the constitution

[Vast LWC]

Only thing is... where do you see PROVIDING general welfare?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I, Section 8.

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;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html

 

[Vast LWC]

Article I, Section 8.

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;

And just to avoid the argument that often comes from posting this section, the very last sentence

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

was changed by the 16th Amendment to stirke out the "uniform throughout the United States" part, allowing for Income Tax.

 

[Ame®icano]

Only thing is... where do you see PROVIDING general welfare?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I, Section 8.

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;

LII: Constitution

What is general welfare?

 

[Vast LWC]

Welfare is generally defined "health and well-being". General in this case would be defined as "all of a group".

 

[MikeHoncho]

its funny how people assume general welfare means that the government should give me something that i want, and dont have.

No, the "General Welfare" refers to providing for the health and wellness of the populace, not providing whatever they want.

Health care, specifically, is obviously covered under a clause that refers to "General Welfare".

It would be argued, however, that actual "welfare", for people who are able and ready to work, would not be covered. Which is why I supported the Clinton era "workfare" legislation.

why would healthcare be obviously covered? why wouldnt just be to provide care in general such as any one can walk into the emergency room and get treated?

 

[MikeHoncho]

" do not seperate text from historical backround. if you do, you have perverted the subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of ilegitimate government." James Madison

"charity is no part of the legislateive duty of the government" James madison

i'd say that pretty much sums it up.

The Constitution was written and ratified by a large group of people with different viewpoints, that were combined to form the actual document.

Right-wing supposed "Consitutionalists" are fond of cherry-picking other literature written by one or some of the writers of the Consitution and presenting said literature as the intent of ALL the people involved.

But such literature is not legally binding, as it only explains the viewpoints of certain individuals.

The only document that has validity in a matter of arguing the Constitution is the Constitution.

so basically what your saying is that when looking into the constitution to understand "general welfare" i cant acknowledge a man credited as the father of the constiution in his views on such, i'm supposed to just take your word on the definition of general welfare. that seems fair.

 

[MikeHoncho]

That is not called stealing, it is called being a member of society

If your tax money is used for police or fire protection that you do not use, it is not stealing

If your tax money goes for schools that you do not use....it is not stealing

If your tax money goes for roads you do not drive on...it is not stealing

Our society is based on doing things for the collective good. Those decisions are made by the rightfully elected representatives of our government. Just because you do not benefit or want money used for something does not violate the Constitution

Since when is our society based on collective good? It is life liberty and pursuit of happiness of the individual. When someone takes your money or property without asking it is stealing. You just got used to it.

Fire departments, Police, schools, roads, bridges are all for the collective good of society. Sorry...It ain't stealing. Its part of being a member of society.

again your giving examples of our tax dollars, we are specifically talking about income tax. whats mine is mine, not yours.

 

[Ame®icano]

Welfare is generally defined "health and well-being". General in this case would be defined as "all of a group".

So why government is concerned of only one particular group?

 

[Diuretic]

Since when is our society based on collective good? It is life liberty and pursuit of happiness of the individual. When someone takes your money or property without asking it is stealing. You just got used to it.

Fire departments, Police, schools, roads, bridges are all for the collective good of society. Sorry...It ain't stealing. Its part of being a member of society.

again your giving examples of our tax dollars, we are specifically talking about income tax. whats mine is mine, not yours.

It's a bit like being invited to a party and being asked to bring a bottle of booze, you join the party, you contribute something to the party. You live in an organised society, you contribute something to the society. I know it could be argued that some form of consumption tax might do the trick but that would mean food and other needed commodities would rise in price, that might be inflationary but it would also mean that lower income people would suffer while those on higher incomes would just suck it up. So it seems that tax on income, on a sliding scale, might be a fair way of working out the contribution.

 

[MikeHoncho]

Fire departments, Police, schools, roads, bridges are all for the collective good of society. Sorry...It ain't stealing. Its part of being a member of society.

again your giving examples of our tax dollars, we are specifically talking about income tax. whats mine is mine, not yours.

