The General Welfare Clause

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ihopehefails, Jan 4, 2010.

  1. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    The patriot act is perfectly legal and constitutional because of the general welfare clause. According to that the government can do anything it wants as long as it is for our welfare so the patriot act was used to protect the general welfare (and don't forget common defense) so its perfectly legal. Now that we established that the government can do anything it wants under that section of the constitution we can start locking up political dissidents and limiting free speech because it is for the "general welfare" of the public.

    This argument sounds pretty lame but this is what all your "general welfare" arguments sound like to us.
     
  2. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    You're gonna piss off a LOT of liberals. Have at it!!!!
     
  3. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    not if it contradicts other parts of the constitution
     
  4. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,388
    Thanks Received:
    19,853
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,429
    Where does anything in Medicare, Social Security or Healthcare violate other Constitutional rights? Patriot act is in direct violation of the 4th Ammendment

    The Week Magazine - News reviews and opinion, arts, entertainment & political cartoons

    To what end? The Ensign-DeMint exercise will not stop the Reid-Obama plan. Nor will it much impress the courts. Since the challenges to Social Security were rejected by the Supreme Court in 1937, the courts have consistently held that the general welfare clause of the Constitution empowers Congress to create social welfare plans based on compulsory contribution. (Helvering v. Davis is the most relevant case.)


    DeMint's and Ensign's argument against the constitutionality of the Obama-Reid health reform rests upon the ancient theory of enumerated powers. Under this theory, Congress may do only what the Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to do. Since (for example) the Constitution does not mention a national bank, Congress may not charter banks.

    The theory exerted a lively influence upon the politics of the 1790s, when it was enthusiastically promoted by the party led by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. The heart went out of the theory in 1805, when then President Jefferson purchased Louisiana from the French in 1805. The Constitution had said nothing about THAT either.

    The Civil War finished off the theory for all practical political purposes. Since 1865, the doctrine of enumerated power has subsisted at the remote margins of American politics. Are Republicans proposing now to resurrect the constitutional theories of Roger Taney?
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2010
  5. DiamondDave
    Offline

    DiamondDave Army Vet

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    18,169
    Thanks Received:
    2,812
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    MD, on the Potomac River
    Ratings:
    +2,816
    What they do not get is the difference between "general welfare of the Unites States" and the individual welfare of individual citizens...

    What they also never seem to grasp is the history of the US intercepting wartime communications to and from enemies and suspected enemies... even if it originated from or was being sent to a citizen or somewhere specific within the US.... without warrant or need of a warrant... and we've still yet to hear of a single case where other information from anything like a tax violation or even a jaywalking ticket was issued at the hands of the information gathered from suspected enemy communications, on a US citizen
     
  6. ☭proletarian☭
    Online

    ☭proletarian☭ Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    This liberal has no problem with the OP. :eusa_eh:
     
  7. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    The general welfare allows you to override all of those sections. It even allows you to expand the power of the federal government beyond what is actuall written it can do so now we have medicare, social security, and more things that go outside the constitution. That includes the patriot act as well so the patriot act can override any other part of the constitution that it wants as long as it is in the general welfare of the public.

    Do you still want to have such a wide interpretation of that particular clause?

    All your arguments about the constitution's limited powers are null because a civil war didn't change the constitution. The supremacy clause itself states that the constitution is the highest law of the land and that means all governmental authority comes from that document in this country and what it says, not who kicked who's ass, determines what authority any government has. The civil war did not change the constitution!

    And yes, we are going to shrink the federal government down to nothing so that individual state governments can do as they please within the confines of the constitution. The assault on your way of thinking is going to be relentless until we get our way so just give up right now and enjoy the new level of freedom you will get.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2010
  8. ☭proletarian☭
    Online

    ☭proletarian☭ Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    What people don't get is

    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 Defence and general Welfare

    Red it the power given, blue is the reason.

    The specific powers granted are enumerated in articles 1-3.
     
  9. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,388
    Thanks Received:
    19,853
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,429
    Afraid it doesn't

    Kind of invalidates your whole thread doesn't it?

    As can be seen in my previous post, your whacko fringe has no chance of success
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2010
  10. DiamondDave
    Offline

    DiamondDave Army Vet

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    18,169
    Thanks Received:
    2,812
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    MD, on the Potomac River
    Ratings:
    +2,816

    Read the whole fucking statement and stop leaving off the last part, you fucking ignoramus

    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;

    As stated.. there is a huge difference between "general welfare of the Unites States" and the individual welfare of individual citizens...

    We are not arguing whether or not taxes or duties or tariffs can be collected
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2010

Share This Page