To the Conservatives.

[DiveCon]

The bailouts were not a debt of the United States, they were propping up failed businesses at the expense of the taxpayers. And the general welfare clause was not meant to be a free pass for the government to do anything it pleases.

exactly
promoting the general welfare is not PROVIDING FOR IT

 

[WillowTree]

One more time:

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.


The paying of debts and the providing for the general welfare are in different parts of the sentence. It's called parallel construction. You'll need to read a little more closely.

If you want to argue that it's bad policy, be my guest. But if you want to argue that it's unconstitutional, then sorry, the Constitution doesn't back you up on that.

I cannot believe you repeated this. What in God's name are imposts?

 

[HelloDollyLlama]

The bailouts were not a debt of the United States, they were propping up failed businesses at the expense of the taxpayers. And the general welfare clause was not meant to be a free pass for the government to do anything it pleases.

Yet again, the debt part of the clause, and the general welfare part of the clause are two different powers of Congress. And no one is arguing that Congress should do whatever they please -- but the clause does provide a great deal of leeway. And that's even before we get to the interstate commerce clause --

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

-- which has also been very broadly interpreted by Congress, to empower them to do a whole lot of things which the Founding Fathers never envisioned.

Yet again: I am not saying they should do some of the things they're considering. I am saying that if they decide to, they can.

 

[HelloDollyLlama]

when someone proves that facts dont mean anything to them, i call them a moron, you fit the bill

I beat you with the text of the Constitution. You lost fair and square. Whine all you want.

 

[HelloDollyLlama]

I cannot believe you repeated this. What in God's name are imposts?

It's a kind of tax.

Clearly I am going to have to give Civics lessons to the whole class.

Are you complaining that I am using the Constitution to back my argument??

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yet again, the debt part of the clause, and the general welfare part of the clause are two different powers of Congress. And no one is arguing that Congress should do whatever they please -- but the clause does provide a great deal of leeway. And that's even before we get to the interstate commerce clause --

That's great that they're two different powers of Congress, but they still don't apply to the bailouts in any way shape or form.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

-- which has also been very broadly interpreted by Congress, to empower them to do a whole lot of things which the Founding Fathers never envisioned.

Yet again: I am not saying they should do some of the things they're considering. I am saying that if they decide to, they can.

Just because Congress can do something doesn't mean it's Constitutional.

 

[DiveCon]

I beat you with the text of the Constitution. You lost fair and square. Whine all you want.

only you failed
you tried
but you never did so
i guess you are the female version of chris/kirk

 

[HelloDollyLlama]

exactly
promoting the general welfare is not PROVIDING FOR IT

In terms of interpreting the Constitution, they mean the same thing.

In terms of policy -- that's different. You can argue policy all you want. But you can't argue that it's unconstitutional.

 

[HelloDollyLlama]

Yes, they do, if Congress decides they do.

And your second statement makes no sense -- the Constitution is where Congress gets its power from, so if they can do it, constitutionally, they can do it. You're making a distinction which is entirely meaningless.

That's great that they're two different powers of Congress, but they still don't apply to the bailouts in any way shape or form.



Just because Congress can do something doesn't mean it's Constitutional.

 

[HelloDollyLlama]

only you failed
you tried
but you never did so
i guess you are the female version of chris/kirk

Um, yeah.
Clearly you've been out of ammo for quite some time.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In terms of interpreting the Constitution, they mean the same thing.

In terms of policy -- that's different. You can argue policy all you want. But you can't argue that it's unconstitutional.

It can be argued that something is unconstitutional because the general welfare clause doesn't really mean anything. Unless a power is specifically stated in the Constitution then the federal government does not have authority to use that power.

To argue that the general welfare clause allows for implied powers, as Alexander Hamilton argued, is to say that the Constitution allows the federal government to do anything that it wants. Which is absolutely incorrect.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, they do, if Congress decides they do.

So Congress gets to decide what is Constitutional? That would mean Congress could do anything it wants, and that is not the case.

And your second statement makes no sense -- the Constitution is where Congress gets its power from, so if they can do it, constitutionally, they can do it. You're making a distinction which is entirely meaningless.

No, if Congress can do something then that means that nobody is stopping them or questioning the Constitutionality of what they're doing. That doesn't mean that what they're doing is allowed by the Constitution.

 

[HelloDollyLlama]

Providing for the general welfare is not an implied power. It is expressly granted to Congress in Article I. If you feel that that language is maddeningly vague -- which isn't unreasonable -- then you have two remedies:

1. Start campaigning for a Constitutional amendment to tighten up that language.

2. Find a test case which is specific to your complaint, and take it to the Supreme Court -- try to persuade them that you're closer to the intent of the Founding Fathers than the current Congress is.

Unless you do one of those two things, Congress is acting within their rights.

