The battle for the "Big Fuckin Deal" begins tomorrow!

[francoHFW]

There's simply no need to dream up an "implied power to spend". It's covered quite nicely by the "necessary and proper" clause (#18).

No, the power to spend is not a "necessary and proper" law required to levy taxes.

Sure it is. You have to pay the tax collectors. More importantly, it's necessary and proper to implement the other powers. You can't raise an army or run the post office without the ability to spend money.

The power to tax, is the power to tax, period. That's why it doesn't say anything about spending. It does however limit that power. Government can't tax us for the hell of it, just to enrich the federal government. They can only tax us for the following broad reasons:

Pay the debts
Provide for the common defense
Provide for the general welfare

Those are constraints on the the power to tax. It doesn't say anything about spending because spending is obviously 'necessary and proper' to effect the enumerated powers.

The funny thing here is that if the government had enacted a single-payer system, which would be vastly better (and also more progressive) than Obamacare, there'd be no doubt as to its constitutionality. It would amount to simply an expansion of Medicare, whose constitutionality is long established. But this Rube Goldberg contraption does raise issues, which the Court has now begun addressing.

Maybe. Hopefully we can squeeze something of value out of the debacle, and set precedent for clear limitations on federal power.

You go back to the Constitution as if no law has been based on it since. Pub dupe idiocy.

 

[Dragon]

The power to tax, is the power to tax, period. That's why it doesn't say anything about spending.

This is all bullshit-play, of course, as the Court has long since settled the matter. Can you at least agree that your own interpretation is not a REQUIRED AND MANDATORY way of reading it, that it is open to interpretation, and that the current law of the land is an allowable meaning of the Constitution's language? That "Congress may tax in order to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare" CAN LEGITIMATELY be interpreted to mean Congress may spend money on those three things (and nothing else)?

 

[dblack]

... Can you at least agree that your own interpretation is not a REQUIRED AND MANDATORY way of reading it, that it is open to interpretation, and that the current law of the land is an allowable meaning of the Constitution's language?

Not really. I think the incorrect decision was made on a disingenuous argument, one hinged on a subtle, and deliberate error in the reading of the clause. As to whether it's "allowable", I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not yet ready to renounce my citizenship over it. But this week might tilt things in one direction or the other in a 'non-trivial' way.

 

[francoHFW]

You have no clue about my situation, you sniveling criminal. You fight the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because you're afraid you might have to pay taxes. You're as big of a STUPID, LYING HYPOCRITE as your ASSHOLE Pub heroes.

So, Gramps, are you the same?

This is like the azzhole from the old MSN Forum who turned out to be a corrupt medical suppler who enjoyed ripping off America. At least he had a sense of humor about it and banned himself. You people are incredible.

I'm a retired teacher, numbnuts.

I thought you said you were a PHD....


What are you for true?

Holy toledo you just gave yourself away. I don't know you but i can track you now. Wow....

WTH are talking about? Tracking me? You think I'm a tax evading plumber from Kannapolis? LOL!........

 

[Dragon]

Not really. I think the incorrect decision was made on a disingenuous argument, one hinged on a subtle, and deliberate error in the reading of the clause. As to whether it's "allowable", I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not yet ready to renounce my citizenship over it. But this week might tilt things in one direction or the other in a 'non-trivial' way.

What I mean by "allowable" is simply that it is one arguable interpretation of the language. I would add, in fact, that this interpretation is suggested by Madison in 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."

Source: Federalist Papers: FEDERALIST No. 41

Now, observe the implications of Madison's language here. First, he correctly points out that the "general welfare" clause is a modification of the power to tax, and NOT an independent power. That is, it is not a power to "legislate in all possible cases." But second, he does not address at all the lesser claim (which I am making, and which the Supreme Court has validated) that it implies a general power to TAX AND SPEND (but nothing else) for the general welfare. The phrase "to raise money for X" implies, "to raise money TO BE SPENT on X," and that's the phrase Madison uses here -- "to raise money for the general welfare" -- which, as he points out, is a very weird way to get at the power to destroy freedom of the press or trial by jury.