It's a bit like being invited to a party and being asked to bring a bottle of booze, you join the party, you contribute something to the party. You live in an organised society, you contribute something to the society. I know it could be argued that some form of consumption tax might do the trick but that would mean food and other needed commodities would rise in price, that might be inflationary but it would also mean that lower income people would suffer while those on higher incomes would just suck it up. So it seems that tax on income, on a sliding scale, might be a fair way of working out the contribution.

yea but then the system regulates itself since the government cant raise the taxes on certain items because people would stop buying them.

the point is, that the government would than be forced to focus on issues that they are suppose to be concerned with, paving roads, defending our country with a military.

the point im trying to make is that whats mine is mine, not theres. they dont have the right to take whats mine per the constitution. they are supposed to be protecting my individual liberty and private property not taking from it. i already stated i see the "good intentions' of these things but its irrelevent.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

when did it become irrelevant?

The first US President to have considered the US Constitution a 'archaic instrument of a quaint agrarian age' which is 'poorly suited to the age of modren industry'... was Woodrow Wilson...

It's worth noting that Wilson was also the first academic President, being the former President of Princeton University and a bonafide "Progressive"... read: fascist; a socialist of the first order... Go figure... huh?

it seems whenever BIG GOVERNMENT on both sides of the aisle deems something a "crises" they completely dismiss the constitution and ram something through. why is this?

Well a crisis requires snap decisions... 'Damn the principle; FULL SPEED AHEAD!'

Thus when one is an individual who does not operate upon any discernible principle, operating within an ideology that does not recognize any valid principles... engaging a political party which only recognizes one principle; which is the one which rejects principle... it follows that a Constitution which is founded in pure principle... would naturally be a hinderence to one and the principle-less means, which one needs to use to realize one's desired ends.

 

[lawbuff]

then don't respond to me like you're lecturing. thanks.

Lecturing????? Whatever!!

 

[MikeHoncho]

when did it become irrelevant?

The first US President to have considered the US Constitution a 'archaic instrument of a quaint agrarian age' which is 'poorly suited to the age of modren industry'... was Woodrow Wilson...

It's worth noting that Wilson was also the first academic President, being the former President of Princeton University and a bonafide "Progressive"... read: fascist; a socialist of the first order... Go figure... huh?

it seems whenever BIG GOVERNMENT on both sides of the aisle deems something a "crises" they completely dismiss the constitution and ram something through. why is this?

Well a crisis requires snap decisions... 'Damn the principle; FULL SPEED AHEAD!'

Thus when one is an individual who does not operate upon any discernible principle, operating within an ideology that does not recognize any valid principles... engaging a political party which only recognizes one principle; which is the one which rejects principle... it follows that a Constitution which is founded in pure principle... would naturally be a hinderence to one and the principle-less means, which one needs to use to realize one's desired ends.

it took 90 posts for someone to just answer the question. they dont care about individual liberty they dont even uphold the founding document. they just change it whenever they want. interpret it however they see fit.

 

[Vast LWC]

so basically what your saying is that when looking into the constitution to understand "general welfare" i cant acknowledge a man credited as the father of the constiution in his views on such, i'm supposed to just take your word on the definition of general welfare. that seems fair.

No, you can't because there is no single author of the Constitution.

While it is true that some people had more to do with the actual writing than others, everyone at the convention put input into the document, and none of them wanted exactly the same thing.

During the actual writing, there were 35 people present, arguing over every single point.

 

[Vast LWC]

why would healthcare be obviously covered? why wouldnt just be to provide care in general such as any one can walk into the emergency room and get treated?

And that is also a possibility. Both would come under that heading.

It is the job of Congress to codify the Constitution into Law, based on what they believe the Constitution says.

That's what they're doing right now.

