Questions for Conservatives

[ReillyT]

The [General Welfare] clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

 

[maineman]

... and yet you cannot cite the clauses that give it the power to provide heath care and retirement benefits to the people.

Why is that?

because I believe that health care and retirement benefits can be reasonably construed as an integral part of "general welfare".

Now could you find me the clause that mentions NASA?

 

[M14 Shooter]

because I believe that health care and retirement benefits can be reasonably construed as an integral part of "general welfare".

And where is the goverment given the power to provide for the "general welfare"?

 

[ReillyT]

And where is the goverment given the power to provide for the "general welfare"?

Need I repeat?

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

 

[jillian]

For some reason, he doesn't like that clause. It seems to irk him.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

I've seen this before.
And I've asked this question before.
Jillian cowers from it, so maybe -you- can aswer it.

IF, as you argue, this clause was intended to give the power for Congress to PROVIDE for the common defense and for the general welfare, rather than simply the power to lay taxes, why are there any other enumerated powers of Congress?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I've seen this before.
And I've asked this question before.
Jillian cowers from it, so maybe -you- can aswer it.

IF, as you argue, this clause was intended to give the power for Congress to PROVIDE for the common defense and for the general welfare, rather than simply the power to lay taxes, why are there any other enumerated powers of Congress?

General welfare does not mean people. The Federal Government exists to regulate and control actions between States and Foreign Governments. That is the largest stretch of them all AND as you point out using it in that manner negates any need for any enumerated powers beyond the ambigious General Welfare statement.

 

[ReillyT]

I've seen this before.
And I've asked this question before.
Jillian cowers from it, so maybe -you- can aswer it.

IF, as you argue, this clause was intended to give the power for Congress to PROVIDE for the common defense and for the general welfare, rather than simply the power to lay taxes, why are there any other enumerated powers of Congress?

Perhaps because the founders (and especially Alexander Hamilton) recognized that the enumerated powers were insufficiently broad to encompass the full range of issues that the government may need to respond to in the centuries ahead. It is, in effect, a catch-all provision. You may not like that it is in there, but then again, you did not write the Consitution.

If you were a strict constructionist, you might say that should be construed broadly to encompass the "general welfare," because had the founders wanted, they could have written:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and to fulfill the enumerated powers of this Constitution; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

However, they did not write this. Instead, they provide a specifically enumerated taxing and spending provision - complete with a direction that it must be exercised for the "general welfare."

 

[ReillyT]

General welfare does not mean people. The Federal Government exists to regulate and control actions between States and Foreign Governments. That is the largest stretch of them all AND as you point out using it in that manner negates any need for any enumerated powers beyond the ambigious General Welfare statement.

So when you read "for the general welfare," you don't belief that it is meant to apply to US citizens, you read into it "for the general welfare of the states and Foreign Governments?"

That is odd, merely because that is not what they wrote. You are obviously not a strict constructionist.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Perhaps because the founders (and especially Alexander Hamilton) recognized that the enumerated powers were insufficiently broad to encompass the full range of issues that the government may need to respond to in the centuries ahead.

That's why they included Article V and the 10th amendment.

And your asnwer does not explain why clauses 2 thru 16 are there, if clause 1 provides all the power to encompass the full range of issues that the government may need to respond to in the centuries ahead.

 

[ReillyT]

as you point out using it in that manner negates any need for any enumerated powers beyond the ambigious General Welfare statement.

Not necessarily. Some enumerated powers do not concern government spending - for instance, everyone's favorite:

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; "

Further, with respect to some of the powers that would arguably fall under the taxing/spending clause even if not enumerated, perhaps the founders felt that they should emphasize that these powers were definitely necessary and legal, irrespective of whether one may feel that they are in the "general welfare."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So when you read "for the general welfare," you don't belief that it is meant to apply to US citizens, you read into it "for the general welfare of the states and Foreign Governments?"

That is odd, merely because that is not what they wrote. You are obviously not a strict constructionist.

It IS what they wrote. The purpose of the Federal Government was not controlling people, not providing services to individual citizens in any manner. It was and is a Government to ensure all the Individual States are uniform and operating in concert, that they are protected and have a single unified voice to all outside sources.

The clause does not include the term "the people" in it. It was and still is supposed to be the responsibility of the Individual States to see to the people's needs and such.

Every enumerated power is designed for THAT purpose. Until the 14th Amendment the Constitution did not even apply to individuals inside the several States at all, except in regards FEDERAL authority.

 

[ReillyT]

That's why they included Article V and the 10th amendment.

