article 1 section 8

[DiamondDave]

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

It is that simple.

Yes when they wrote that they weren't passing out free phones, free homes, free cars, a monthly check and free contraception.

One can say they dislike the programs being passed, it is extremely difficult to say the congress lacks constitutional authority to pass them.

It is easy to say congress does not have that power.. because it is not written to given that power to provide for individuals... they are empowered to provide for the union as a whole, as a specific entity unto itself

 

[onecut39]

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

It is that simple.

The dictionary definition is the same simply meaning well being. Social programs contribute to that well being and you look rather silly if you try to say the founders did not know that definition.

OF THE UNITED STATES....

The founders would and could have wrote specifically if it mean each individual's personal upkeep

Coulda woulda shoulda? Problem is they did not and you, as a strict constructionist, are not allowed to speculate.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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

It is that simple.

The dictionary definition is the same simply meaning well being. Social programs contribute to that well being and you look rather silly if you try to say the founders did not know that definition.

Absolutely. And I would agree with your assumption, although there is mixed historical information about it. But already we are into interpretation of the document as opposed to trying to be as strict as possible.

 

[DiamondDave]

The general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES.. as in the union.. not each and every individual and their personal needs...

Taking the statement completely, it is easy to understand

Have to agree with Dave on this one. Strictly speaking, I've always thought it was meant to be the welfare of the country, and not the welfare of the citizenry. Same with defense, of the country, but it's not the Government's job to defend me at all times from all threats.

How does one separate citizens and country? You can't have one without the other. No program can benefit the country and not benefit the citizens. To think otherwise is silly.

When one passes a program to facilitate clean air what benefits? The country? I did not know a country had to breathe.

Yes a program or action can benefit the country as a whole whole not being inherently beneficial to each individual that is a citizen... it is not a hard concept to understand

 

[onecut39]

Just ask the guy who wrote it:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."


- James Madison

Madison opposed it. It was passed anyway, by the other Federalists, including Hamilton and Washington. The winners words are the ones that matter.

There was a lot of disagreement among the founders. Just as there is today.

 

[Dante]

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.

1.The general welfare has been interpreted to mean something that benefits all, not one particular segment of society. That, in itself, sets parameters.

2. As for the specifics of Article I, section 8,...


a. Hamilton’s view was that this clause gave Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, whatsoever they decide that might be.

b. William Drayton, in 1828, came down on the side of Madison, Jefferson and others, pointing out that if Hamilton was correct, what point would there have been to enumerate Congresses’ other powers? If Congress wished to do anything it was not authorized to do, it could accomplish it via taxing and spending. He said, "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?" 'Charity Not a Proper Function of the American Government' by Walter E. Williams


3. Until 1937, the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes. Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness.



4. "...how does that limit the power of congress to legislate on any social program it chooses...."
I'm going to guess that you believe in what is known as "a living Constitution."

Madison did not.
"If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once." Brant, Irving “The Fourth President - A Life of James Madison,” p. 257.

With the exception of #1

 

[DiamondDave]

The dictionary definition is the same simply meaning well being. Social programs contribute to that well being and you look rather silly if you try to say the founders did not know that definition.

OF THE UNITED STATES....

The founders would and could have wrote specifically if it mean each individual's personal upkeep

Coulda woulda shoulda? Problem is they did not and you, as a strict constructionist, are not allowed to speculate.

You are right.. they DID NOT write it that way... and you do not get to just chop of after the word that you choose.... the statement is to be taken as a whole...

FAIL

 

[Dante]

Just ask the guy who wrote it:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."


- James Madison

Madison opposed it. It was passed anyway, by the other Federalists, including Hamilton and Washington. The winners words are the ones that matter.

There was a lot of disagreement among the founders. Just as there is today.

there were disagreements among the Framers and the Ratifiers.

 

[Dick Tuck]

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

It is that simple.

The dictionary definition is the same simply meaning well being. Social programs contribute to that well being and you look rather silly if you try to say the founders did not know that definition.

OF THE UNITED STATES....

The founders would and could have wrote specifically if it mean each individual's personal upkeep

You're right. It means that congress can pass laws for the "General Welfare of the United States", i.e. for whatever public purpose they choose (except where there are restrictions in other parts of the constitution). If Congress believes there's a public purpose to provide some level of survival to part of the population, the General Welfare clause gives them the power to do so.

Since we've had widespread forms of public assistance since the 1930s, you'd have thought there would have been a legal challenge to it by now. There have been several challenges to Social Security, and the law has always passed muster. The same goes for the health insurance reform just passed.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

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.

1.The general welfare has been interpreted to mean something that benefits all, not one particular segment of society. That, in itself, sets parameters.

