The General Welfare Clause - Correct Your Ignorance Here

[SpidermanTuba]

Really read what it says in the constitution people...here is a quote of it

Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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 1, 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 Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


In the preamble there is clearly a difference between common defense and general welfare. That difference being that one is to be provided for and the other is to be promoted, not provided.

In article 1 it says the government can lay taxes to provide for both the defense and welfare of american citizens. However, these taxes must be uniform throughout the country. By having our progressive tax system, only taxing people with cadillac plans, or only increasing the taxes on the rich to pay for health care this legislation directily violates article 1, section 8, clause 1.


Its so blatantly obvious i'm surprised people still play this silly game.

I actually think that uniform tax law can nuke a lot of other federal taxes such as S.S. tax, death tax, and etc but since the federal court will probably side with itself and not vote to cut off its own revenue it will be impossible to get rid of those.

spidermantuba what do you think of my statement?

I think it clearly demonstrates you did absolutely zero research on the subject.

The requirement that taxes be uniform throughout the United States is a requirement that the taxes be uniform throughout the United States - not a requirement that if be uniform through economic classes. All this means is that you can't tax people based on which state they live in. You can't, for example, impose a 10% flat tax on the people of Indiana, but make the tax 1% everywhere else.

UNITED STATES V. PTASYNSKI, 462 U. S. 74 (1983) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

From UNITED STATES V. PTASYNSKI,

This general purpose, however, does not define the precise scope of the Clause. The one issue that has been raised repeatedly is whether the requirement of uniformity encompasses some notion of equality. It was settled fairly early that the Clause does not require Congress to devise a tax that falls equally or proportionately on each State. Rather, as the Court stated in the Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. at 112 U. S. 594, a "tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found."

Nor does the Clause prevent Congress from defining the subject of a tax by drawing distinctions between similar classes. In the Head Money Cases, supra, the Court recognized that, in imposing a head tax on persons coming into this country, Congress could choose to tax those persons who immigrated through the ports, but not those who immigrated at inland cities. As the Court explained,

"the evil to be remedied by this legislation has no existence on our inland borders, and immigration in that quarter needed no such regulation."

Id. at 112 U. S. 595. The tax applied to all ports alike, and the Court concluded that "there is substantial uniformity within the meaning and purpose of the Constitution." Ibid. Subsequent cases have confirmed that the Framers did not intend to restrict Congress' ability to define the class of objects to be taxed. They intended only that the tax apply wherever the classification is found. See Knowlton v. Moore, supra, at 178 U. S. 106; [Footnote 11] Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 173 U. S. 521-522 (1899).

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It's legal "under several clauses," he explained. "The good and welfare clause and a couple others. All the constitutional scholars that I know -- I'm chairman of the Judiciary Committee as you know -- they all say there's nothing unconstitutional in this bill. And if there were, I would have tried to correct it."
Rep. John Conyers 'invents' clause to defend health care law; Sean Hannity takes notice | - MLive.com

He obviously meant the general welfare clause. You can't seriously be this stupid.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Really read what it says in the constitution people...here is a quote of it

Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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 1, 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 Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


In the preamble there is clearly a difference between common defense and general welfare. That difference being that one is to be provided for and the other is to be promoted, not provided.

In article 1 it says the government can lay taxes to provide for both the defense and welfare of american citizens. However, these taxes must be uniform throughout the country. By having our progressive tax system, only taxing people with cadillac plans, or only increasing the taxes on the rich to pay for health care this legislation directily violates article 1, section 8, clause 1.


Its so blatantly obvious i'm surprised people still play this silly game.

I actually think that uniform tax law can nuke a lot of other federal taxes such as S.S. tax, death tax, and etc but since the federal court will probably side with itself and not vote to cut off its own revenue it will be impossible to get rid of those.

See Amendment 16.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's legal "under several clauses," he explained. "The good and welfare clause and a couple others. All the constitutional scholars that I know -- I'm chairman of the Judiciary Committee as you know -- they all say there's nothing unconstitutional in this bill. And if there were, I would have tried to correct it."
Rep. John Conyers 'invents' clause to defend health care law; Sean Hannity takes notice | - MLive.com

He obviously meant the general welfare clause. You can't seriously be this stupid.

1. You mean HE "can't seriously be this stupid"...the best part: head of the Judiciary Committee.

2. And the indication of how swift you are is your response.

3. Making fun of someone without them (you) realizing it: priceless.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

1. You mean HE "can't seriously be this stupid"...the best part: head of the Judiciary Committee.

Right, because only stupid people misspeak.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I actually think that uniform tax law can nuke a lot of other federal taxes such as S.S. tax, death tax, and etc but since the federal court will probably side with itself and not vote to cut off its own revenue it will be impossible to get rid of those.

spidermantuba what do you think of my statement?

