Legislating Morality

[code1211]

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.

Fair enough.

You presented half of the passage which changed the meaning from what it was to what you preferred people would believe it was.

Lying is probably not an accurate description of this. You were not lying. You were merely attempting to mislead and doing so by presenting something as fact which in truth is not a fact but, at best, a half truth.

Not exactly lying, but very, very slippery.

 

[dblack]

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.

The general welfare clause applies to the federal government, not the states.

So, where's this strawman? I'm asking for examples of how the Constitution limits federal government in any substantial way if it the general welfare clause is interpreted as you are suggesting. I cited the first eight amendments as the only limitations I could see. I'm not re-framing anything. I'm asking you if there are more, because I don't consider a listing of a few token rights to add up to 'considerable restraint'.

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.

Well, we can split hairs on your terminology, but surely we can agree there's a radical difference between protecting rights and 'public need'. If you're saying there isn't, then I guess I need you to explain what you mean by 'public need'.

 

[code1211]

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?

As you can see above, the "Facts" you present are in direct disagreement with separate opinions from two Supreme Court Chief Justices. Also Thomas Jefferson whose opinion you dismissed as not being a part of the Constitutional Convention. I was not there either. I presume that you were also absent.

Both of our opinions, along with Jefferson's, are thereby rendered inconsequential. Our's, I suspect, more inconsequential than Jefferson's.

At this point in our history, the perversion of the intent is done. The intent, framed in a country of an agricultural economy vs. an industrial one with a population of 4 million vs 330 million may be less appropriate than today's reality.

In any case, case law will prevail in any challenge and your need to put words into the mouths of the Founders is not necessary. This is merely an ideological debate and has as much or less impact on our current reality as does an interesting work of fiction.

As a side note, I did not call you a liar. I said you were lying. I also put you in the company of Hamilton. You could as easily have accused me of calling you a Hamiltonian. Would that also have garnered the Ass Monkey label?

 

[MeBelle]

,snip>
But if someone does no harm I believe the penalties should be nowhere near as brutal as they are because you are penalizing someone for "potentially" harming another. Well shit...you don't have to be drunk to potentially kill someone in a car. In fact, usually people are not. We do things every single day that could potentially harm another person and no one blinks an eye.

Furthermore the penalties have nothing to do with getting drunks off the street and have everything to do with getting money for the state and other businesses.

Obviousy Blue Phantom has observed my driving....

States need the revenue

 

[Dick Tuck]

Fair enough.

You presented half of the passage which changed the meaning from what it was to what you preferred people would believe it was.

Lying is probably not an accurate description of this. You were not lying. You were merely attempting to mislead and doing so by presenting something as fact which in truth is not a fact but, at best, a half truth.

Not exactly lying, but very, very slippery.

Except the meaning does not change with that inclusion. Yes, it applies to the United States, specifically to congress, telling them what they can make public law for, and general welfare is one of their enumerated powers.

 

[dblack]

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.

Apparently you skipped #83. Here's Hamilton responding to criticism of the Constitution from Anti-Federalists, specifically speaking ot their concern that the general welfare clause might be interpreted as a broad general power:

The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress, or, in other words, of the national legislature, shall extend to certain enumerated cases - This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.

In like manner the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction, because the objects of their cognizance being enumerated, the specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority.

Also from the Federalist Papers, Hamilton's co-author writes:

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."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity

Anyway, as I said, these historical reviews are seldom rewarding conversion - most people simply won't budge when their ideological convictions are at stake - but I felt this was worth a follow up.

 

[Dick Tuck]

As you can see above, the "Facts" you present are in direct disagreement with separate opinions from two Supreme Court Chief Justices. Also Thomas Jefferson whose opinion you dismissed as not being a part of the Constitutional Convention. I was not there either. I presume that you were also absent.

Both of our opinions, along with Jefferson's, are thereby rendered inconsequential. Our's, I suspect, more inconsequential than Jefferson's.

I'll see your two justices and raise. United States v. Butler, Helvering v. Davis, Flemming v. Nester. Then we can get into the commerce clause's "necessary and proper". Hell, even in the 1819 decision in McCulloch v. Maryland, the ruling was that "necessary and proper" could just mean convenient.

At this point in our history, the perversion of the intent is done. The intent, framed in a country of an agricultural economy vs. an industrial one with a population of 4 million vs 330 million may be less appropriate than today's reality.

Perversion? No, I think it was the brilliance of our founders that they wrote the document to cope with changing times.

In any case, case law will prevail in any challenge and your need to put words into the mouths of the Founders is not necessary. This is merely an ideological debate and has as much or less impact on our current reality as does an interesting work of fiction.

As a side note, I did not call you a liar. I said you were lying. I also put you in the company of Hamilton. You could as easily have accused me of calling you a Hamiltonian. Would that also have garnered the Ass Monkey label?