Which is true, of course. The general power to tax and spend for the general welfare is a far more plausible interpretation of the first clause of I:8 than a general power to do whatever the hell it wants for that purpose, which is clearly a wrong interpretation. So why did Madison address the obviously-wrong interpretation, but not the more plausible one (in fact seeming to imply that that is the RIGHT interpretation)?

it seems to me that there are two possible reasons why he structured his argument in this way. One, the anti-federalists weren't raising that as an objection because it didn't concern them. Or two, Madison knew that that particular objection was correct, and so, being a good debater, shifted ground to another related objection which he knew wasn't correct.

Either way, it's pretty clear that the authors of the Federalist believed that the power to tax implied the power to spend (I'm taking it as a given that if Madison believed that, Hamilton for damned sure did). It's true that as president, in support of a veto, Madison once argued differently; however he was not consistent on this in office. After the debacle of the War of 1812, he acquiesced in reestablishing the Bank of the United States, which depended for its constitutional authority on precisely this clause (it was not "necessary and proper" for borrowing money, coining money, or regulating commerce, the only other clauses that have anything to do with it, as we have not always had a national bank).

After that long digression, all I'm saying here is that the first clause does not CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY NOT authorize Congress to SPEND as well as tax for the three purposes stated; that this is an allowable interpretation of the English words used, even if the converse -- that your interpretation isn't CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY wrong -- is also the case. Do you agree?

EDIT: I will add here, that just as Madison correctly observes that the power to tax for the general welfare is a very clumsy and weird way of getting at a power to legislate in all possible cases, so the same language is a very clumsy and weird way of getting at the much more restricted power to fund the other enumerated powers, which you are suggesting it is limited to. These were highly eloquent men, masters of the English language. Although I am also a master of the English language, I submit that if I can create the phrasing, "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide revenue for carrying out all other powers granted by this Constitution," then it would not have been beyond them, either. And so if that was their intent, we must ask ourselves what stopped them from doing so.

I submit that the most likely answer is that it was not their intent.

 

[francoHFW]

I guess no laws or precedents have occurred since the Federalist Papers and the Constitution. What Pub dupe poppycock...

 

[oreo]

3 days of testimony begins tomorrow at the SCOTUS for the constitutionality of Obamacare.

Thoughts or predictions? And a live feed isn't available is it?

I don't ever remember a live feed of the Supreme court in action. I doubt they would ever approve of that one.

 

[dblack]

Not really. I think the incorrect decision was made on a disingenuous argument, one hinged on a subtle, and deliberate error in the reading of the clause. As to whether it's "allowable", I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not yet ready to renounce my citizenship over it. But this week might tilt things in one direction or the other in a 'non-trivial' way.

What I mean by "allowable" is simply that it is one arguable interpretation of the language. I would add, in fact, that this interpretation is suggested by Madison in 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."

Source: Federalist Papers: FEDERALIST No. 41

Now, observe the implications of Madison's language here. First, he correctly points out that the "general welfare" clause is a modification of the power to tax, and NOT an independent power. That is, it is not a power to "legislate in all possible cases." But second, he does not address at all the lesser claim (which I am making, and which the Supreme Court has validated) that it implies a general power to TAX AND SPEND (but nothing else) for the general welfare. The phrase "to raise money for X" implies, "to raise money TO BE SPENT on X," and that's the phrase Madison uses here -- "to raise money for the general welfare" -- which, as he points out, is a very weird way to get at the power to destroy freedom of the press or trial by jury.

Which is true, of course. The general power to tax and spend for the general welfare is a far more plausible interpretation of the first clause of I:8 than a general power to do whatever the hell it wants for that purpose, which is clearly a wrong interpretation. So why did Madison address the obviously-wrong interpretation, but not the more plausible one (in fact seeming to imply that that is the RIGHT interpretation)?

it seems to me that there are two possible reasons why he structured his argument in this way. One, the anti-federalists weren't raising that as an objection because it didn't concern them. Or two, Madison knew that that particular objection was correct, and so, being a good debater, shifted ground to another related objection which he knew wasn't correct.