If Congress misinterprets the Constitution, it is up to the Supreme Court to reverse the law, which could very well happen, but probably won't.

Thus no-one is doing anything "Unconstitutional" at the moment. They are simply doing their job. Creating Laws based on what they believe the Constitution says.

 

[Vast LWC]

Welfare is generally defined "health and well-being". General in this case would be defined as "all of a group".

So why government is concerned of only one particular group?

I'm not really sure what you mean by this.

 

[saveliberty]

its funny how people assume general welfare means that the government should give me something that i want, and dont have.

No, the "General Welfare" refers to providing for the health and wellness of the populace, not providing whatever they want.

Health care, specifically, is obviously covered under a clause that refers to "General Welfare".

It would be argued, however, that actual "welfare", for people who are able and ready to work, would not be covered. Which is why I supported the Clinton era "workfare" legislation.

The legal dictionary takes issue with your interpretation.

The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "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." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinction—the limitation of federal power—eventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.

Good reason why this bill should fail. It is up to the individual states to find solutions to this issue.

 

[rightwinger]

again your giving examples of our tax dollars, we are specifically talking about income tax. whats mine is mine, not yours.

It's a bit like being invited to a party and being asked to bring a bottle of booze, you join the party, you contribute something to the party. You live in an organised society, you contribute something to the society. I know it could be argued that some form of consumption tax might do the trick but that would mean food and other needed commodities would rise in price, that might be inflationary but it would also mean that lower income people would suffer while those on higher incomes would just suck it up. So it seems that tax on income, on a sliding scale, might be a fair way of working out the contribution.

yea but then the system regulates itself since the government cant raise the taxes on certain items because people would stop buying them.

the point is, that the government would than be forced to focus on issues that they are suppose to be concerned with, paving roads, defending our country with a military.

the point im trying to make is that whats mine is mine, not theres. they dont have the right to take whats mine per the constitution. they are supposed to be protecting my individual liberty and private property not taking from it. i already stated i see the "good intentions' of these things but its irrelevent.

"the point im trying to make is that whats mine is mine, not theres. they dont have the right to take whats mine per the constitution"

I'm afraid they do have the right. You do not live in a self contained bubble. You benefit from roads, schools, hospitals, police, fire, emergency services.
You also benefit from a safety net if you become injured, ill or are unable to work. You are guaranteed care when you get older.

Sorry, you do not get to "opt out". You are a member of society and you got to pay your way

 

[Vast LWC]

yea but then the system regulates itself since the government cant raise the taxes on certain items because people would stop buying them.

the point is, that the government would than be forced to focus on issues that they are suppose to be concerned with, paving roads, defending our country with a military.

the point im trying to make is that whats mine is mine, not theres.

That's true, to a point. But because government has had a part in defending what's yours, and in helping what's yours become yours, through providing infrastructure, part of what's yours belongs to the government, and that part takes the form of taxes. If you wish to be free of taxes, and think you can do better without government, you are certainly free to move somewhere else.

they dont have the right to take whats mine per the constitution.

That's a common misconception, the Constitution allows for seizing of private property if it is deemed to be for the public good. This is known as "Eminent Domain".

The 16th amendment actually clearly states that Congress can tax you in whatever amount they deem appropriate. That amendment was ratified by all 48 states that existed at the time.

[/Quote]they are supposed to be protecting my individual liberty and private property not taking from it. i already stated i see the "good intentions' of these things but its irrelevent.[/QUOTE]

And they are in fact doinig their best to protect your individual liberty and property, but they also have to protect everyone else's liberty and property, as well as providing for their defense and welfare.

 

[Vast LWC]

The legal dictionary takes issue with your interpretation.

The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "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." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinction—the limitation of federal power—eventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.

Good reason why this bill should fail. It is up to the individual states to find solutions to this issue.

What "legal dictionary" would that be? I'm looking at the one online right now, (http://definitions.uslegal.com/g/) and can find no such entry.

Perhaps you have a link?