The fact remains that Washington, Hamilton, and the Federalists won the debate to include the "general welfare" clause. Madison, and the anti-federalists lost. The good news is that Madison was able to insert the first 10 amendments. But as I said, Madison was a flip flopper of limited government. He changed his attitude real quick on the need for a National Bank, after he saw Washington on fire.

 

[Katzndogz]

The term General Welfare was supposed to mean the general welfare of the nation, not that Tiesha gets her government check on time. That would be individual welfare, not connected to the needs of the Federal Government. The government can get along just fine if Tiesha has to get a part time job.

 

[GuyPinestra]

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.

As if that hasn't been the case for a century...

 

[dblack]

The fact remains that Washington, Hamilton, and the Federalists won the debate to include the "general welfare" clause. Madison, and the anti-federalists lost. The good news is that Madison was able to insert the first 10 amendments. But as I said, Madison was a flip flopper of limited government. He changed his attitude real quick on the need for a National Bank, after he saw Washington on fire.

The only way the anti-federalists 'lost' is by believing the sales pitch. They voted for ratification only after promises that the general welfare clause did not amount to a broad general power. They fell for a classic bait and switch.

 

[code1211]

I'll see your two justices and raise. United States v. Butler, Helvering v. Davis, Flemming v. Nester. Then we can get into the commerce clause's "necessary and proper". Hell, even in the 1819 decision in McCulloch v. Maryland, the ruling was that "necessary and proper" could just mean convenient.




Perversion? No, I think it was the brilliance of our founders that they wrote the document to cope with changing times.



The fact remains that Washington, Hamilton, and the Federalists won the debate to include the "general welfare" clause. Madison, and the anti-federalists lost. The good news is that Madison was able to insert the first 10 amendments. But as I said, Madison was a flip flopper of limited government. He changed his attitude real quick on the need for a National Bank, after he saw Washington on fire.

The inclusion of the General welfare clause in the Constitution obviously applies to the united States and NOT to the people.

And the circle is completed.

 

[code1211]

The fact remains that Washington, Hamilton, and the Federalists won the debate to include the "general welfare" clause. Madison, and the anti-federalists lost. The good news is that Madison was able to insert the first 10 amendments. But as I said, Madison was a flip flopper of limited government. He changed his attitude real quick on the need for a National Bank, after he saw Washington on fire.

The only way the anti-federalists 'lost' is by believing the sales pitch. They voted for ratification only after promises that the general welfare clause did not amount to a broad general power. They fell for a classic bait and switch.

Did somebody say Obamacare?

Apparently Nancy was not the first to say, "We have to pass it for you find out what's in it."

 

[dblack]

Did somebody say Obamacare?

Apparently Nancy was not the first to say, "We have to pass it for you find out what's in it."

Nope. The 'con' is a time honored tradition in politics.

 

[Dick Tuck]

The term General Welfare was supposed to mean the general welfare of the nation, not that Tiesha gets her government check on time. That would be individual welfare, not connected to the needs of the Federal Government. The government can get along just fine if Tiesha has to get a part time job.

It's in the general welfare interest of the United States to provide an economic safety net. No civilized country would be without one. Ours sort of sucks, compared to the other first world countries, and the number of homeless here demonstrate that fact. The law is not whether Cindy Lou gets her welfare check or PFC Billy Bob gets food stamps.

What you're thinking about would be a bill of attainder, which would be unconstitutional. Our social safety net is neither.

 

[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.

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.

As if that hasn't been the case for a century...

More so now. Much more so.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

WTF??????????????

 

[Dick Tuck]

The fact remains that Washington, Hamilton, and the Federalists won the debate to include the "general welfare" clause. Madison, and the anti-federalists lost. The good news is that Madison was able to insert the first 10 amendments. But as I said, Madison was a flip flopper of limited government. He changed his attitude real quick on the need for a National Bank, after he saw Washington on fire.

The only way the anti-federalists 'lost' is by believing the sales pitch. They voted for ratification only after promises that the general welfare clause did not amount to a broad general power. They fell for a classic bait and switch.

It is a broad power. I agree. Times change. Madison fought against a standing army. He changed his mind quick when the militias got their ass kicked in the Battle of Bladensburg. He was against a National Bank. He changed his mind quick when Washington burned.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

reproductive - of, relating to, characteristic of, or taking part in reproduction.

How in hell could anyone wage war on this? How stupid are you people?

 

[Dick Tuck]

reproductive - of, relating to, characteristic of, or taking part in reproduction.

How in hell could anyone wage war on this? How stupid are you people?

The people who don't want you to have contraceptives, or stick an unnecessary ultrasound device in your vagina.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

reproductive - of, relating to, characteristic of, or taking part in reproduction.

How in hell could anyone wage war on this? How stupid are you people?

The people who don't want you to have contraceptives, or stick an unnecessary ultrasound device in your vagina.

First of all... I don't have a vagina. Secondly, nobody wants to deny anybody contraception... personally, I wish more people used it. Finally, if you're pregnant, you will get an ultrasound at some point... and isn't stuck in your vagina.

More to the point however, how is any of this, if it were even true, a war on somebody's right to reproduce?