elected official". Pffft....like a criminal is going to give a shit about the law. They don't...that's why they are a criminal. This is why prohibition failed, this is why the war on drugs has failed....people don't care if it's illegal. If they want to do it, they will do it.

So the question is not: "is there an activity we need to stop?" Forget that line of reasoning because government won't stop it. The question should be: "is this action worth punishing someone for?" When no harm has been done to another I see no reason for punishment.

 

[BluePhantom]

The left has no problem with morality. They have a very strict moral code, one they would like to see codified. And in some cases HAVE codified. Wear your seat belt, recycle, stop denying global warming, restrictions on property rights, respect to "diversity". An entire codebook of "hate" speech laws. The "war" on obesity. The left intends to enforce morality, just their morality.

Oh and the religious right doesn't? The war on homosexuals, abortion, war on pornography....come on Katz. The religious right is every bit as bad as the liberals in that regard.

 

[code1211]

Seeing-as-how "reproductive rights" would be one o' the most-personal ones....why would anyone need to explain (to others) what "rights" that person (who's making that decision...for themself) has reserved for themself??



Why do some people feel entitled....to tell others what they can/can't do, with their own body (especially when their decision has no direct-impact on society, in-general)???​

If that person demands that society provide the financial support for them to use the "right".

There are really only two types of sex: Recreational and procreational.

If the intent of a sex act is procreation, then no birth control is desired.

If the intent of a sex act is recreational, then the desired birth control device is not appreciably different than the cost of a ticket to Magic Mountain or a movie.

Are you saying that the cost of recreation is reasonable demand to make of the people for the gratification of the need for recreation on the behalf of an individual?

Some people certainly-do feel it's much-more-important....

.....than our national economic-stability.

The Romney-"cabin".​

I wasn't asking what some people think. I want to know your opinion on this.

Are all forms of recreation by their nature cause for the people to pay for the individual or only recreational sex?

Why might the recreation of some be more deserving of subsidy than the recreation of others?

 

[Dick Tuck]

You're wrong. Hamilton argued the opposite before ratification. Maybe I'll dig up a quote. In the meantime, I'm curious - what limits do you see on the presumed general welfare power?

The powers enumerated by the rest of the document.. And no, here's what Hamilton wrote regarding the "general welfare" clause: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

Did you happen to notice the date on that? It was written three years after the Constitution was ratified. This is exactly what I was talking about. He changed his tune. Now go read the Federalist papers.

Read them, as well as the anti-federalist papers. Hamilton's view is consistent. General welfare meant then, what it means now. His remedy to excess or abuse of the clause was the ballot.

 

[code1211]

The powers enumerated by the rest of the document.. And no, here's what Hamilton wrote regarding the "general welfare" clause: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

Did you happen to notice the date on that? It was written three years after the Constitution was ratified. This is exactly what I was talking about. He changed his tune. Now go read the Federalist papers.

Read them, as well as the anti-federalist papers. Hamilton's view is consistent. General welfare meant then, what it means now. His remedy to excess or abuse of the clause was the ballot.

General welfare as we define it today for the purposes of governmental support of the individual was known as "charity" in the time of our founding fathers.

General Welfare as it appears in the Constitution applies to the Union of States, not the individual. Since Charity to the individual is not power enumerated as being within the purview of the Feds, it is reserved to the States or to the people.

 

[Dick Tuck]

You're wrong. Hamilton argued the opposite before ratification. Maybe I'll dig up a quote. In the meantime, I'm curious - what limits do you see on the presumed general welfare power?

The powers enumerated by the rest of the document.. And no, here's what Hamilton wrote regarding the "general welfare" clause: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

The justification presented by Hamilton may be what he wanted at the time, but is supported by a partial citation of the text of the text of the Constition and is therefore a deception and a perversion of the intent of the founders.

The quote from the Hamilton piece that you present:

"To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare"

The quote of the complete phrase from the Constitution:

Clause 1: 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;

Highlighted in red are the words that hamilton edited out and thereby changed the meaning.

He and you are lying.

That highlighted part has nothing to do with the concept of "general welfare". All duties, imposts and excises are uniform throughout the states. What an ignorant ass monkey you are.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Did you happen to notice the date on that? It was written three years after the Constitution was ratified. This is exactly what I was talking about. He changed his tune. Now go read the Federalist papers.

Read them, as well as the anti-federalist papers. Hamilton's view is consistent. General welfare meant then, what it means now. His remedy to excess or abuse of the clause was the ballot.

General welfare as we define it today for the purposes of governmental support of the individual was known as "charity" in the time of our founding fathers.

General Welfare as it appears in the Constitution applies to the Union of States, not the individual. Since Charity to the individual is not power enumerated as being within the purview of the Feds, it is reserved to the States or to the people.