I think it clearly demonstrates you did absolutely zero research on the subject.

The requirement that taxes be uniform throughout the United States is a requirement that the taxes be uniform throughout the United States - not a requirement that if be uniform through economic classes. All this means is that you can't tax people based on which state they live in. You can't, for example, impose a 10% flat tax on the people of Indiana, but make the tax 1% everywhere else.

UNITED STATES V. PTASYNSKI, 462 U. S. 74 (1983) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

From UNITED STATES V. PTASYNSKI,

This general purpose, however, does not define the precise scope of the Clause. The one issue that has been raised repeatedly is whether the requirement of uniformity encompasses some notion of equality. It was settled fairly early that the Clause does not require Congress to devise a tax that falls equally or proportionately on each State. Rather, as the Court stated in the Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. at 112 U. S. 594, a "tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found."

Nor does the Clause prevent Congress from defining the subject of a tax by drawing distinctions between similar classes. In the Head Money Cases, supra, the Court recognized that, in imposing a head tax on persons coming into this country, Congress could choose to tax those persons who immigrated through the ports, but not those who immigrated at inland cities. As the Court explained,

"the evil to be remedied by this legislation has no existence on our inland borders, and immigration in that quarter needed no such regulation."

Id. at 112 U. S. 595. The tax applied to all ports alike, and the Court concluded that "there is substantial uniformity within the meaning and purpose of the Constitution." Ibid. Subsequent cases have confirmed that the Framers did not intend to restrict Congress' ability to define the class of objects to be taxed. They intended only that the tax apply wherever the classification is found. See Knowlton v. Moore, supra, at 178 U. S. 106; [Footnote 11] Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 173 U. S. 521-522 (1899).

I only need the language of the constition to find the truth. Its right there in plain english.

Why was the tax system uniform until the progressive income tax was implimented about 100 years ago.....during that "progressive" era in america where we started ignoring the constitution?

We shall see as I'm sure someone will bring something related to this, because of the healthcare bill, to the supereme court shortly after it is implimented.


Charles stucker the 16th ammendment doesn't say the taxes collected on income can be unequal. the 16th ammendment doesn't change that language in article 1 or the preamble.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Right, because only stupid people misspeak.

You'd definitely be the authority on that.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's legal "under several clauses," he explained. "The good and welfare clause and a couple others. All the constitutional scholars that I know -- I'm chairman of the Judiciary Committee as you know -- they all say there's nothing unconstitutional in this bill. And if there were, I would have tried to correct it."
Rep. John Conyers 'invents' clause to defend health care law; Sean Hannity takes notice | - MLive.com

He obviously meant the general welfare clause. You can't seriously be this stupid.

I highly doubt that John Conyers has ever read the Constitution. He's been too busy with years of poverty pimping and bailing his wife out of jail.

 

[The T]

who is?

The Correct answer is Separate but EQUAL Branches...You don't know how your government works do you? You need to really read more on it.

That's not an answer. Perhaps I should restate the question.

Who is the final arbiter of whether or not a law is Constitutional?

Still you FAIL. Go read the Federalist Papers, READ The Constitution itself. Of course the COURT has a SAY...but it doesn't STOP there. They are NOT the Final arbitor on anything.

You know nothing of the Founding Documents, do you?

TRY again and get back to me.

 

[Richard-H]

Let's face it: The framers of the U.S. Constitution purposely wrote in gramatically incorrect, essentially nonsensical, run on sentences that can be interperted by anyone anyway they'd like.

They did this so that everyone would interpert the Constitution conveniently for themselves and be all for it.

This, of course, created the great American legal system in which only lawyers are allowed to interpert the Constitution: in blantant defiance of the English language.

Ultimately, the chief determinant of the Constitution is who has the most money and power - and how the political winds are blowing that day.

 

[The T]

Let's face it: The framers of the U.S. Constitution purposely wrote in gramatically incorrect, essentially nonsensical, run on sentences that can be interperted by anyone anyway they'd like.

They did this so that everyone would interpert the Constitution conveniently for themselves and be all for it.

This, of course, created the great American legal system in which only lawyers are allowed to interpert the Constitution: in blantant defiance of the English language.

Ultimately, the chief determinant of the Constitution is who has the most money and power - and how the political winds are blowing that day.

Another know-nothing sppouting something that they haven't read about, NOR care to. They wrote in the language of the day and it's quite clear even NOW.

Try again.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

of course the court has a say...but it doesn't stop there. they are not the final arbitor on anything.[/i]

Then

Who

Is

???????????????????????????????????????

