TNHarley
Diamond Member
- Sep 27, 2012
- 100,395
- 64,089
- 2,605
Lol as if
An idea that's time has come. And not the only one.
- Thread starter berg80
- Start date
TNHarley
Diamond Member
- Sep 27, 2012
- 100,395
- 64,089
- 2,605
General welfare loophole?
Doc7505
Diamond Member
- Feb 16, 2016
- 23,521
- 41,863
- 2,430
<~~~~~~>
Indeed, there weren't as many "Progressive Democrats" back in the day. They were called "Loyalist Tories" faithful to King George. They nearly cost Americans their freedom and liberty at the time. They were colonists in the Thirteen Colonies who remained loyal to the British crown during the American Revolution. They constituted about 15-20% of the white population, which amounted to approximately 500,000 people. Many Loyalists believed in the British monarchy and were unwilling to rebel against the Crown.
Natural Citizen
American Made
- Aug 8, 2016
- 30,488
- 31,325
- 2,945
It's not a loop hole, it's that i tsems to be forgotten, and, generationally speaking, never learned, that its original intent was meant to limit government.
I've explained this quite thoroughly in the past, so not doing it again.
But as a courtesy to any serious passers-by who might be genuinely interested in its intent, and since I have the material handy, here's at least a relevant copypasta from a great book in which the topic is briefly discussed.
The "General Welfare" in Relation to the Constitution
8. The Preamble of the United States Constitution specifies"the general Welfare" merely as one of the listed goals to be served by the Federal government in the exercise of the limited powers delegated to it, as enumerated in the body of that instrument. This mention of "the general Welfare" in the Preamble was intended, therefore, to serve in effect as a limit on the use of those delegated powers. The Preamble does not constitute a grant of any power whatever to the government.
The only other mention of the words "general welfare" in the Constitution is in the Taxing Clause (Article I, Section 8) which authorizes Congress to collect taxes ". . . to pay the Debts andprovide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States . . ." Here, too, the words "general Welfare" were designed to serve as a limitation in effect--as a limit on thepower granted under that clause. This excludes any power to tax and spend for all purposes which would not qualify as being for the "general Welfare of the United States" as a whole--for instance, it is excluded if for the benefit merely of a locality or some Individuals in the United States. The clause does not empower Congress to spend tax monies for any and every purpose it might select merely on the pretense, or even in the belief, that it is for the "general welfare." Congress possesses no"general legislative authority," as Hamilton stated in TheFederalist number 83.
Hamilton's Opinion
9. All of those who framed and ratified the Constitution were in agreement on this point of the limited and limiting meaning of the words "general Welfare" in the Taxing Clause. As Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton contended for the first time in 1791("Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States") in favor of a broader interpretation of this clause than he had formerly espoused and broader than that which Madison - with Hamilton's silent acquiescence--had presented in 1788 in The Federalist (especially number 41) as reflectingthe controlling intent of the Framing Convention, which Madison and Jefferson consistently supported. Hamilton did not claim, however, that this clause gives to the Federal government any power, through taxing-spending, so as in effect to control directly or indirectly anything or anybody, or any activities of the people or of the State governments. Despite his assertion that this clause gives Congress a separate and substantive spending power, Hamilton cautioned expressly (Report on "Manufactures," 1791) that it only authorizes taxing and spending within the limits of what would serve the "general welfare" and does not imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the "general welfare"--that it does "not carry a power to do anyother thing not authorized in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication."
The Supreme Court's 1936 Decision Ascertaining andDefining the Original, Controlling Intent
10. As the Supreme Court decided (1936 Carter case) inascertaining and defining the original, controlling intent of the Constitution as proved by all pertinent records and confirming its prior decisions over the generations since the adoption of the Constitution, the contentions advanced from time to time that "Congress, entirely apart from those powers delegated by the Constitution, may enact laws to promote the general welfare, have never been accepted but always definitely rejected by this court." It also decided that the Framing Convention "made no grant of authority to Congress to legislate substantively for the general welfare . . . [citing 1936 Butler case] . . . and no such authority exists, save as the general welfare may be promoted by the exercise of the powers which are granted." The American people have neve ramended the Constitution so as to change the limited and limiting meaning of the words "general Welfare" in the Taxing Clause, as thus originally intended by The Framers and Adopters in 1787-1788.