General welfare meant then exactly what it means now. In context, it means whatever congress decides is for the public good, whether that be a National Park or SCHIPS or WIC. And the remedy to excess, as expressed by Hamilton, is the ballot box.

Funny how Madison, who was the main opponent of the clause, shifted gears after Washington burned, under his watch. He went from opposing a National Bank to asking for a second one.

Did you know that the Public Health Service actually grew out of legislation from the Washington administration, where he authorized a hospital and old age home for merchant marines?

 

[dblack]

General welfare meant then exactly what it means now. In context, it means whatever congress decides is for the public good, whether that be a National Park or SCHIPS or WIC. And the remedy to excess, as expressed by Hamilton, is the ballot box.

I've been down this road too many times to imagine there's any way to convince you you're wrong, but I am curious about those of you who embrace the blank check version of the general welfare clause. How do you see it limited in any way?

You're citing here the "ballot box" - but that's weak tea indeed. We're seeing in this election, yet again, how much power voters have to push for change - essentially none.

 

[code1211]

The powers enumerated by the rest of the document.. And no, here's what Hamilton wrote regarding the "general welfare" clause: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

The justification presented by Hamilton may be what he wanted at the time, but is supported by a partial citation of the text of the text of the Constition and is therefore a deception and a perversion of the intent of the founders.

The quote from the Hamilton piece that you present:

"To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare"

The quote of the complete phrase from the Constitution:

Clause 1: 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;

Highlighted in red are the words that hamilton edited out and thereby changed the meaning.

He and you are lying.

That highlighted part has nothing to do with the concept of "general welfare". All duties, imposts and excises are uniform throughout the states. What an ignorant ass monkey you are.

So, when used in the phrase "...general welfare of the United States...", The words "United States" have nothing to do with the words "general welfare"?

As in all cases of name calling, I will assume that name calling is your strongest response. Good for you!

It was not until the 1930's, arguably after the deaths of the Founders, that your interpretation of the General Welfare clause gained legal and popular underpinnings.

Out of curiosity, what do I need to do do to upgrade from and ignorant ass monkey to an informed ass monkey?

General Welfare clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are exceptions to the typical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government[2] as the U.S. Supreme Court has held:
the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments";[3][4] and,
that Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction of the Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clause—as elaborated in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States—is the correct interpretation.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.
Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”[7]
In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall described in obiter dictum a further limit on the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."[8]

 

[Katiegrrl0]

Morality is a notion of right and wrong individual to each person. Morality is a catch all term by which some people judge others.
Culture and a persons experience help create their moral structure. Morals change and are adapted to the society. This is why X rated movies from the 60's are only R today.
Most laws are based on some moral principal valuable to society at any given moment. The government will always make laws that have implications on morals.
Abortion is a perfect example. Some find it morally reprehensible while others see this issue as promoting women's rights is not morally based at all.
You will never stop the government from moral judgement, no matter what government you are looking at.

 

[Dick Tuck]

General welfare meant then exactly what it means now. In context, it means whatever congress decides is for the public good, whether that be a National Park or SCHIPS or WIC. And the remedy to excess, as expressed by Hamilton, is the ballot box.

I've been down this road too many times to imagine there's any way to convince you you're wrong, but I am curious about those of you who embrace the blank check version of the general welfare clause. How do you see it limited in any way?

I think Justice Harlan Stone, in Flemming v. Nester, sums it up pretty well: "only if the statute manifests a patently arbitrary classification, utterly lacking in rational justification." I.E. doesn't clearly serve the public good. I'll add that the rest of the constitution does put considerable restraint on legislation.

You're citing here the "ballot box" - but that's weak tea indeed. We're seeing in this election, yet again, how much power voters have to push for change - essentially none.

I've seen too many examples of throwing people out of office to buy that. But that's getting much harder to do after Robert's idiotic ruling in Citizens. Now those with the most money, including corporations, can flood the air waves, control the message, and essentially baffle us with bullshit.

 

[code1211]

General welfare meant then exactly what it means now. In context, it means whatever congress decides is for the public good, whether that be a National Park or SCHIPS or WIC. And the remedy to excess, as expressed by Hamilton, is the ballot box.

I've been down this road too many times to imagine there's any way to convince you you're wrong, but I am curious about those of you who embrace the blank check version of the general welfare clause. How do you see it limited in any way?

I think Justice Harlan Stone, in Flemming v. Nester, sums it up pretty well: "only if the statute manifests a patently arbitrary classification, utterly lacking in rational justification." I.E. doesn't clearly serve the public good. I'll add that the rest of the constitution does put considerable restraint on legislation.

You're citing here the "ballot box" - but that's weak tea indeed. We're seeing in this election, yet again, how much power voters have to push for change - essentially none.

I've seen too many examples of throwing people out of office to buy that. But that's getting much harder to do after Robert's idiotic ruling in Citizens. Now those with the most money, including corporations, can flood the air waves, control the message, and essentially baffle us with bullshit.

