article 1 section 8

[OohPooPahDoo]

Which I explained in my earlier post by showing the quotes of the founders in regards to article 1, section 8 both from the federalist papers and other sources.

Hamilton and Madison disagree on the meaning of the GW clause. The Court has adopted Hamilton's view.

Quote it.

Hamilton's view? Above.

The Court's?
U.S. v Butler 1936.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You clearly still do not get it. I'm not saying the GW clause is unlimited in scope. I'm saying it only gives Congress the authority tax, spend, and borrow for the general welfare and common defence. That's not an "unlimited" authority. It doesn't allow Congress to regulate however it wishes for the general welfare - ONLY to tax, spend, and borrow. Do you seriously not get that?

Under your ridiculous interpretation, where GW is restricted by the following enumerated powers - the entire clause may as well have not been written. under your ridiculous interpretation, what additional power does it grant Congress that isn't found in the following powers?

As soon as you admit that with the COMPLETE PHRASE, it means of the UNION, not of individuals..

Until you get this thru your thick skull, you have zero point and zero credibility

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

All one need do is look at:

The Articles of Confederaton:

The Federalist Papers:

Historical relationship between the states and the country:

To realize that these arguments are simply crap.

All that was needed was for FDR to fudgepack the court with his liberal stooges and everything changed. But that is all the history that the left wants (outside of Madison v. Marburry which is another treatment altogether...there is nothing sacrosanct about what Marshall said...but Bork believes he saved the country). Anything else pretty much blows their universe apart.

U.S. v Butler was decided before FDR appointed a single Justice to the Supreme Court.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

How can I write this, the federal government did not get involved with charity taking care of those in need it was what the Church, or state did. Therefore welfare does not mean today as it did back then.

 

[The T]

Hamilton and Madison disagree on the meaning of the GW clause. The Court has adopted Hamilton's view.

Quote it.

Hamilton's view? Above.

The Court's?
U.S. v Butler 1936.

Don't care of that narrow view. I asked you specifically about the Founders...NOT the court over a century later asswipe.

 

[jillian]

Quote it.

Hamilton's view? Above.

The Court's?
U.S. v Butler 1936.

Don't care of that narrow view. I asked you specifically about the Founders...NOT the court over a century later asswipe.

and yet Butler is the law. what someone said two hundred years ago... unless it's enacted into law... not so much.

 

[Listening]

As soon as you admit that with the COMPLETE PHRASE, it means of the UNION, not of individuals..

Until you get this thru your thick skull, you have zero point and zero credibility

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

All one need do is look at:

The Articles of Confederaton:

The Federalist Papers:

Historical relationship between the states and the country:

To realize that these arguments are simply crap.

All that was needed was for FDR to fudgepack the court with his liberal stooges and everything changed. But that is all the history that the left wants (outside of Madison v. Marburry which is another treatment altogether...there is nothing sacrosanct about what Marshall said...but Bork believes he saved the country). Anything else pretty much blows their universe apart.

U.S. v Butler was decided before FDR appointed a single Justice to the Supreme Court.

Don't know what you hope to accomplish with this one.

Anyone who has a brain knows just what was going on with the court at the time. FDR had been putting pressure on them for years.

Eventually resulting in the "switch in time that saved nine"....the main reason FDR should be dug up and fed to the hyenas.

Here is from the decision:

The act invades the reserved rights of the states. It is a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. The tax, the appropriation of the funds raised, and the direction for their disbursement, are but parts of the plan. They are but means to an unconstitutional end.

But the history is more interesting. Knowing they would have to bow to FDR's pressure:

It was accepted that Hughes did not agree with the majority opinion's argument that the law's government subsidy regulations went beyond the powers of national government and was going to write a separate opinion upholding the act's subsidy provision while striking down the act's tax provision on the grounds that it was a coercive regulation rather than a tax measure until Roberts convinced Hughes he would side with him and the court's three liberal justices in future cases pertaining to the nation's agriculture which involved the Constitution's General Welfare Clause if he agreed to join his opinion.

FDR forcing judged to barter away our rights.

And you people revere him. How funny is that ?

 

[The T]

All one need do is look at:

The Articles of Confederaton:

The Federalist Papers:

Historical relationship between the states and the country:

To realize that these arguments are simply crap.

All that was needed was for FDR to fudgepack the court with his liberal stooges and everything changed. But that is all the history that the left wants (outside of Madison v. Marburry which is another treatment altogether...there is nothing sacrosanct about what Marshall said...but Bork believes he saved the country). Anything else pretty much blows their universe apart.

U.S. v Butler was decided before FDR appointed a single Justice to the Supreme Court.

Don't know what you hope to accomplish with this one.

Anyone who has a brain knows just what was going on with the court at the time. FDR had been putting pressure on them for years.

Eventually resulting in the "switch in time that saved nine"....the main reason FDR should be dug up and fed to the hyenas.

Here is from the decision:

The act invades the reserved rights of the states. It is a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. The tax, the appropriation of the funds raised, and the direction for their disbursement, are but parts of the plan. They are but means to an unconstitutional end.

But the history is more interesting. Knowing they would have to bow to FDR's pressure:

It was accepted that Hughes did not agree with the majority opinion's argument that the law's government subsidy regulations went beyond the powers of national government and was going to write a separate opinion upholding the act's subsidy provision while striking down the act's tax provision on the grounds that it was a coercive regulation rather than a tax measure until Roberts convinced Hughes he would side with him and the court's three liberal justices in future cases pertaining to the nation's agriculture which involved the Constitution's General Welfare Clause if he agreed to join his opinion.

FDR forcing judged to barter away our rights.

