article 1 section 8

[Procrustes Stretched]

but the phrase is 'general welfare of the United States' - 'of' - general welfare of - of who/whom?

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

“United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

James Madision Fed. 41

"general welfare," as used in the Constitution, is defined by the enumerated powers listed directly afterward, nothing more and nothing less.

i think part of the problem is treating the federalist papers as if they are law. they aren't. our law is comprised of statute and our caselaw. and our caselaw, going back hundreds of years, does not limit what congress is able to do in accordance with the general welfare clause... EXCEPT as to those things which are the sole province of the states.

but the reality is that the supremacy clause, taken together with the general welfare clause and the way they've been construed by caselaw pretty much end any argument against governmental action

No rational, reasonable person here treats the Federalist Essays as law. When discussing interpretation it is one of a few concrete sources we can rely on to form an opinion on interpretation

 

[DGS49]

You don't have to go to the history books to see that the expansive view of the "general welfare" wording in Section 8 was long ago rejected.

If Congress were permitted to do anything it wanted, so long as it promoted the "general welfare," then the Obamacare act would have been completely consitutional, with no real counter-arguments. There is no question whatsoever that a majority of the Congress (at the time the Act was passed) believed that Obamacare would promote the "general welfare" of the U.S.

The fact that the mandate could only be permitted under the power to "...lay and collect taxes..." should be proof enough that Congress is - at least theoretically - limited to its enumerated powers, and cannot do whatever it pleases under the "general welfare" clause.

 

[Listening]

Madison cleared this up quite clearly (by explaining it) and also fought back this very objection (that it was unlimited powers in his explanations as found in the Federalist Papers.

All taken into account, the left is just looking for an excuse to use the USC like Obama.

Why don't you bastards just have it printed on toilet paper ? You don't give it any more respect than that. When it tells you what you don't want to hear, you simply appeal to history.

FDR tried (and eventually succeeded) in co-opting the SCOTUS after it kept telling him no....you don't have an open check for whatever you think is general welfare.

This is a dead issue.

You don't have to go to the history books to see that the expansive view of the "general welfare" wording in Section 8 was long ago rejected.

If Congress were permitted to do anything it wanted, so long as it promoted the "general welfare," then the Obamacare act would have been completely consitutional, with no real counter-arguments. There is no question whatsoever that a majority of the Congress (at the time the Act was passed) believed that Obamacare would promote the "general welfare" of the U.S.

The fact that the mandate could only be permitted under the power to "...lay and collect taxes..." should be proof enough that Congress is - at least theoretically - limited to its enumerated powers, and cannot do whatever it pleases under the "general welfare" clause.

Another outstanding example:

Thanks.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Which is why I used their actual words instead of my own interpretations of them. You never answered me.

What the framers meant when they wrote the draft has never been agreed upon by the framers themselves. No records/minutes were kept. We do not know what they meant when they met in secret.

Actually we can now come back to my first post in this thread again, it includes quotes from one of the constitutions own authors on what article 1, section 8 is all about.

okay

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

Actually we can now come back to my first post in this thread again, it includes quotes from one of the constitutions own authors on what article 1, section 8 is all about.

This is a question for the strict constitutionalists who believe we take the constitution literally, exactly as written.

Section 8 of Article 1 in known as the "enumerated powers" section. Here is where the various powers granted the congress are spelled out. The first article in that section is quoted, verbatim, below.

Section 8

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;

Taking that literally, strictly as written, how does that limit the power of congress to legislate on any social program it chooses so long as it provides for the "general welfare"?

It is quite simple. The founders were educated and very literate. How can you interpret that any other way? Remember though, you are not supposed to interpret, you are to take it literally.

What did they originally mean by the term "General Welfare"

As a person who feels the constitution should be read and interpreted according to its original intent this is a specific question I've pondered a lot. Here is what I have to say.

...then you are wrong on too many counts to list here.

Read other posts: Founders/Framers/Ratifiers

The Constitution itself has no intent as it is only a document.

Madison argued that to interpret the Constitution, yes interpretation...one would have to look for the meanings and intent of the ratifiers.

The Constitutional Convention (the Framers NOT the Founders) meeting in secret...

...purposefully sent the document out to be ratified by the people and not the state legislatures. Up or down vote. No debate on changes...ratify up or down.

 

[Claudette]

If the FF's could see how this GW clause is used today I firmly believe they would turn over in their graves.

These are the same guys that threw a hissy fit when one of them wanted to give the French immigrants 10 grand to help them settle in the USA. This was after the French helped them achiev independence.