In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall described in obiter dictum a further limit on the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."[8]

 

[BluePhantom]

Now those with the most money, including corporations, can flood the air waves, control the message, and essentially baffle us with bullshit.

You don't like it when others use your own tactics against you, huh?

 

[Clementine]

Law, in a democratic society, ought to be able to demonstrate a clear and compelling public need being fulfilled.

Every big idea that tried to legislate individual moral standards, failed.

Prohibition...FAIL
War On Drugs...FAIL
War On Pornography...FAIL
War On Private Sexual Relations...FAIL
The Current War On Women's Reproductive Rights...destined to FAIL

I would also argue against simple 'public need.' Those are vaporous words that can be used to legislate anything at all.

It is a dire public need to outlaw drugs because they cause massive social harm.

No, such a law is asinine because it does not infringe on anyone's rights. The only real break I would make to that argument is basic law to protect consumers from business such as not allowing businesses to make false claims. I guess you could make an argument for infringement of rights for that too though.

Your last quote is a misinterpretation though.

The Current War On Women's Reproductive Rights...destined to FAIL

There is no war on women's reproductive rights, at least not in the way you are framing it. If you are talking about BC pills then the right is spot on. If you are talking about abortion then the extremes on both sides are dead wrong and the answer lies in the middle. Strangely enough, that happens to be close to where the line is anyway and the solid truth is that abortion is not going to change anytime soon.

Liberals claim you deny them something by refusing to pay for it. It's not sufficient to have freedom of choice, you must foot the bill. This is one of those ways where they do legislate morality. This person wants/needs this and therefore government will force someone to pay for it. Your own conscience is of no concern, only what the government feels is right and wrong. You are immoral if you seek to deny a person their free cell phone or birth control pills. The government will force us to do what they decide is the right, and moral, thing.

In reality, none of us have been born with or given the right to take what other people earn. Government promoting the general welfare has been twisted to mean providing welfare for all. The right to pursue happiness has been taken to mean a person must have everything they want, but the government now pursues it on their behalf.

I think the biggest reason that this country is in a mess is because government has inserted itself in people lives, as if a large portion of the population is inept when it comes to understanding and exercising their rights. Of course, once government is in the driver's seat, they expand their "rights" as to not be confined when they try to keep their voters happy. Of course, many of the new rights are only for a select group of people, namely government dependents who are deserving of being given things for free at the expense of the middle class. The wealthy might be the ones vilified, the the middle class always pays the penalty.

The government says we all have a right to health care. Some of us will suffer financially because of this new right. This new right gives the government dependents the right to the services of others (medical personnel) and the right to have it paid for by the rest of us. Their rights and our rights when it comes to health care are not the same. Their right to have it free means we now have the burden to pay for it all or be fined or go to jail. Equal rights are a thing of the past. Now rights are distributed as the government sees fit. One person's right is another person's debt.

As long as government is allowed to reach into the pockets of tax payers, they will always do so while claiming that people have a right to this or that and if we refuse to pay for it, we are denying them their rights. Their own moralty is imposed on us through laws.

 

[Dick Tuck]

The justification presented by Hamilton may be what he wanted at the time, but is supported by a partial citation of the text of the text of the Constition and is therefore a deception and a perversion of the intent of the founders.

The quote from the Hamilton piece that you present:

"To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare"

The quote of the complete phrase from the Constitution:

Clause 1: 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;

Highlighted in red are the words that hamilton edited out and thereby changed the meaning.

He and you are lying.

That highlighted part has nothing to do with the concept of "general welfare". All duties, imposts and excises are uniform throughout the states. What an ignorant ass monkey you are.

So, when used in the phrase "...general welfare of the United States...", The words "United States" have nothing to do with the words "general welfare"?

General welfare of the United States has everything to do with it. Hence, my opening opinion in this thread, Public Law must be to serve a public need.

As in all cases of name calling, I will assume that name calling is your strongest response. Good for you!

I don't like being called a liar, which was the term you chose. So I'm surprised by this statement of yours. You know what they say about living in glass houses.

It was not until the 1930's, arguably after the deaths of the Founders, that your interpretation of the General Welfare clause gained legal and popular underpinnings.

Nonsense, it happened though out our history, from the first national banks to homestead acts, manifest destiny policies, etc.. The only thing different in the 30s was an economic collapse that put people in dire poverty. The ruling in Helvering v. Davis was very clear on the point of General Welfare allowing passage of the Social Security Act.

Out of curiosity, what do I need to do do to upgrade from and ignorant ass monkey to an informed ass monkey?

Start by not calling someone a liar, when he's presenting facts, just because you don't agree with the facts being presented. That would be a good start.

