NYC: disaster - thank team blue for this one.

[BackAgain]

I didn't make an analysis, I merely quoted the very first enumerated power in the constitution. It is not a "preamble", it's the first enumerated power. If you don't like what it says, take it up with Hamilton.

The invocation of “general welfare” appears in both the Preamble and in Article 1.

The problem is not with Hamilton. The problem is in your shallow thinking relative to what the Constitution actually means.

Here’s a clue, for you: the Constitution does not impose restrictions on legislative authority only to permit your miscomprehension of the meaning of “General Welfare” to subvert those restrictions. That would have been ridiculous — as is your conclusion.

 

[StarAnus]

The invocation of “general welfare” appears in both the Preamble and in Article 1.

The problem is not with Hamilton. The problem is in your shallow thinking relative to what the Constitution actually means.

Here’s a clue, for you: the Constitution does not impose restrictions on legislative authority only to permit your miscomprehension of the meaning of “General Welfare” to subvert those restrictions. That would have been ridiculous — as is your conclusion.

It's not subverting any restrictions. Hamilton and Madison already debated this and history shows Hamilton won. You're a couple centuries too late.

Maybe try reading the federalist papers.

 

[BackAgain]

It's not subverting any restrictions. Hamilton and Madison already debated this and history shows Hamilton won. You're a couple centuries too late.

Maybe try reading the federalist papers.

I have.

Maybe you should give some thought to understanding what you’ve read. It would help you out enormously.

Madison correctly noted that IF “general welfare” were interpreted as a free-standing power to do anything Congress thought beneficial, then the later list of enumerated powers would be pointless.

“For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?”

Madison, in Federalist 41, under the pen name of “Publius.”

 

[StarAnus]

I have.

Maybe you should give some thought to understanding what you’ve read. It would help you out enormously.

Madison correctly noted that IF “general welfare” were interpreted as a free-standing power to do anything Congress thought beneficial, then the later list of enumerated powers would be pointless.

“For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?”

Madison, in Federalist 41, under the pen name of “Publius.”

And Madison lost. Hamilton's interpretation has been the one used pretty much since the beginning. You're arguing against centuries of precedent now.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Well this thread went weird.

 

[BackAgain]

And Madison lost. Hamilton's interpretation has been the one used pretty much since the beginning.

That’s a false claim. Madison’s position was the generally and legally accepted one for most of our national existence up until around the time of the “new deal.”

And, although the court rulings did later slide toward Hamilton’s more expansive interpretation, still:

The legal doctrine generally accepts that Congress has substantial authority to spend for the “general welfare,” though there are still constitutional limits.

You're arguing against centuries of precedent now.

No. I’m arguing against a continuation of the relatively NEW judicial interpretation that is not yet even one century old.

Plus, old legal rulings can get reversed. Like Roe v. Wade has been overruled and similarly to the nonsense Plessy v. Ferguson
determination claiming that “separate” can be aligned with “equal.” Bad precedents do not have to stand forever.

 

[StarAnus]

That’s a false claim. Madison’s position was the generally and legally accepted one for most of our national existence up until around the time of the “new deal.”

And, although the court rulings did later slide toward Hamilton’s more expansive interpretation, still:

The legal doctrine generally accepts that Congress has substantial authority to spend for the “general welfare,” though there are still constitutional limits.



No. I’m arguing against a continuation of the relatively NEW judicial interpretation that is not yet even one century old.

Plus, old legal rulings can get reversed. Like Roe v. Wade has been overruled and similarly to the nonsense Plessy v. Ferguson
determination claiming that “separate” can be aligned with “equal.” Bad precedents do not have to stand forever.

They made a national bank. From that moment on, Hamilton ruled and Madison drooled.