Funny how until FDR made a mockery of the Constitution no one even had a glimmer about the taxdollars of this country being handed out to the poor and downtrodden.

Promoting the GW is a long way from Providing the GW.

And what happened to the part of the constitution that says everyone should be treated the same??

Kinda leaves those providing the largesse out in the cold wouldn't you say?? Those paying Fed taxes are now obliged to provide for every freeloader in the US. Don't think thats what the GW clause was put in there for.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined. This differs from most modern interpretations including your own!

Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders and they were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. However another founder, Alexander Hamilton, saw it in a little differently.

"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

"No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore nconstitutional.

So, to use the founder's own opinions to answer your original question, the congress does not have the power to tax and spend for any social program they see fit according to the founders and the original intent of the constitution.

Also look into what the rest of section 8 goes on to say, it is obvious they were talking about foreign affairs when they used the term general welfare and not domestic policies.

your opinions aside, one can take dueling quotes from Madison himself. there exists dueling positions with Madison and Hamilton disagreeing on what the correct interpretation of specific parts of the Constitution mean. They disagree with each other over what was intended.

what is your point?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You don't have to go to the history books to see that the expansive view of the "general welfare" wording in Section 8 was long ago rejected.

If Congress were permitted to do anything it wanted, so long as it promoted the "general welfare," then the Obamacare act would have been completely consitutional, with no real counter-arguments. There is no question whatsoever that a majority of the Congress (at the time the Act was passed) believed that Obamacare would promote the "general welfare" of the U.S.

The fact that the mandate could only be permitted under the power to "...lay and collect taxes..." should be proof enough that Congress is - at least theoretically - limited to its enumerated powers, and cannot do whatever it pleases under the "general welfare" clause.

gawd, people differ over what an expansive view is.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Madison cleared this up quite clearly (by explaining it) and also fought back this very objection (that it was unlimited powers in his explanations as found in the Federalist Papers.

All taken into account, the left is just looking for an excuse to use the USC like Obama.

Why don't you bastards just have it printed on toilet paper ? You don't give it any more respect than that. When it tells you what you don't want to hear, you simply appeal to history.

FDR tried (and eventually succeeded) in co-opting the SCOTUS after it kept telling him no....you don't have an open check for whatever you think is general welfare.

This is a dead issue.

You don't have to go to the history books to see that the expansive view of the "general welfare" wording in Section 8 was long ago rejected.

If Congress were permitted to do anything it wanted, so long as it promoted the "general welfare," then the Obamacare act would have been completely consitutional, with no real counter-arguments. There is no question whatsoever that a majority of the Congress (at the time the Act was passed) believed that Obamacare would promote the "general welfare" of the U.S.

The fact that the mandate could only be permitted under the power to "...lay and collect taxes..." should be proof enough that Congress is - at least theoretically - limited to its enumerated powers, and cannot do whatever it pleases under the "general welfare" clause.

Another outstanding example:

Thanks.

go away

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If the FF's could see how this GW clause is used today I firmly believe they would turn over in their graves.

If they could see, they would not be in their graves.

see?

These are the same guys that threw a hissy fit when one of them wanted to give the French immigrants 10 grand to help them settle in the USA. This was after the French helped them achiev independence.

Funny how until FDR made a mockery of the Constitution no one even had a glimmer about the taxdollars of this country being handed out to the poor and downtrodden.

Promoting the GW is a long way from Providing the GW.

And what happened to the part of the constitution that says everyone should be treated the same??

Kinda leaves those providing the largesse out in the cold wouldn't you say?? Those paying Fed taxes are now obliged to provide for every freeloader in the US. Don't think thats what the GW clause was put in there for.

your idiocy knows no bounds

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Basically, the government can provide for the general welfare of the country in whatever way it sees fit as long as the citizens go along with it.

Keeping the poor from starving to death is in the best interests of the country as a whole.

True, but what happens when that gets out of control? When citizens begin taking advantage of it? There are no controls for this, no incentive to get off of government assistance, no limit to how long they can be on assistance. Why should I get a second job when it doesn't make up for what food stamps and medicaid give me? It creates dependency. That general mentality is also why I don't like the idea of too many government jobs.The citizenry should never be beholden to their government.

As I've seen many people post before; I love safety nets, but I hate safety hammocks.

