General Welfare Clause

[OKTexas]

If that portion was antiquated then there would have been a reason for an amendment, not just ignoring the law. So simple even you should understand.

There's isn't any need to amend it for that. The actual text, "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," works just fine.

Really, show me where a period appears in Article 1, Section 8, which would make any part of it stand alone. Go ahead, I'll be happy to wait.

 

[Soulless65]

From my uderstanding, progressives, both Democrat and Republican alike, use the General Welfare Clause of the Contitution to give the nanny state legitimacy. They interpret it to say that Congress has the power to tend to the general welfare of the public at large, so any taxpayer money spent to that end is legitimate.

However, have they ever read the writings of the Father of the Constitution who is James Madison? He wrote about the General Welfare Clause because he wrote it himself, and this was what he said about it.

"If Congress can supply money indefinately to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the welfare, they may appoint teachers in every state, country, and parish and pay them out of their public treasury, they may take into their own hands the education of the children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union; they may assume the provision of the poor, they ma undertake the regulations of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything from the highest objects of state legislation down to the minute objects of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress......were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundation, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."

After reading what the author had to say about the General Welfare Clause, how can progressives falsely interpret it to defend the nanny state? I would have more respect for them had they just disagreed with the Constitution and tried to amend it.

Consider yourselves subverted and transmuted. The only hope I have is that since progressives have chosen to ignore the Constitution, they have provided a vehicle to perhaps challenge their legitimacy to power at some point. It may be a small window of hope, but it is better than nothing.

You know one of the main reasons that people in this country have trouble with stuff like this and other things the relate to the US Constitution. Is That the US Constitution is not taught in public schools. That to me is one of the reasons why this country is going to the crap hole its going right now. A Lack of education of the pillars that hold up this country

 

[Steelplate]

From my uderstanding, progressives, both Democrat and Republican alike, use the General Welfare Clause of the Contitution to give the nanny state legitimacy. They interpret it to say that Congress has the power to tend to the general welfare of the public at large, so any taxpayer money spent to that end is legitimate.

However, have they ever read the writings of the Father of the Constitution who is James Madison? He wrote about the General Welfare Clause because he wrote it himself, and this was what he said about it.

"If Congress can supply money indefinately to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the welfare, they may appoint teachers in every state, country, and parish and pay them out of their public treasury, they may take into their own hands the education of the children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union; they may assume the provision of the poor, they ma undertake the regulations of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything from the highest objects of state legislation down to the minute objects of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress......were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundation, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."

After reading what the author had to say about the General Welfare Clause, how can progressives falsely interpret it to defend the nanny state? I would have more respect for them had they just disagreed with the Constitution and tried to amed it.

Consider yourselves subverted and transmuted. The only hope I have is that since progressives have chosen to ignore the Constitution, they have provided a vehicle to perhaps challenge their legitimacy to power at some point. It may be a small window of hope, but it is better than nothing.

I do think that SOME of us progressives misinterpret the General Welfare clause. I happen to feel that the clause is put into place for the General Welfare of the COUNTRY. That is, if our nation is weakened....we have the constitutional right to protect it.

That is the case right now. Free trade agreements that aren't really free....they give a huge advantage to the host country and the American businessmen who set up shop there are not a benefit to our nation.....the resulting unemployment and under employment is killing our nation by reducing the revenues generated to pay for things we used to have no problem paying for.

Our healthcare system was killing us in it's costliness.....it was destroying people's disposable income at an astounding rate....that disposable income could have meant commerce, profits and jobs...but ended up in the hands of insurance companies, who could cancel your policy if you got too sick to make you worth the risk.

That kind of stuff isn't "nanny state"......it belongs firmly in the General Welfare of this country.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So did Hamilton, J Q Adams, Clay, Webster, Lincoln, etc.

This is an old debate that is going nowhere.

From my uderstanding, progressives, both Democrat and Republican alike, use the General Welfare Clause of the Contitution to give the nanny state legitimacy. They interpret it to say that Congress has the power to tend to the general welfare of the public at large, so any taxpayer money spent to that end is legitimate.

However, have they ever read the writings of the Father of the Constitution who is James Madison? He wrote about the General Welfare Clause because he wrote it himself, and this was what he said about it.

"If Congress can supply money indefinately to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the welfare, they may appoint teachers in every state, country, and parish and pay them out of their public treasury, they may take into their own hands the education of the children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union; they may assume the provision of the poor, they ma undertake the regulations of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything from the highest objects of state legislation down to the minute objects of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress......were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundation, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."

After reading what the author had to say about the General Welfare Clause, how can progressives falsely interpret it to defend the nanny state? I would have more respect for them had they just disagreed with the Constitution and tried to amed it.

Consider yourselves subverted and transmuted. The only hope I have is that since progressives have chosen to ignore the Constitution, they have provided a vehicle to perhaps challenge their legitimacy to power at some point. It may be a small window of hope, but it is better than nothing.

 

[LibertyLemming]

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare… The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.

mm

 

[Votto]

From my uderstanding, progressives, both Democrat and Republican alike, use the General Welfare Clause of the Contitution to give the nanny state legitimacy. They interpret it to say that Congress has the power to tend to the general welfare of the public at large, so any taxpayer money spent to that end is legitimate.