 

[The T]

of course the court has a say...but it doesn't stop there. they are not the final arbitor on anything.[/i]

t-h-e-n

w-h-o

i-s

???????????????????????????????????????

Be a good citizen (as YOU should already be)...DO your OWN homework...

YOU SHOULD ALREADY KNOW THIS.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I only need the language of the constition to find the truth. Its right there in plain english.

Translation - "I'm a wacko nutjob who doesn't care what the actual law is. Its what I say it is and no one else's opinion matters!"


If its so fucking clear in plain English why did the very people who wrote the document spend their lives arguing about what it means ?

implimented about 100 years ago.....during that "progressive" era in america where we started ignoring the constitution?

Actually Abraham Lincoln instituted a tax on income before the 16th amendment was passed. He also suspended habeas corpus without consent from Congress. But hey, don't let history get in your way.

We shall see as I'm sure someone will bring something related to this, because of the healthcare bill, to the supereme court shortly after it is implimented.

Are you fucking serious? You just ignored a Supreme Court ruling on the very issue you claim to have so much expertise on, claiming that you didn't need to actually read it because hey, all you gotta do is read the Constitution, and voila, you're a bona fide Constitutional scholar!. Are you so big headed as to actually think the Supreme Court values your uninformed opinion above clearly established jurisprudence?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Be a good citizen (as YOU should already be)...DO your OWN homework...

TRANSLATION-

"I DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A GOOD ANSWER"-The T

Thanks for jerking me around.

 

[Richard-H]

Let's face it: The framers of the U.S. Constitution purposely wrote in gramatically incorrect, essentially nonsensical, run on sentences that can be interperted by anyone anyway they'd like.

They did this so that everyone would interpert the Constitution conveniently for themselves and be all for it.

This, of course, created the great American legal system in which only lawyers are allowed to interpert the Constitution: in blantant defiance of the English language.

Ultimately, the chief determinant of the Constitution is who has the most money and power - and how the political winds are blowing that day.

Another know-nothing sppouting something that they haven't read about, NOR care to. They wrote in the language of the day and it's quite clear even NOW.

Try again.

Another flaming idiot who thinks that he knows everything about everything and nobody else knows anything about anything...

And yet is too stupid to recognize a joke....

Moron!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

This is for all the folks who babble on about James Madison whenever the general welfare clause turns up in conversation.


If you want to discuss actual, practical, real world law, and not what you wish was the law in your fanciful fantasy land, I'd suggest you familiarized yourself with a Supreme Court case called U.S. v Butler (1936). In the majority opinion, Republican appointed Justice Roberts rejects Madison's view on the general welfare clause and adopts Hamilton's view.

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, [p66] 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. [n12] 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


That is the actual, binding, practical law that is being applied and that is the reality of it. Sorry if you don't like it, but Madison's views on the GW clause are not legally relevant

So a Progressive SCOTUS judge takes the position that the GW clause overides the principled premise of the US founding and the limitations upon the US Federal Government; and you feel that this is relevant to something?

If the same Judge decided that your grandfather was unworthy of his right to his life... had him executed because he felt Hamilton had implied such; I sorta doubt you'd be here to argue this drivel.

Here's a little leasson for ya... Tautology happens... The existence of such; which FTR is nonsense... the term speaks to precisely what Madison says it speaks to; the conclusion you noted demands that the USC cannot possess such; therefore Madison's views must be incorrect and as a result the verbiage means something else... in this case, the phrase was set in place to counter-act the fundamental principles otherwise expressed in the document.

Don't be an idiot... it's not very flattering.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So a Progressive SCOTUS judge takes the position that the GW clause overides the principled premise of the US founding and the limitations upon the US Federal Government; and you feel that this is relevant to something?

No. No judge took that position. You're babbling. But if you're thinking about Owen Roberts, who took Alexander Hamilton's position on the GW clause, he was appointed by a Republican.

If the same Judge decided that your grandfather was unworthy of his right to his life... had him executed because he felt Hamilton had implied such; I sorta doubt you'd be here to argue this drivel.

Once again, you choose to base your argument about a non-existent reality.

Here's a little leasson for ya... Tautology happens... The existence of such; which FTR is nonsense... the term speaks to precisely what Madison says it speaks to; the conclusion you noted demands that the USC cannot possess such; therefore Madison's views must be incorrect and as a result the verbiage means something else... in this case, the phrase was set in place to counter-act the fundamental principles otherwise expressed in the document.

I never said Madison's views were incorrect. I said that his views on the GW clause are not part of our practical real world law - a fact you just cannot accept.