Most Ethical Congress ever- A list of the bribes for PapaObama Care

[Joe Steel]

The General Welfare clause can be interpreted in more ways than one.

How do you know it means that the Govt can mandate healthcare to all and that they have the right to do so?? That the Congress can use taxpayer money as "bribes"? Is this in the general welfare?? Or just the welfare of some??

The" General Welfare " statement can cover a pretty broad area.

Exactly. That's why the Founders added the so-called enumerated powers. Reasonable persons can have good-faith disagreements about what serves the general welfare. The 15 or so things following the general welfare clause are explicitly defined as the serving the general welfare. Congress may do these things without further discussion but that doesn't mean they can't do whatever else they think would serve the general welfare.

I take this to mean that whatever party is in power at the time can make these decisions and feel that they are following the Constitution???

Man. What a giant grey area.

Indeed. As Brutus V says:

The great objects then are declared in this preamble in general and indefinite terms to be to provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and an express power being vested in the legislature to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the general government. The inference is natural that the legislature will have an authority to make all laws which they shall judge necessary for the common safety, and to promote the general welfare. This amounts to a power to make laws at discretion: No terms can be found more indefinite than these, and it is obvious, that the legislature alone must judge what laws are proper and necessary for the purpose.

 

[Oddball]

Note how "Mr. Living Rules" skirts Federalist #41.

 

[Zander]

I see problems for anyone associated with this crap. I doubt it will stand up to the inevitable Constitutional Challenges, that is assuming they can reconcile the House and Senate bills to begin with. It ain't a done deal yet.

 

[Ame®icano]

I'm just waiting to see they vote to remain senators for life, all under general welfare clause...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It falls under the equal protection clause.

The Feds can't make laws that include one state and grants favors to others. Also, states can add more laws to federal laws but not take away laws.

This is the important part and well worth looking at. I don't think anything they are doing is Constitutional. How can you tell someone that they HAVE TO BUY anyhthing??

Was wathching Greta last night and she had Sen Thune on and he said they will be bringing their questions on some of these hidden little gems to the floor for debate. Seems the Dems will do just about anything to get this peice of shit passed and be part of this HISTORIC moment. Not cool.

the federal government can allocate funds any way it dems appropriate as long as that allocation violates no other laws...,kind of like when they gave Utah the same anti-terrorist funding as NYC.

please please please stop... the equal protection clause has nothing to do with the states. it protects INDIVIDUALS...

you know... like gays who want to marry the people they love.

now stop pretending you know anything about the Constitution, please.

Well Gee. What about the fact that all the other States will be paying the freight for Neb and the others who got special deals??? That seems like a pretty crappy allocation of Fed, i.e. taxpayer dollars to me. How about you?? Unless you don't mind paying for the Medicaid and Medicare in your State plus Florida, Neb, Vt and whatever other States got breaks as well. This sure bugs the crap out of me and I live in Florida. Sounds like the INDIVIDUALS in those States won't be treated equally.

Since you know so much about the Constitution and I, according to you, know nothing. Perhaps you would be so kind as to post the part of said document that says these payoffs are legal. I would really appriciate it being as your so smart and I'm just an ignorant Rube.

Thank you so much for your kindness.

She doesn't do THAT. she only nay says, never actually defends anything she claims with reality or fact.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Let me help.

Article 1, Section 8 empowers Congress to:

Congress has determined health care for all Americans to be necessary for the general welfare so the spending at issue is permissible.

WRONG!!!! Article 1, Section 8 DOES NOT apply to healthcare and more entitlements for no loads. Why should I work my 60 hours a week, pay my bills on time, pay for me and my families health care and then have worthless lazy fucks who refuse to earn their keep and young bulletproof yuppies refuse to buy healthcare so they can have a Porsche get healthcare ON MY FUCKING DIME!!!!!

Not so. The general welfare is anything Congress says it is. If they define the health of all those persons you dislike so much as the general welfare, you're just going to have get out your checkbook.

There is no General welfare clause and NO ONE in Congress has EVER tried to claim there is. It is an enabling clause that explains why the powers granted are acceptable. It is not a clause granting any power itself.

 

[Joe Steel]

Not so. The general welfare is anything Congress says it is. If they define the health of all those persons you dislike so much as the general welfare, you're just going to have get out your checkbook.

There is no General welfare clause and NO ONE in Congress has EVER tried to claim there is. It is an enabling clause that explains why the powers granted are acceptable. It is not a clause granting any power itself.

You should do some research. Within only a few seconds, I was able to find numerous links to discussions of the "general welfare clause." While you may think it to be something other than what I insist it is, it most definitely exists as a discrete object.

You can start your research here:

In his famous Report on Manufactures (1791), Alexander Hamilton argued that the clause enlarged Congress's power to tax and spend by allowing it to tax and spend for the general welfare as well as for purposes falling within its enumerated powers. Thus, he argued, the General Welfare clause granted a distinct power to Congress to use its taxing and spending powers in ways not falling within its other enumerated powers.

The U. S. Supreme Court first interpreted the clause in United States v. Butler (1936). There, Justice Owen Roberts, in his majority opinion, agreed with Hamilton's view and held that the general welfare language in the taxing-and-spending clause constituted a separate grant of power to Congress to spend in areas over which it was not granted direct regulatory control. Nevertheless, the Court stated that this power to tax and spend was limited to spending for matters affecting the national, as opposed to the local, welfare. He also wrote that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of what was in fact in the national welfare. In the Butler decision, however, the Court shed no light on what it considered to be in the national—as opposed to local—interest, because it struck down the statute at issue on Tenth Amendment grounds.

The Court soon modified its holding in the Butler decision in Helvering v. Davis (1937). There, the Court sustained the old-age benefits provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935 and adopted an expansive view of the power of the federal government to tax and spend for the general welfare. In Helvering, the Court maintained that although Congress's power to tax and spend under the General Welfare clause was limited to general or national concerns, Congress itself could determine when spending constituted spending for the general welfare. To date, no legislation passed by Congress has ever been struck down because it did not serve the general welfare. Moreover, since congressional power to legislate under the Commerce clause has expanded the areas falling within Congress's enumerated powers, the General Welfare clause has decreased in importance.


GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE

 

[Neotrotsky]

I see problems for anyone associated with this crap. I doubt it will stand up to the inevitable Constitutional Challenges, that is assuming they can reconcile the House and Senate bills to begin with. It ain't a done deal yet.

I hear you

Even our Most Great Leader, Papa Obama's WH has said:

The Politico reported:

The White House privately anticipates health care talks to slip into February — past President Barack Obama’s first State of the Union address — and then plans to make a “very hard pivot” to a new jobs bill, according to senior administration officials.

Obama has been told that disputes over abortion and the tight schedule are highly likely to delay a final deal, a blow to the president, who had hoped to trumpet a health care victory in his big speech to the nation. But he has also been told that House Democratic leaders seem inclined, at least for now, to largely accept the compromise worked out in the Senate, virtually ensuring he will eventually get a deal.
​

 

[Neotrotsky]

I'm just waiting to see they vote to remain senators for life, all under general welfare clause...

Good point

What if we had the technology someday like in a bad sci fi film to keep just a person's head alive

The senate would start to look like some weird chamber of "pickeled heads"

 

[EriktheRed]

politics is the art of compromise and you idiots call deal making bribery.?

what a world, what a world.

the koolaid must be so much stronger this year.

But the grapes are just as sour.