However, have they ever read the writings of the Father of the Constitution who is James Madison? He wrote about the General Welfare Clause because he wrote it himself, and this was what he said about it.

"If Congress can supply money indefinately to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the welfare, they may appoint teachers in every state, country, and parish and pay them out of their public treasury, they may take into their own hands the education of the children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union; they may assume the provision of the poor, they ma undertake the regulations of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything from the highest objects of state legislation down to the minute objects of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress......were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundation, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."

After reading what the author had to say about the General Welfare Clause, how can progressives falsely interpret it to defend the nanny state? I would have more respect for them had they just disagreed with the Constitution and tried to amed it.

Consider yourselves subverted and transmuted. The only hope I have is that since progressives have chosen to ignore the Constitution, they have provided a vehicle to perhaps challenge their legitimacy to power at some point. It may be a small window of hope, but it is better than nothing.

I do think that SOME of us progressives misinterpret the General Welfare clause. I happen to feel that the clause is put into place for the General Welfare of the COUNTRY. That is, if our nation is weakened....we have the constitutional right to protect it.

That is the case right now. Free trade agreements that aren't really free....they give a huge advantage to the host country and the American businessmen who set up shop there are not a benefit to our nation.....the resulting unemployment and under employment is killing our nation by reducing the revenues generated to pay for things we used to have no problem paying for.

Our healthcare system was killing us in it's costliness.....it was destroying people's disposable income at an astounding rate....that disposable income could have meant commerce, profits and jobs...but ended up in the hands of insurance companies, who could cancel your policy if you got too sick to make you worth the risk.

That kind of stuff isn't "nanny state"......it belongs firmly in the General Welfare of this country.

Is it in the general welfare to run up a large debt of $16 trillion? The same argument used to amass such spending for the general welfare could easily be used to erradicate such spending for the general welfare. Even Barak Obama himself said as much in 2006 when he observed the spending Bush was doing in the White House. He said that such spending was reckless and was weakening the nation at home and abroad and it was all due to a lack of leadership.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution is not at failure, folks, the failure coming from two parties that refuse to work together.

Both parties embraced social democracy long ago, so the small minority of libertarians and far right neo-econs can get over it. Won't change.

 

[Contumacious]

The Constitution is not at failure, folks, the failure coming from two parties that refuse to work together.

Both parties embraced social democracy long ago, so the small minority of libertarians and far right neo-econs can get over it. Won't change.

You are obviously referring to the Welfare/Warfare State Constitution of 1935

Article I​

The federal government can do whatever the fuck it wants to whenever it wants to do it. The rights of the people depend on the federal bureaucrats discretion.

Franklin Del-Anus Roosevelt
Prime Minister

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Many libertarians of course wish to eliminate the Rule of Law so they can carry on their own desires of their dark little hearts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Many libertarians of course wish to eliminate the Rule of Law so they can carry on their own desires of their dark little hearts.

Indeed.

Again, we see conservatives, libertarians, and others on the right engaging in the ‘Constitutional Reformation,’ where one man alone with his copy of the Constitution decides what the Founding Document means.

That might be fun at cocktail parties, at the water cooler, and on internet message boards – and everyone is certainly entitled to his own opinion – but that opinion has no basis in legal fact as to the meaning of the GWC, or any other aspect of the Constitution.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, a doctrine well-established in the Anglo-American judicial tradition, accepted and practiced during and before the Foundation Era.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Many libertarians of course wish to eliminate the Rule of Law so they can carry on their own desires of their dark little hearts.

I do not know a single libertarian, famous or obscure, who wants to "eliminate the Rule of Law".

I've yet to see you defend a single bit of the nonsense you vomit onto these forums so I won't hold my breath for your evidence.

 

[Contumacious]

Actually the only roads authorized are postal roads, at the time it was written that would have been between post offices only.

Private Roads Work

by Bart Frazier​

Private roads in America

Though they are few and far between, there are some examples in the United States of functioning private roads.

Probably the most common are in private neighborhoods. Many homeowner associations maintain their own road systems, one of which I described in my article “The Lake of the Woods.”

The Dulles Greenway is a private road built in the western suburbs of Washington, D.C., in 1995. Though constructed with some restrictions set by the state, it was built with private money and is run as a for-profit business. The first year it opened, 6.1 million trips were made on the road. In 2006, 21 million trips were made. This type of private toll road has the ability to move large numbers of people without the aforementioned problems associated with the federal interstates that we are told are indispensable. It has shown its viability, and we might well be seeing many more of these private toll roads in the future.

One interesting example of private roads is in the city of North Oaks, Michigan. Not only does the city not own the roads, it doesn’t own any property. As it states on its website, “Because residents’ properties extend to halfway across the road, all residential roads in the City are private and for the use of North Oaks residents and their invited guests only.” Perhaps one of these days cities such as North Oaks will be the norm.