You are quibbling about what the founders should have written. I am merely pointing out what they did in fact write. They didn't write a clause permitting taxing and spending to fulfill the enumerated powers. They could have, but they didn't. So, it is safe to assume that they wrote it more broadly because they intended it be be construed broadly. If you happen to believe that words should be construed as they are written (strict constructionism), then you have to take the clause at face value. It says what it says.

The Supreme Court considered these questions in the 1930's, and they came to an answer that has not been seriously questioned for 80 years. It is a decided issue. The tax/spend power is a separate enumerated power in the constitution. The game was over before either of us was even born.

And your asnwer does not explain why clauses 2 thru 16 are there, if clause 1 provides all the power to encompass the full range of issues that the government may need to respond to in the centuries ahead.

Just answered RGS on this issue.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Further, with respect to some of the powers that would arguably fall under the taxing/spending clause even if not enumerated, perhaps the founders felt that they should emphasize that these powers were definitely necessary and legal, irrespective of whether one may feel that they are in the "general welfare."

Perhaps? LOL

The copnstitution was intended to give the government a specific set of limited powers and leave the other powers to the states. The interpretation of the power to tax that you present gives the governemtn UNLIMITED powers, as ANYTHING can fall under 'common defense and general welfare.

That, alone, negates the argument.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are quibbling about what the founders should have written. I am merely pointing out what they did in fact write.

And I am merely pointing out that that founders DID write provisions to cover the armgument you presented, thereby negating your argument as to 'what if' the government needed more/different powers.

 

[Dr Grump]

The copnstitution was intended to give the government a specific set of limited powers and leave the other powers to the states. .

And yet your forefathers:
1) Put an amendment process in the constitution
2) That has been enacted no less that 27 times

which would suggest they had the foresight to see that things would change.

I would also point out that the writers of the constitution were mere mortals. Dunno why you put so much kudos into what they did. Don't get me wrong, they wrote a pretty good founding document, but it is hardly infallible as the 27 amendments attest..In fact the first 10 amendments were afterthoughts to the original constitution..

 

[ReillyT]

It IS what they wrote. The purpose of the Federal Government was not controlling people, not providing services to individual citizens in any manner. It was and is a Government to ensure all the Individual States are uniform and operating in concert, that they are protected and have a single unified voice to all outside sources.

The clause does not include the term "the people" in it. It was and still is supposed to be the responsibility of the Individual States to see to the people's needs and such.

Every enumerated power is designed for THAT purpose. Until the 14th Amendment the Constitution did not even apply to individuals inside the several States at all, except in regards FEDERAL authority.

Oh, I must disagree. The US Constitution is very much concerned about the interaction of citizens and the federal government - not just states and the federal government.

The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to extend the protections of the 5th Amendment to the states, which heretofore, had only been between the Federal government and its citizens. Doesn't that imply that in fact the Constitution recognized that it would interact directly with the citizens. The protections were intended to regulate this interaction in favor of the citizen, not to eviscerate it completely.

The creation of a Court system and its deliniation of jurisdiciton presupposes a measure of control by the Federal government of its citizens, especially in the interstices of state actions (perhaps through the exercise of an enumerated power, the necessary and proper clause, or the tax/spend power). While the Constitution does prescribe a very large role for the states in governance, it is in fact a document of control (e.g., the existence of separate federal crimes).

 

[M14 Shooter]

And yet your forefathers:
1) Put an amendment process in the constitution
2) That has been enacted no less that 27 times
Which would suggest they had the foresight to see that things would change.

Yes.

And this clearly illustraes why the "Perhaps because the founders (and especially Alexander Hamilton) recognized that the enumerated powers were insufficiently broad to encompass the full range of issues that the government may need to respond to in the centuries ahead" argument is unsound.

Thank you.

 

[ReillyT]

Perhaps? LOL

The copnstitution was intended to give the government a specific set of limited powers and leave the other powers to the states. The interpretation of the power to tax that you present gives the governemtn UNLIMITED powers, as ANYTHING can fall under 'common defense and general welfare.

That, alone, negates the argument.

Not everything can fall under general welfare. The Bill of Rights carves out areas that cannot be deemed to fall under the general welfare. Additionally, there is certainly a notion of egalitarianian and broad benefit in the term "general welfare."

However, at the end of the day, I guess all this just means that you disagree with me... and the Supreme Court... and Alexander Hamilton... and nearly every living legal scholar. Also, you are clearly not a strict constructionist.

 

[ReillyT]

Yes.

And this clearly illustraes why the "Perhaps because the founders (and especially Alexander Hamilton) recognized that the enumerated powers were insufficiently broad to encompass the full range of issues that the government may need to respond to in the centuries ahead" argument is unsound.

Thank you.

Oh no. The amendment process is a difficult and time-consuming one, and it could never be used to deal with each issue of "general welfare" that might arise - especially in a timely manner.