Either way, it's pretty clear that the authors of the Federalist believed that the power to tax implied the power to spend (I'm taking it as a given that if Madison believed that, Hamilton for damned sure did). It's true that as president, in support of a veto, Madison once argued differently; however he was not consistent on this in office. After the debacle of the War of 1812, he acquiesced in reestablishing the Bank of the United States, which depended for its constitutional authority on precisely this clause (it was not "necessary and proper" for borrowing money, coining money, or regulating commerce, the only other clauses that have anything to do with it, as we have not always had a national bank).

After that long digression, all I'm saying here is that the first clause does not CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY NOT authorize Congress to SPEND as well as tax for the three purposes stated; that this is an allowable interpretation of the English words used, even if the converse -- that your interpretation isn't CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY wrong -- is also the case. Do you agree?

Sorry, I wish I could be more amenable, but I just don't see it that way at all. Frankly, I'm fairly blown away that'd you try to cite 41 as an argument for your position when, to me, it's the single most compelling argument against it. But then I know you like a challenge.

I'm not even sure where to start. As I'm sure you're aware, Madison is replying here to anti-federalist claims that the general welfare clause might be interpreted as a broad general power to spend, and not just a constraint on the power to tax. They were having exactly the same argument we are.

Madison points out that, IF there were no enumeration of specific congressional powers present, then there might be some cause to assume that the allowable reasons for taxation amounted to 'implied powers', "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."

I'm not calling into question your integrity in making the argument, but I do doubt Hamilton's, given that he essentially argued it both ways. The implied power to spend tact, to me, is just a wedge to expand government power without going through the onerous amendment process. The fact that many of the same people who argued for limited government in creating the Constitution wanted to minimize those limitations once they were in power is hardly surprising, and not compelling evidence for their original intentions. They were very aware that power creates ever more hunger for power. Indeed, it was why they wanted the limitations in the first place.

 

[francoHFW]

I guess no laws or precedents have occurred since the Federalist Papers and the Constitution.ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[Synthaholic]

Whose supporting whom? Who are the criminals? I have a skill I can work on my own and work for cash. No money trails for the criminals in D.C. to trace.

A bad citizen would be someone like you whose a free loading leach, who thinks someone has to work so that the worker hard earned money can be redistributed by means of a tax.

You have no clue about my situation, you sniveling criminal. You fight the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because you're afraid you might have to pay taxes. You're as big of a STUPID, LYING HYPOCRITE as your ASSHOLE Pub heroes.

So, Gramps, are you the same?

This is like the azzhole from the old MSN Forum who turned out to be a corrupt medical suppler who enjoyed ripping off America. At least he had a sense of humor about it and banned himself. You people are incredible.

I'm a retired teacher, numbnuts.

I thought you said you were a PHD....


What are you for true?

You don't think someone with a PhD could be a teacher?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

OHHHHH, I get it, we're supposed to support your freedom to have a criminal lifestyle and be a BAD CITIZEN. Lovely. LOL

Whose supporting whom? Who are the criminals? I have a skill I can work on my own and work for cash. No money trails for the criminals in D.C. to trace.

A bad citizen would be someone like you whose a free loading leach, who thinks someone has to work so that the worker hard earned money can be redistributed by means of a tax.

You have no clue about my situation, you sniveling criminal. You fight the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because you're afraid you might have to pay taxes. You're as big of a STUPID, LYING HYPOCRITE as your ASSHOLE Pub heroes.

So, Gramps, are you the same?

This is like the azzhole from the old MSN Forum who turned out to be a corrupt medical suppler who enjoyed ripping off America. At least he had a sense of humor about it and banned himself. You people are incredible.

I'm a retired teacher, numbnuts.

Keep me out of your lover quarrels with other posters please and thank you.