 

[emilynghiem]

i think part of the problem is treating the federalist papers as if they are law. they aren't. our law is comprised of statute and our caselaw. and our caselaw, going back hundreds of years, does not limit what congress is able to do in accordance with the general welfare clause... EXCEPT as to those things which are the sole province of the states.

but the reality is that the supremacy clause, taken together with the general welfare clause and the way they've been construed by caselaw pretty much end any argument against governmental action

Dear Jillian: Neither is "consent of the governed" stated in the Constitution as law, yet it is the spirit of all Constitutional law as the basis of social contracts between people and government, upon which all our laws are written, interpreted and applied.

without consent, you have crime abuse and lawlessness, threatening our national unity, integrity, and security where we fail to respect each other's consent EQUALLY.

All laws including case law have no authority without the consent of the people affected. where we have violated this basic standard of law, that is where people have voiced their dissent; and where we have failed to lend equal representation, protection and due process to redress those grievances and resolve conflicts, that it is where we have corrupted govt authority by political bullying and social coersion to obstruct the democratic process that our laws and govt were designed to protect. We become self-contradictory.

you can cite all the case law and interpretations, history and precedence you want.
but if you don't enforce policies by consent of the people affected, it leads to lawlessness.

 

[The T]

Well, when all is said and done, the only thing that holds true is Justice Hughes statement:
"We are under a Constitution but the Constitution is what the justices say it is."

in the end
Dante agrees on so many levels

the people can amend it, but then the Justices will still rule, unless the Justices were forbidden from that role, and that ain't gonna happen. Ever.

Into answering in third person Dantoid?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Basically, the government can provide for the general welfare of the country in whatever way it sees fit as long as the citizens go along with it.

Keeping the poor from starving to death is in the best interests of the country as a whole.

True, but what happens when that gets out of control? When citizens begin taking advantage of it? There are no controls for this, no incentive to get off of government assistance, no limit to how long they can be on assistance. Why should I get a second job when it doesn't make up for what food stamps and medicaid give me? It creates dependency. That general mentality is also why I don't like the idea of too many government jobs.The citizenry should never be beholden to their government.

As I've seen many people post before; I love safety nets, but I hate safety hammocks.

there have been incentives for people to get off welfare.

where are the incentives to get off corporate welfare?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Thanks for posting my entire posting history in this thread - that way other posters can see for themselves I never said Hamilton and Madison were "the principle authors" of the Constitution, as you have wrongfully claimed.

If you insist on being completely literal, Madison didn't "write" the Constitution either.

If you insist on being completely literal, you didn't use the word 'principle' you just claimed Hamilton was a main author of the US Constitution

I did not use the word "main". I said he was an author - I didn't say he was a "principle" author, nor did I say he was a "main" author -you put those words in my mouth. I'd appreciate it if you just apologize instead of picking yet another word that I did not say and placing it into my mouth. You're being an awful big dick to a fellow liberal

 

[emilynghiem]

In general, if people AGREED on what the policy was (whether Obama's health care mandates or Bush decision to go to war both justified as done through Congress) they would not argue about striking it DOWN as being outside Constitutional authority. The real issue is that they don't agree on the content of the law; and if they did agree, they would find some way to write and pass it where it WAS within Constitutional authority.

You don't have to go to the history books to see that the expansive view of the "general welfare" wording in Section 8 was long ago rejected.

If Congress were permitted to do anything it wanted, so long as it promoted the "general welfare," then the Obamacare act would have been completely consitutional, with no real counter-arguments. There is no question whatsoever that a majority of the Congress (at the time the Act was passed) believed that Obamacare would promote the "general welfare" of the U.S.

The fact that the mandate could only be permitted under the power to "...lay and collect taxes..." should be proof enough that Congress is - at least theoretically - limited to its enumerated powers, and cannot do whatever it pleases under the "general welfare" clause.

gawd, people differ over what an expansive view is.

Once people disagree on the issue the law is being applied to, blaming it on how the law is applied or interpreted is secondary and a distraction from solving the real problem.

Interesting discussion anyway, but if people focused and invested in real solutions directly, this would not have come up as a side argument over how to justify or discredit using govt to intervene AGREE are sustainable without relying on govt in the first place!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I said they were both AUTHORS ...

wrong. they were not both authors. link to where anyone but you claims Hamilton as an author of the US Constitution

Advocate for Strong Central Government
Hamilton did not attend the entire four-month Constitutional Convention that began in May 1787 in Philadelphia. He had been one of the strongest advocates for that convention, but he was outvoted by the other two New York delegates, who did not share Hamilton's enthusiasm for a strong federal government to unite the thirteen states. In these early years after the revolution, the former colonists were just beginning to understand how to operate outside the confines of British rule.