2. As for the specifics of Article I, section 8,...


a. Hamilton’s view was that this clause gave Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, whatsoever they decide that might be.

b. William Drayton, in 1828, came down on the side of Madison, Jefferson and others, pointing out that if Hamilton was correct, what point would there have been to enumerate Congresses’ other powers? If Congress wished to do anything it was not authorized to do, it could accomplish it via taxing and spending. He said, "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?" 'Charity Not a Proper Function of the American Government' by Walter E. Williams


3. Until 1937, the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes. Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness.



4. "...how does that limit the power of congress to legislate on any social program it chooses...."
I'm going to guess that you believe in what is known as "a living Constitution."

Madison did not.
"If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once." Brant, Irving “The Fourth President - A Life of James Madison,” p. 257.

Interesting that you chose to bypass this; the most comprehensive answer, onecut39. That's not very scholarly of you.

 

[Dutch]

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

It is that simple.

Neither were AK-47's and AR-15's when they were talking about the right to bear arms. Can't have it both ways.

 

[onecut39]

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.

Look at the abuse now occurring at the expense of those two propositions: general welfare and common defence. Even Hamilton would probably look away in disgust.

So change it. Don't simply try to get around it. Congress passes ill thought out programs all the time. Maybe you should address them instead of the constitution.

"Strict constitutionalists have this tendency to try and curtail congress with their own interpretations rather than simply admitting they are out voted.

 

[onecut39]

The general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES.. as in the union.. not each and every individual and their personal needs...

Taking the statement completely, it is easy to understand

There is no program, no legislation, in the universe that will benefit each and every citizen equally. To think the founders thought that is to declare them idiots.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Have to agree with Dave on this one. Strictly speaking, I've always thought it was meant to be the welfare of the country, and not the welfare of the citizenry. Same with defense, of the country, but it's not the Government's job to defend me at all times from all threats.

How does one separate citizens and country? You can't have one without the other. No program can benefit the country and not benefit the citizens. To think otherwise is silly.

When one passes a program to facilitate clean air what benefits? The country? I did not know a country had to breathe.

Yes a program or action can benefit the country as a whole whole not being inherently beneficial to each individual that is a citizen... it is not a hard concept to understand

Again, I agree with Dave on this.

Having said that, Onecut, you and I do agree on the interpretation. Personally, I think you can't separate country from citizenry. After all, passing laws that benefit the country only while the citizens are left to die will result in no country at all.

But, from a strictly speaking point of view, I'm with Dave.

 

[DiamondDave]

The general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES.. as in the union.. not each and every individual and their personal needs...

Taking the statement completely, it is easy to understand

There is no program, no legislation, in the universe that will benefit each and every citizen equally. To think the founders thought that is to declare them idiots.

And this is why there was no power granted to the fed to pander to individual welfare... which is what we have said all along

 

[onecut39]

Just ask the guy who wrote it:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."


- James Madison

Since the general welfare clause does not say that Madison obviously did not write the general welfare clause.


The constitution was a mass of compromises. I dou9bt anyone agreed with all of it. Madison included.

 

[onecut39]

How does one separate citizens and country? You can't have one without the other. No program can benefit the country and not benefit the citizens. To think otherwise is silly.

When one passes a program to facilitate clean air what benefits? The country? I did not know a country had to breathe.

Yes a program or action can benefit the country as a whole whole not being inherently beneficial to each individual that is a citizen... it is not a hard concept to understand

Again, I agree with Dave on this.

Having said that, Onecut, you and I do agree on the interpretation. Personally, I think you can't separate country from citizenry. After all, passing laws that benefit the country only while the citizens are left to die will result in no country at all.

But, from a strictly speaking point of view, I'm with Dave.

That's OK. Part of my point here is that no matter how hard one tries it is difficult to take the constitution literally. Even those who profess to do so are constantly INTERPRETING.

They just don't admit it.

 

[SniperFire]

Just ask the guy who wrote it:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."


- James Madison

Madison opposed it. It was passed anyway, by the other Federalists, including Hamilton and Washington. The winners words are the ones that matter.

Wrong as usual, dildo.

The Supremes even upheld Madison's intentions that general welfare was not for handouts to the peeps. But then a subsequent case said that Congress could decide if handouts to peeps were for the general welfare of the Nation.

So as usual it was a backdoor implementation that was an end run around the plain language of the Constitution, and Hamilton certainly did NOT argue for the backdoor interpretation.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

Look at the abuse now occurring at the expense of those two propositions: general welfare and common defence. Even Hamilton would probably look away in disgust.

So change it. Don't simply try to get around it. Congress passes ill thought out programs all the time. Maybe you should address them instead of the constitution.

"Strict constitutionalists have this tendency to try and curtail congress with their own interpretations rather than simply admitting they are out voted.

There is no need to change it. The founders were correct. It is built on a premise that our leaders are honest and are not want to shred the very essence of what allows them to serve the people. Sadly, most are corrupt and dishonest. Any system will eventually fail unless honesty, accountability, and responsibility are cornerstones.

 

[Ravi]

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.