Repeal, Reform, Reload

[Contumacious]

“Under several clauses, the good and welfare clause and a couple others. All the scholars, the constitutional scholars that I know ......-ol:

In U.S. v. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

SCOTUS ruled that the Federal government has no authority to finance and manage a welfare state.

Will that be a problem for the marxists?

.

 

[Contumacious]

Where is the constitutional authority for ObamaCare?

Article I Section 8 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 defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Try again Karl Marx breath,

SCOTUS has ruled that the "general welfare clause" does not authorize the financing and management of a welfare state:



U.S. v. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)


.

 

[Meister]

Where is the constitutional authority for ObamaCare?

Article I Section 8 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 defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Amendment 16

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

There's your answer. Now STFU and move on

Since when is forcing a person to buy healthcare considered a tax?????
Now you can STFU and move on

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Campaign For Liberty — Constitutional "General Welfare Clause" Powers Conferred to Congress

The guy who wrote that is centuries behind the times. He doesn't cite Hamilton's views on the GW clause, even though its Hamilton's view that was ultimately upheld by the SCOTUS.

Finally, in United States v. Butler,543 the Court gave its unqualified endorsement to Hamilton’s views on the taxing power. Wrote Justice Roberts for the Court: “Since the foundation of the Nation sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of[p.155]power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the numerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court had noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of Sec. 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.”544

CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Article I

Amendment 16

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Incomes. Not excises. Excises must be apportioned.

Uhh, no. Excises are not mentioned as requiring apportionment, only taxes

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

See, no mention of excises. This is how the federal government has been able to levy excises on things like tobacco without regard to apportionment.

Why the fuck are we even talking about excises? Its a 2.5% INCOME TAX.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The GOP would need massive wins to repeal the Dem disaster. I'm not too optimistic about that happening right away. They could repeal it at some point but i think we're talking about that happening way down the road. They will have to get the White House back too. If they get the White House and Congress back at some point,they could then move towards at least repealing parts of this debacle. Personally,i hope that happens. I guess we'll see.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Since when is forcing a person to buy healthcare considered a tax?????

Since 1965 when Medicare passed.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

U.S. v. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)


.

Its funny you would give me a link that helps me support my case. From your link:

While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of section 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

 

[Meister]

When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”

James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”
general welfare

 

[WillowTree]

my y my some democwats izz engaging in hate speach!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.”

jesus fucking christ, do you people actually read any of the Supreme Court opinions I link to? MADISON'S VIEW ON THE GW CLAUSE WAS REJECTED IN U.S. V BUTLER 1936




LET'S TRY THIS AGAIN

Since the foundation of the Nation, sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view, the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are, or may be, necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

United States v. Butler

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where is the constitutional authority for ObamaCare?

Article I Section 8 Clause 1



Amendment 16

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

There's your answer. Now STFU and move on

Since when is forcing a person to buy healthcare considered a tax?????
Now you can STFU and move on

Since Social Security was declared constitutional, for starters.

 

[Contumacious]

Which would be in keeping with the "perverted interpretation" assumed by his cohorts in their attempt to subvert the CLEAR MEANING of our U.S. Constitution. Really, he's nothing special in comparison to his fellow Democrats... par for the course these days.

Really?

So the Founding Fathers intended to create a welfare state, why is it then that the welfare state began in 1937 - over 150 years later?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So the Founding Fathers intended to create a welfare state, why is it then that the welfare state began in 1937 - over 150 years later?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

So you wouldn't consider the hefty subsidies the government paid to newspapers in the Founders day to be part of a "welfare state" ?

“At the founding of the American experiment the people that started this country, who were very imperfect, had one good notion- that if you’re gonna be a democracy, citizens have to be informed. So what did they do? They created a media system. The government created a media system. The newspapers of the founding of the American experiment were the most subsidized newspapers in the world. They were subsidized via postal subsidies and also direct subsidies from the government.

The Future (And History) of Journalism… Government Subsidies? Taylor Made



So you'd be OK with that today?

 

[Murf76]

Which would be in keeping with the "perverted interpretation" assumed by his cohorts in their attempt to subvert the CLEAR MEANING of our U.S. Constitution. Really, he's nothing special in comparison to his fellow Democrats... par for the course these days.

Really?

So the Founding Fathers intended to create a welfare state, why is it then that the welfare state began in 1937 - over 150 years later?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

Huh? You don't think a "good and welfare" clause pulled out of thin air is a "perverted interpretation" of our U.S. Constitution?

These people are full of shit. They do NOT have an enumerated power to run healthcare in this country. They do NOT have an enumerated power to mandate that citizens purchase an insurance product. And it's an ABSURD PERVERSION of the founders' intent to suggest that they do.

The General Welfare clause is clearly explained by Madison. Hamilton's view is clouded by his reversal AFTER RATIFICATION. The States would doubtless NOT have complied with ratification if Hamilton's view from 1791 had been entered into discussion.

There is NO POINT in going on to enumerate specific powers if the legislature is allowed to do whatever the fuck it feels like doing on the basis of "general welfare". It's a ridiculous argument, a deliberate manipulation of a couple of innocent words. Why not declare marshal law as a matter of "common defense"? Why not chuck our children into military schools, turn them into tiny soldiers? If anything goes... "common defense" is as legitimate as "general welfare".

EVERYONE, regardless of political affiliation should be pissed off whenever our Constitution is abused. But the greedy bastards who think they're gonna get some free government cheese out of the deal never bother to think of what ELSE might come down the pike from giving the central government license to do whatever it wants. It's all a fucking game to them.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The General Welfare clause is clearly explained by Madison.

PLEASE STOP BEING A MORON AND CLICK HERE

 

[Contumacious]

Where is the constitutional authority for ObamaCare?

Article I Section 8 Clause 1



Amendment 16

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

There's your answer. Now STFU and move on

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the SC under FDR find what he was doing unconstitutional??

The only reason it got enacted was because FDR threatened to pack the court and the SC backed down.

Wonder if this SC has more balls???

Hopefully they do.

Secondly, in 1937 there were only 4 Conservatives in the Court.

.

 

[Murf76]

The General Welfare clause is clearly explained by Madison.

PLEASE STOP BEING A MORON AND CLICK HERE

Fuck off. When we decide that the "common defense" requires socialists to be loaded onto dinghies and dropped off in international waters... I'm going to also embrace that notion as a matter of "general welfare". A two-fer.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The General Welfare clause is clearly explained by Madison.

PLEASE STOP BEING A MORON AND CLICK HERE

Fuck off. When we decide that the "common defense" requires socialists to be loaded onto dinghies and dropped off in international waters... I'm going to also embrace that notion as a matter of "general welfare". A two-fer.

You're a moron.

 

[Meister]

Article I Section 8 Clause 1



Amendment 16



There's your answer. Now STFU and move on

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the SC under FDR find what he was doing unconstitutional??

The only reason it got enacted was because FDR threatened to pack the court and the SC backed down.

Wonder if this SC has more balls???

Hopefully they do.

Secondly, in 1937 there were only 4 Conservatives in the Court.

.

Wasn't this Supreme Court dis'd at the State of the Union Address?
Hmmmm, barry should have thought ahead a little before he played "chicago politics" on them.

 

[Contumacious]

Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

Bullshit.

Hamilton is not my favorite Founder - but he never never said that.

,