Everyone, particularly libertarians, should favor private roads. They have much going for them – they rely on mutual consent for their construction and use, and the market decides what is the appropriate level of their use. People who don’t want to use them are free to spend their dollars on other things that they consider more worthy. And as far-fetched as they seem to some, we have examples of working private roads. I cannot think of a better way for cash-strapped state governments to reduce their budgets than to stop paving the roads. "

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mind your language. Are those pedophile libertarians who want to drop the age of consent laws not indeed violating the Rule of Law to encourage their wicked lusts? Are not those who want to limit government to below bare bones violating the very social compact which nourished them as the matured, become educated, and entered adulthood in America? Who do you think you are talking to, LL? We, the great majority of Americans, are not fools, and we will not be abused by the far leftists or the far rightists or the libertarians. That will not happen.

Many libertarians of course wish to eliminate the Rule of Law so they can carry on their own desires of their dark little hearts.

I do not know a single libertarian, famous or obscure, who wants to "eliminate the Rule of Law". I've yet to see you defend a single bit of the nonsense you vomit onto these forums so I won't hold my breath for your evidence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You can have your own private road, if you keep it up or not.

But if you are going to drive on the roads publicly, you are going to pay your fair share.

Actually the only roads authorized are postal roads, at the time it was written that would have been between post offices only.

Private Roads Work

by Bart Frazier​

Private roads in America

Though they are few and far between, there are some examples in the United States of functioning private roads.

Probably the most common are in private neighborhoods. Many homeowner associations maintain their own road systems, one of which I described in my article “The Lake of the Woods.”

The Dulles Greenway is a private road built in the western suburbs of Washington, D.C., in 1995. Though constructed with some restrictions set by the state, it was built with private money and is run as a for-profit business. The first year it opened, 6.1 million trips were made on the road. In 2006, 21 million trips were made. This type of private toll road has the ability to move large numbers of people without the aforementioned problems associated with the federal interstates that we are told are indispensable. It has shown its viability, and we might well be seeing many more of these private toll roads in the future.

One interesting example of private roads is in the city of North Oaks, Michigan. Not only does the city not own the roads, it doesn’t own any property. As it states on its website, “Because residents’ properties extend to halfway across the road, all residential roads in the City are private and for the use of North Oaks residents and their invited guests only.” Perhaps one of these days cities such as North Oaks will be the norm.

Everyone, particularly libertarians, should favor private roads. They have much going for them – they rely on mutual consent for their construction and use, and the market decides what is the appropriate level of their use. People who don’t want to use them are free to spend their dollars on other things that they consider more worthy. And as far-fetched as they seem to some, we have examples of working private roads. I cannot think of a better way for cash-strapped state governments to reduce their budgets than to stop paving the roads. "

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, it is not, and you are the one being pedantic.

I'm confused.... is someone trying to claim without taxation by force and government there would be no roads?

No, a progressive/socialist authoritarian central planner type is trying to use roads and bridges, as a vehicle to stretch his notion of "general welfare" around just about every other aspect of the modern socialistic welfare state.

It's a horribly old and pedantic ploy.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Glad I didn't hold my breath.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do or don't, because what libertarians believe does not matter in the scheme of things.

Glad I didn't hold my breath.

 

[jillian]

From my uderstanding, progressives, both Democrat and Republican alike, use the General Welfare Clause of the Contitution to give the nanny state legitimacy. They interpret it to say that Congress has the power to tend to the general welfare of the public at large, so any taxpayer money spent to that end is legitimate.

However, have they ever read the writings of the Father of the Constitution who is James Madison? He wrote about the General Welfare Clause because he wrote it himself, and this was what he said about it.

"If Congress can supply money indefinately to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the welfare, they may appoint teachers in every state, country, and parish and pay them out of their public treasury, they may take into their own hands the education of the children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union; they may assume the provision of the poor, they ma undertake the regulations of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything from the highest objects of state legislation down to the minute objects of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress......were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundation, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."

After reading what the author had to say about the General Welfare Clause, how can progressives falsely interpret it to defend the nanny state? I would have more respect for them had they just disagreed with the Constitution and tried to amed it.

Consider yourselves subverted and transmuted. The only hope I have is that since progressives have chosen to ignore the Constitution, they have provided a vehicle to perhaps challenge their legitimacy to power at some point. It may be a small window of hope, but it is better than nothing.

they didn't need to amend it.

madison's words are not law... they have no force of law... there were many competing views among others of the founding fathers. their competing visions are simply advisory and not binding on anyone.

the constitution is interpreted by the supreme court... and the supreme court has construed the general welfare clause fairly expansively, though not as expansively as the commerce clause.

the entire point is that it was intended for the government to do good for the populace. this idea that government wasn't to have any function beyond waging war isn't borne out by any reality.

 

[Darkwind]

Congress should intoduce an addendum, calling for a rational perspetive on factual debate. A semblence of sanity.

But alas, as us adults know, there really is no sannity clause.

*chuckling*

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Constitution is not at failure, folks, the failure coming from two parties that refuse to work together.

Both parties embraced social democracy long ago, so the small minority of libertarians and far right neo-econs can get over it. Won't change.

If the parties actually refused to work together we wouldn't have a massive debt and a trillion dollar deficit.