General Welfare clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are exceptions to the typical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government[2] as the U.S. Supreme Court has held:
the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments";[3][4] and,
that Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction of the Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clause—as elaborated in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States—is the correct interpretation.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.
Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”[7]
In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall described in obiter dictum a further limit on the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."[8]

Jefferson is free to offer his opinion, but he wasn't even in the country during the Constitutional Convention. He's an interesting study of contradictions. Didn't he buy a big chunk of land from the French and send Lewis and Clark to find biological samples?

 

[dblack]

General welfare meant then exactly what it means now. In context, it means whatever congress decides is for the public good, whether that be a National Park or SCHIPS or WIC. And the remedy to excess, as expressed by Hamilton, is the ballot box.

I've been down this road too many times to imagine there's any way to convince you you're wrong, but I am curious about those of you who embrace the blank check version of the general welfare clause. How do you see it limited in any way?

I think Justice Harlan Stone, in Flemming v. Nester, sums it up pretty well: "only if the statute manifests a patently arbitrary classification, utterly lacking in rational justification." I.E. doesn't clearly serve the public good. I'll add that the rest of the constitution does put considerable restraint on legislation.

How? That's what I was hoping you'd elaborate on. You say it's not an unlimited power, but short of a few token 'rights' listed in the first eight amendments, I see no limitation on it at all. Beside the notion of "patently arbitrary classification, utterly lacking in rational justification", which is no less vague and subjective than 'general welfare', what structural constraints on government exist from this perspective?

When you combine this with your (again, utterly mistaken, in my view) premise that the purpose of government is to supply our needs, you end up with a directive for totalitarian government. Granted, it's totalitarian government instructed to "promote the general welfare" and take good care of its subjects, but I find that very weak consolation.

 

[Erand7899]

I have meant to post this topic for a long time but have failed to do so until I seen Immie recently mention government legislating morality and I could not let another statement like this slide. I have heard time and time again that it is the governments place to legislate morality and that all law is based on this. The worst part is that I hear this mostly from the 'small' government right here on this board. You cannot have a small government at the same time as a government that decides morality. Those two situations are mutually exclusive because a government that is based on determining morality has any and all rights to do whatever it feels is moral at the time.


IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS PLACE TO LEGISLATE MORALITY. PERIOD.


It is one of the most egregious things that the government does when it legislates my activities based on what it feels is right and wrong. That was never the place of the government and we should never have given it such an unstoppable power. Now, before you go into making murder or theft illegal and claiming that is legislating morality, it is not. The number one job of the government (and in reality, the only real job of government) should be to protect its citizens rights. It is in that duty that acts like murder, theft and other laws derive their need. It prevents on citizen from infringing on the rights of other citizens.

Personally, if I were to draft a law, the primary question that should be asked is what right does this law protect. If the answer was none then such a law would be meaningless and discarded. If the government can decide what is immoral and moral, how long are you going to wait for the government to decide that YOUR morality is not the correct morality.


Morality, like beauty, exists only in the mind of the individual in question. Morality cannot be legislated, or enforced, since it is purely mental. What some of you consider morality, is more properly referred to as a code of conduct. Can government legislate conduct? Yes! Should government regulate conduct? Only to protect one citizen, or one citizen's property, from another person or persons.

Society has a right to establish a code of conduct, that it considers proper for positive interactions of a civilized people. That code of conduct can only properly be enforced by approval of condemnation by the members of that society.

 

[Dick Tuck]

I've been down this road too many times to imagine there's any way to convince you you're wrong, but I am curious about those of you who embrace the blank check version of the general welfare clause. How do you see it limited in any way?

I think Justice Harlan Stone, in Flemming v. Nester, sums it up pretty well: "only if the statute manifests a patently arbitrary classification, utterly lacking in rational justification." I.E. doesn't clearly serve the public good. I'll add that the rest of the constitution does put considerable restraint on legislation.

How? That's what I was hoping you'd elaborate on. You say it's not an unlimited power, but short of a few token 'rights' listed in the first eight amendments, I see no limitation on it at all. Beside the notion of "patently arbitrary classification, utterly lacking in rational justification", which is no less vague and subjective than 'general welfare', what structural constraints on government exist from this perspective?

Please don't reframe my argument into your starwman. I never limited anything to the first eight amendments. As another example, we have the 14th amendment which is a constraint on what states can and can't do, plus we have the interstate commerce clause which further limits them.

When you combine this with your (again, utterly mistaken, in my view) premise that the purpose of government is to supply our needs, you end up with a directive for totalitarian government. Granted, it's totalitarian government instructed to "promote the general welfare" and take good care of its subjects, but I find that very weak consolation.

"Supply our needs" is not a term I used. I used the word public need, or public purpose. I don't use food stamps, never applied for welfare or even unemployment insurance. But I fully respect the public purpose of those programs, since they clearly support both commerce and domestic tranquility.