The Founders' Warnings
11. As Jefferson warned many times in his writings, public and private--for instance in the Kentucky Resolution--in keeping with the traditional American philosophy, strict enforcement ofthe Constitution's limits on the Federal government's power is essential for the protection of the people's liberties. This point was stressed at great length in The Federalist (notablynumbers 17, 28, 33 and 78 by Hamilton and 44 and 46 by Madison) in reporting and explaining the intent of the Framing Convention expressed in the Constitution--as was understood and accepted by the State Ratifying Conventions. Hamilton's repeated warnings against permitting public servants to flout the people's mandate as to the limits on government's power, as specified in their basic laws (Constitutions) creating their governments, were in keeping with his words on one occasion in relation to the New York State Constitution. He stated ("Letters of Phocion," 1784) that any such defiance, by publicservants, of the Constitution would be "a treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people . . ."Washington's Farewell Address expressed the conviction of The Founders of the Republic and their fellow leaders, in keeping with history's lesson, when he warned that usurpation "is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
If anyone is interested in the content of the book in its entirety but hates to read thick books, it's an easy read, respectfully speaking.
The American ideal of 1776: the twelve basic American principles - Hardcover
''Intelligent choice--between 1776 Americanism and conflicting Isms (chiefly Socialism in the USA today)--requires primarily thorough knowledge of these Principles.
The book is the essential tool for all who wish to be worthy trustees for today's children and future generations of their just heritage: this Ideal, its eternal values and the supporting Constitution, as The Founders intended. They believed to default about this is to betray.''
(emphasis the author's)
Last edited:
AntonToo
Diamond Member
- Jun 13, 2016
- 38,850
- 12,154
- 1,560
Not necessarily true - politics change, issues evolve and as Trump's second term will be sunsetting this is likely to be resonant with the electorate. Certainly with Democrat electorate that is sick and tired of executive abuse of power.
Last edited:
berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 33,518
- 27,314
- 2,820
- Thread starter
- #86
The Founders had the fortunate experience of a template created by Washington. A man so concerned with a concentration of power in one man's hands that he turned down the opportunity to serve as prez for a third term. The juxtaposition to trump couldn't be more stark.
Having opinions other than left wing talking points can be a burden to liberals.
IDIOCRACY
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2017
- 4,989
- 5,396
- 1,938
I stopped reading at criminal confederates, this is no more than a story book. And LMAO at "trans the founders expectations" after Biden auto-penned cover-alls for his family and friends for the crimes of "just in case".Repairing the Rule of Law: An Agenda for Post-Trump Reform
-Pardon reform. There can be little doubt of two things. First, as currently constructed, the president’s pardon power is nearly absolute. Second, President Trump’s use of the pardon power has transgressed the Founders’ expectations. Indeed, the idea that a president might pardon his own criminal confederates (as is arguably the case with Roger Stone) is exactly why George Mason opposed the pardon power altogether. At some point, Congress might give serious consideration to a constitutional amendment that, for example, makes pardons illegal for individuals personally known to the president and makes the misuse of the power judicially reviewable.
Repairing the Rule of Law: An Agenda for Post-Trump Reform
What should be done in a post-Trump world to restore the rule of law?www.lawfaremedia.org
This article was written near the end of trump 1.0. Nothing has come of it. A fact that's proven to be a colossal mistake. Perhaps excused by the belief trump's political career was over after he launched a failed plot to overturn the 2020 election.
Clearly, as evidenced by events that have taken place during trump 2.0, the prez's absolute pardon power either needs dramatic reform or a constitutional amendment to end it. It isn't the only thing badly in need of reform. The most important among them, IMO, being........
-Reform of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act to prevent perpetual “acting” appointments.
Redefining “emergency” authority to limit such declarations generally.
-Enhanced inspectors general protection.
-Overturn Franklin v. Massachusetts.
-Define emoluments violations and create a right of action.
-Expediting judicial review of congressional demands for records in relation to oversight and impeachment.
LordBrownTrout
Diamond Member
You have leftist selective memory. Of course you forgot dubyas patriot act and then o expanded on it.
Billiejeens
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2019
- 52,470
- 38,541
- 3,545
They have literally never gotten over having the only key to the free flow of information taken away from them.
Average people realized that the truth and "The narrative" were not usually the same.
LordBrownTrout
Diamond Member
You have to marvel at his complete dependence on libs to lead him around by the nose as he endlessly pom poms their ideas that are detrimental to the country.
That is real funny coming from you.Good to see you have an open mind when presented with ideas in conflict with your own.
LordBrownTrout
Diamond Member
It was dubyas idea so why didn't libs overturn it? You would have a shred of credibility if you were to espouse dumping both of these worthless parties who have scavenged and pillaged this country.......but you just cant do it.
why would you want to overturn Franklin v Mass?
You have no use for ideas other than your own so you are just a two faced hypocrite like most but not all leftists on this board and in the rest of the county. Trump could pull a drowning child out of the ocean and you would accuse Trump of starving sharks,
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
-
Fourth-quarter GDP revised down to just 0.7% growth; January core inflation was 3.1%- Started by Zincwarrior
- Replies: 1