 

[Too Tall]

You are fundamentally wrong.

By your interpretation, we could not have have paper money or the Air Force.

HOOOOLLY SHIIIIIIIIiiiiiit....


YES we can have an airforce as I'm sure someone will prove to you in the next ten fucking seconds and NO we are not allowed to have a Federal reserve.

Really? Hmm. Because no where in the Constitution do I see "air force" mentioned. Which Enumerated Power mentions the "air force"?

An Air Force is necessary to provide for the defense of the Republic, just as the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard are.

 

[francoHFW]

Whose supporting whom? Who are the criminals? I have a skill I can work on my own and work for cash. No money trails for the criminals in D.C. to trace.

A bad citizen would be someone like you whose a free loading leach, who thinks someone has to work so that the worker hard earned money can be redistributed by means of a tax.

You have no clue about my situation, you sniveling criminal. You fight the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because you're afraid you might have to pay taxes. You're as big of a STUPID, LYING HYPOCRITE as your ASSHOLE Pub heroes.

So, Gramps, are you the same?

This is like the azzhole from the old MSN Forum who turned out to be a corrupt medical suppler who enjoyed ripping off America. At least he had a sense of humor about it and banned himself. You people are incredible.

I'm a retired teacher, numbnuts.

Keep me out of your lover quarrels with other posters please and thank you.

So how do you handle your health care at your business? I suspect fraud as your motive also...............................

 

[dblack]

So how do you handle your health care at your business? I suspect fraud as your motive also...............................

Poop.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You have no clue about my situation, you sniveling criminal. You fight the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because you're afraid you might have to pay taxes. You're as big of a STUPID, LYING HYPOCRITE as your ASSHOLE Pub heroes.

So, Gramps, are you the same?

This is like the azzhole from the old MSN Forum who turned out to be a corrupt medical suppler who enjoyed ripping off America. At least he had a sense of humor about it and banned himself. You people are incredible.

I'm a retired teacher, numbnuts.

Keep me out of your lover quarrels with other posters please and thank you.

So how do you handle your health care at your business? I suspect fraud as your motive also...............................

If you're trying to get a job you're going about it all wrong. If you're just being intrusive you can fuck off. My insurance premiums are through the roof. Such is life. You have no idea of the sacrifices I make for medical coverage.

 

[Synthaholic]

Keep me out of your lover quarrels with other posters please and thank you.

So how do you handle your health care at your business? I suspect fraud as your motive also...............................

If you're trying to get a job you're going about it all wrong. If you're just being intrusive you can fuck off. My insurance premiums are through the roof. Such is life. You have no idea of the sacrifices I make for medical coverage.

For yourself, or for your employees, if you have any?

If for your employees, how much money per year would you be able to pocket if we had a single payer system, and you didn't have to cover their insurance?

 

[francoHFW]

Well then you should be FOR ACA more than anyone gramp. But well done. brig on the other hand, pizzes me off....well actually he will MORE when ACA comes, as it IS incredibly expensive for individuals now. If he reports no income, he can get Medicaid- what a MESS.

 

[francoHFW]

So, Syn, are you for ACA? These polls that show 70% against ACA are 30% those who are for single payer...Well Holland and Switz are mainly private, and are just as good.....arrrgh...lol.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have no clue about my situation, you sniveling criminal. You fight the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because you're afraid you might have to pay taxes. You're as big of a STUPID, LYING HYPOCRITE as your ASSHOLE Pub heroes.

So, Gramps, are you the same?

This is like the azzhole from the old MSN Forum who turned out to be a corrupt medical suppler who enjoyed ripping off America. At least he had a sense of humor about it and banned himself. You people are incredible.

I'm a retired teacher, numbnuts.

I thought you said you were a PHD....


What are you for true?

You don't think someone with a PhD could be a teacher?

A teacher with a PHD wouldn't call them self a teacher. They would call them self a professor.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I told you I had a Masters- can you get ANYTHING right?

Can't keep your story line intact. MY how thw worm has turned.