It can be argued that something is unconstitutional because the general welfare clause doesn't really mean anything. Unless a power is specifically stated in the Constitution then the federal government does not have authority to use that power.

To argue that the general welfare clause allows for implied powers, as Alexander Hamilton argued, is to say that the Constitution allows the federal government to do anything that it wants. Which is absolutely incorrect.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The "general welfare" Statement does not grant a power to Congress, if it did they would not need to go on to list any other powers since that alone would give unlimited absolute power to Congress and the Government. It is simply a comment on WHY the following powers are vested to the Federal Government.

 

[HelloDollyLlama]

I never, at any point, said that Congress can decide unilaterally what's Constitutional.

As I said in the other post -- ultimately the Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional. If you can persuade them that Congress is acting illegally, more power to you.

So Congress gets to decide what is Constitutional? That would mean Congress could do anything it wants, and that is not the case.



No, if Congress can do something then that means that nobody is stopping them or questioning the Constitutionality of what they're doing. That doesn't mean that what they're doing is allowed by the Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Providing for the general welfare is not an implied power. It is expressly granted to Congress in Article I. If you feel that that language is maddeningly vague -- which isn't unreasonable -- then you have two remedies:

1. Start campaigning for a Constitutional amendment to tighten up that language.

2. Find a test case which is specific to your complaint, and take it to the Supreme Court -- try to persuade them that you're closer to the intent of the Founding Fathers than the current Congress is.

Unless you do one of those two things, Congress is acting within their rights.

I didn't say that the general welfare clause was an implied power, I said in some people's minds it allows for implied powers. It does not allow for anything. The only powers the federal government has are those that are specifically stated in the Constitution, not those that could be implied from the general welfare clause. Anything the government does that is not stated in the Constitution is unconstitutional, period.

 

[HelloDollyLlama]

The "general welfare" Statement does not grant a power to Congress, if it did they would not need to go on to list any other powers since that alone would give unlimited absolute power to Congress and the Government. It is simply a comment on WHY the following powers are vested to the Federal Government.

That is incorrect.

The general welfare clause is first on a long list of other powers also appertaining to Congress. Those other powers are in addition to the general welfare clause, not a subset of the general welfare clause. Therefore, the general welfare clause stands separate from the clauses which follow, granting a specific power to Congress which has nothing to do with those other clauses.

And the general welfare clause is not an unlimited power, particularly since other clauses in the Constitution give other powers to the executive, the judiciary, the states, and the people, which Congress cannot infringe upon.





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;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I never, at any point, said that Congress can decide unilaterally what's Constitutional.

As I said in the other post -- ultimately the Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional. If you can persuade them that Congress is acting illegally, more power to you.

You said that the bailouts apply to the general welfare clause, and to the paying of debts because Congress decided that they do. That implies that Congress decides what is Constitutional.

Yes, they do, if Congress decides they do.

 

[HelloDollyLlama]

I didn't say that the general welfare clause was an implied power, I said in some people's minds it allows for implied powers. It does not allow for anything. The only powers the federal government has are those that are specifically stated in the Constitution, not those that could be implied from the general welfare clause. Anything the government does that is not stated in the Constitution is unconstitutional, period.

Yet again, the Constitution does not imply that Congress can act to promote the general welfare. It says so explicitly. The words are right there in the Constitution, and cannot be simply ignored.


It's 2AM and my battery is dying. The five of you can go research Constitutional law on your own time. I have printed the clause repeatedly, I have explained it repeatedly, and any law school faculty in the country would back me up on this. This is not like the Second Amendment where we can argue the meaning, and even the punctuation, of the text: the language of Article I is clear as a bell. As I said, if you want to holler at James Madison, or wage a legal fight to amend the Constituton, or go to the Supreme Court to alter its current meaning, be my guest. But until you do, Congress is acting legally.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yet again, the Constitution does not imply that Congress can act to promote the general welfare. It says so explicitly. The words are right there in the Constitution, and cannot be simply ignored.


It's 2AM and my battery is dying. The five of you can go research Constitutional law on your own time. I have printed the clause repeatedly, I have explained it repeatedly, and any law school faculty in the country would back me up on this. This is not like the Second Amendment where we can argue the meaning, and even the punctuation, of the text: the language of Article I is clear as a bell. As I said, if you want to holler at James Madison, or wage a legal fight to amend the Constituton, or go to the Supreme Court to alter its current meaning, be my guest. But until you do, Congress is acting legally.

Yes, Congress can promote the general welfare by doing what it is authorized to do by the Constitution, and that is all it can legally do. Congress cannot simply do something and say that it's for the general welfare so it is Constitutional. That would allow them to do anything and say that it's for the general welfare.

And once again, I did not say that the general welfare clause is implied, I said it allows for the government to come up with implied powers in some people's opinions.