American Experience | Alexander Hamilton | People & Events | Creating the U.S. Constitution | PBS

America's Founding Fathers - Delegates to the Constitutional Convention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_signers_of_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Dear OPPD: All human beings are governed by natural laws, which the constitutional laws reflect. you cannot get away from the laws of human nature, any more than you can the laws of gravity or physics. By natural laws, people make and enforce social contracts and agreements by informed consent, by free will, by conscience. If you don't have the people's consent, the natural reaction is to protest and petition to amend revoke or change the policy that is opposed. You can impose or enforce laws by coercion against free will, but the more you do so, the more the equal and opposite reaction ensues to compel reform until the grievances are redressed and the conflicts are resolved FREELY.

so no matter what citation or interpretation you argue by the letter, if in spirit people do not consent to be governed by a certain policy or party, those people will not accept your argument. True consensus on policy is reached by free will, by mutual respect for law, that is just human nature, and I've never met a single soul who didn't operate this way!!!

That's actually a pretty good question.

I hope that you can see that an answer to same requires, first, an understanding of the differences between the concepts of Originalism, and that of a 'living Constitution.'


Then, one chooses which is correct.
With understanding and exposure to debate on both sides, your opinion becomes the answer to your question.

Both Hamilton and Madison were original authors of the Constitution, so you can't choose which view to accept based on which is the original view.

Again...once informed, your opinion, or mine, is as valid as any lawyer or Justice.

Ours doesn't have the force of law.

When people form an agreement by consensus, that is what carries authority of law.
The just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed.

PS consent of the governed also applies to my interpretation of Constitutional laws as reflecting universal laws of governance that apply to all people by our human nature. if you do not agree with me that laws should be based on consent of the governed and the people retain the inalienable right to petition for redress of grievances until conflicts are resolved by due process, you have every right to submit to govt rule by forceful coercion and bullying. but people who are able to govern themselves without relying on the state imposing order from the topdown should not have to remain subject to such tactics because of people who do require this because they don't respect others equally under law. you get the govt you enforce, so I choose to seek govt by informed consent not force. you are free to pursue whatever standards of govt you wish to enforce, but please do not impose that interpretation on me if my standards of governance by consent are higher than rule by threat of larger force.

I'm failing to see how our current government does not have our consent to govern.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You don't have to go to the history books to see that the expansive view of the "general welfare" wording in Section 8 was long ago rejected.

If Congress were permitted to do anything it wanted, so long as it promoted the "general welfare,"

The Hamiltonian view of the GW clause - that accepted by the Courts, does NOT allow Congress to "do anything" it wants. It only allows it to SPEND MONEY on anything it wants. There is quite a difference between spending authority - the authority to BUY stuff - and regulatory authority - the authority to force people and businesses to follow a law or regulation.

then the Obamacare act would have been completely consitutional, with no real counter-arguments. There is no question whatsoever that a majority of the Congress (at the time the Act was passed) believed that Obamacare would promote the "general welfare" of the U.S.

According to the latest decision, RomneyCare IS completely Constitutional, numb nuts, the court did not throw out a SINGLE provision of it.

The fact that the mandate could only be permitted under the power to "...lay and collect taxes..." should be proof enough that Congress is - at least theoretically - limited to its enumerated powers, and cannot do whatever it pleases under the "general welfare" clause.

No one has ever even argued that Congress can do "whatever it pleases" under the GW clause. Congress can tax people for not having health care - but they can't put people in prison for it. There's a big difference.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Basically, the government can provide for the general welfare of the country in whatever way it sees fit as long as the citizens go along with it.

Keeping the poor from starving to death is in the best interests of the country as a whole.

True, but what happens when that gets out of control? When citizens begin taking advantage of it? There are no controls for this, no incentive to get off of government assistance, no limit to how long they can be on assistance. Why should I get a second job when it doesn't make up for what food stamps and medicaid give me? It creates dependency. That general mentality is also why I don't like the idea of too many government jobs.The citizenry should never be beholden to their government.

As I've seen many people post before; I love safety nets, but I hate safety hammocks.

there have been incentives for people to get off welfare.

where are the incentives to get off corporate welfare?

You assume I like corporate welfare? I have always been against all kinds of corporate welfare. I believe we should end all subsidies to all businesses (Yes, oil companies included). I don't extend the same thought to personal welfare though, safety nets are needed.

Your assumption just makes you look like a partisan hack. "He spoke ill of welfare and government jobs, so he must be a neo-con." Am I right?