And you people revere him. How funny is that ?

FDR was a CRIMINAL...same as Jackson.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Quote it.

Hamilton's view? Above.

The Court's?
U.S. v Butler 1936.

Don't care of that narrow view. I asked you specifically about the Founders...NOT the court over a century later asswipe.

If you want to know how the Founder's views played into the Court's decision, GET OFF YOUR LAZY ASS AND READ THE OPINION.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

All one need do is look at:

The Articles of Confederaton:

The Federalist Papers:

Historical relationship between the states and the country:

To realize that these arguments are simply crap.

All that was needed was for FDR to fudgepack the court with his liberal stooges and everything changed. But that is all the history that the left wants (outside of Madison v. Marburry which is another treatment altogether...there is nothing sacrosanct about what Marshall said...but Bork believes he saved the country). Anything else pretty much blows their universe apart.

U.S. v Butler was decided before FDR appointed a single Justice to the Supreme Court.

Don't know what you hope to accomplish with this one.

Anyone who has a brain knows just what was going on with the court at the time. FDR had been putting pressure on them for years.

Eventually resulting in the "switch in time that saved nine"....the main reason FDR should be dug up and fed to the hyenas.

Here is from the decision:

The act invades the reserved rights of the states. It is a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. The tax, the appropriation of the funds raised, and the direction for their disbursement, are but parts of the plan. They are but means to an unconstitutional end.

But the history is more interesting. Knowing they would have to bow to FDR's pressure:

It was accepted that Hughes did not agree with the majority opinion's argument that the law's government subsidy regulations went beyond the powers of national government and was going to write a separate opinion upholding the act's subsidy provision while striking down the act's tax provision on the grounds that it was a coercive regulation rather than a tax measure until Roberts convinced Hughes he would side with him and the court's three liberal justices in future cases pertaining to the nation's agriculture which involved the Constitution's General Welfare Clause if he agreed to join his opinion.

FDR forcing judged to barter away our rights.

And you people revere him. How funny is that ?

What law did FDR break?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

U.S. v Butler was decided before FDR appointed a single Justice to the Supreme Court.

Don't know what you hope to accomplish with this one.

Anyone who has a brain knows just what was going on with the court at the time. FDR had been putting pressure on them for years.

Eventually resulting in the "switch in time that saved nine"....the main reason FDR should be dug up and fed to the hyenas.

Here is from the decision:

The act invades the reserved rights of the states. It is a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. The tax, the appropriation of the funds raised, and the direction for their disbursement, are but parts of the plan. They are but means to an unconstitutional end.

But the history is more interesting. Knowing they would have to bow to FDR's pressure:

It was accepted that Hughes did not agree with the majority opinion's argument that the law's government subsidy regulations went beyond the powers of national government and was going to write a separate opinion upholding the act's subsidy provision while striking down the act's tax provision on the grounds that it was a coercive regulation rather than a tax measure until Roberts convinced Hughes he would side with him and the court's three liberal justices in future cases pertaining to the nation's agriculture which involved the Constitution's General Welfare Clause if he agreed to join his opinion.

FDR forcing judged to barter away our rights.

And you people revere him. How funny is that ?

FDR was a CRIMINAL...same as Jackson.

Guilty of what crime? Please specify the statute and his specific actions which violated it.

 

[jillian]

U.S. v Butler was decided before FDR appointed a single Justice to the Supreme Court.

Don't know what you hope to accomplish with this one.

Anyone who has a brain knows just what was going on with the court at the time. FDR had been putting pressure on them for years.

Eventually resulting in the "switch in time that saved nine"....the main reason FDR should be dug up and fed to the hyenas.

Here is from the decision:

The act invades the reserved rights of the states. It is a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. The tax, the appropriation of the funds raised, and the direction for their disbursement, are but parts of the plan. They are but means to an unconstitutional end.

But the history is more interesting. Knowing they would have to bow to FDR's pressure:

It was accepted that Hughes did not agree with the majority opinion's argument that the law's government subsidy regulations went beyond the powers of national government and was going to write a separate opinion upholding the act's subsidy provision while striking down the act's tax provision on the grounds that it was a coercive regulation rather than a tax measure until Roberts convinced Hughes he would side with him and the court's three liberal justices in future cases pertaining to the nation's agriculture which involved the Constitution's General Welfare Clause if he agreed to join his opinion.

FDR forcing judged to barter away our rights.

And you people revere him. How funny is that ?

FDR was a CRIMINAL...same as Jackson.

Tommy, if you believe even half of whSt you spew, you should probably see a doctor

 

[Pheonixops]

The current day definition of "welfare" was not in use when the founding fathers wrote our constitution.

It is that simple.

What is your definition of "general welfare"? Admittedly I find it to be a pretty ambiguous term that could be interpreted in a myriad of ways. We could break it down like this:

gen·er·al
   [jen-er-uhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of or pertaining to all persons or things belonging to a group or category: a general meeting of the employees.
2.
of, pertaining to, or true of such persons or things in the main, with possible exceptions; common to most; prevalent; usual: the general mood of the people.
3.
not limited to one class, field, product, service, etc.; miscellaneous: the general public; general science.
4.
considering or dealing with overall characteristics, universal aspects, or important elements, especially without considering all details or specific aspects: general instructions; a general description; a general resemblance one to another.
5.
not specific or definite: I could give them only a general idea of what was going on.

wel·fare
   [wel-fair] Show IPA
noun
1.
the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.
2.
welfare work.
3.
financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren't for welfare.
4.
( initial capital letter ) Informal . a governmental agency that provides funds and aid to people in need, especially those unable to work.