Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
yes I read it. I understand how someone of low intelligence could interpret it the way you did. The FACT is Hamilton would most likely disagree with your interpretation of that clause. Anymore words from the founders you would like to bastardize?
General Welfare Clause: Information from Answers.comThe U. S. Supreme Court first interpreted the clause in United States v. Butler (1936). There, Justice Owen Roberts, in his majority opinion, agreed with Hamilton's view and held that the general welfare language in the taxing-and-spending clause constituted a separate grant of power to Congress to spend in areas over which it was not granted direct regulatory control.
* the narrower view of James Madison that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax;[16][17] and
* the broader view of Alexander Hamilton that spending is an enumerated power that Congress may exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[18]
We're basically going to go back and forth on this to infinity because YOU CAN'T READ. I keep telling you that the general welfare clause does not grant unlimited power - it only grants SPENDING power for the general welfare - and in fact, the quote from Hamilton YOU SUPPLIED says the same thing. Then you come back and tell me its absurd to think it grants unlimited power. One can only conclude you have severe reading comprehension problems, which isn't surprising since you believe the Constitution to be written
and again, you can't provide a limit on the GW clause,
... the general welfare language in the taxing-and-spending clause constituted a separate grant of power to Congress to spend in areas over which it was not granted direct regulatory control.
like h/c...you already have made up your mind that the specific waterboarding is torture, though no court has said so, and here, you have made up your mind that h/c is not unconstitutional though no court has ruled thusly.
if the above is true that would mean government can tax for whatever it wants to.
Surely you aren't so stupid as to believe that's what the framers intended.
Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents.
Can you not comprehend the level of tyranny that could result from such an interpretation?
you're a moron spidey....i've never talked about GW in aother other terms except spending
you're a moron spidey....i've never talked about GW in aother other terms except spending
Well Ok then. I guess we agree. The Congress can spend money on the general welfare. Good day.
thats what i thought coward...run away from the limitless power to spend argument....as i said, your view causes most the enumerated powers listed, to be redundant and meaningless...
but its much easier for you falsely claim i'm talking about making tobacco illegal,
Do you understand what this means? The powers which follow the general welfare clause are, for the most part, regulatory in nature. Congress may regulate patents. Congress may establish bankruptcy regulations. Congress may constitute inferior tribunals. Etc. These are powers to REGULATE.
The taxation clause is the power to SPEND MONEY, and yes, that power is very general. But it is only a power to spend money, not to regulate.
To give a simple example:
Say the Congress decided that it was in the interest of the general welfare if everyone in the nation read Orwell's "1984".
The taxation clause grants them the power to SPEND money to this end - they can tax people, and buy copies of the book, and send those copies to every household in America.
What they would not be allowed to do is REGULATE to this end - they could not pass a law requiring anyone to read the book, for instance.
Do you see the difference?
Its what they wrote and its what the courts have held. [/quote]Yes I see the difference. To believe that the framers intended for the fed to have that level of power is what is ridiculous.
They could. But I'd doubt they'd get reelected if they did that. That's the whole point of democracy through elected government. We the People determine what is the 'general welfare' by our will expressed through Congress. If you think public healthcare is not in the 'general welfare' then express that will through your vote (as I'm sure you have). But you personally do not get to determine what is in the general welfare, we as a nation determine that collectively.They could state it's in the general wellfare for everyone to own a car as well.
gotta love spidey's willful neglect of mentioning any of the spending enumerated powers
Actually I was just making an example, but you're too dim to get it.you talked about tobacco use earlier, as if i was thinking in that vein
...nice try sporto, but your view
makes meaningless most of the enumerated powers,
why even bother mentioning anything enumerated powers regarding spending if the GW clause means you can spend for anything, if it is unlimited?
you can't answer that
Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?
medicare is an unconstitutional progressive idea that we are now stuck with.
As you can see from its poor balance sheet performance medicare is not a example for making an even bigger government health program.
medicare is an unconstitutional progressive idea that we are now stuck with.
What makes it unconstitutional?
As you can see from its poor balance sheet performance medicare is not a example for making an even bigger government health program.
How many payments has medicare missed lately? And can you please name the nation where seniors get better health care.
I wish my personal debts were backed entirely by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.
The constition does not give the federal government the power to remove property(money) from one group of individuals (all workers) to provide a service for another group of individuals (medicare receipiants).
Medicare does not run trillions in the red year after year. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.I dont have any personal debt so seing a program run in the red by trillions of dollars year after year
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;
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 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;
Brilliant defense. Just tell me I'm stupid because I can understand plain English better than you.
But you don't have to take my word for it:
