Questions for Conservatives

[RetiredGySgt]

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).

The STATED purpose of the Constitution was to LIMIT the Federal Government by only enumerating its specific powers. By claiming "General Welfare" applies to anything and everything, you have just removed any limit at all. There is no need for amendments, one need just proclaimed it falls under "General Welfare" and it is now covered.

The term does NOT mean what you state it means.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not everything can fall under general welfare.

Sure it can, especially if government provided health care and retirement benefits do.
What do you suppose would NOT fall under that term, or the 'common defense'?

The Bill of Rights carves out areas that cannot be deemed to fall under the general welfare.

These are restriction on government power that apply to all the powers that the government have, enumerated, specific, or implied.

However, at the end of the day, I guess all this just means that you disagree with me...[/quote[
And I'm SURE to lose sleep over that.

Also, you are clearly not a strict constructionist.

Says the guy that supports the notion that the clause that gives the government the power to tax gives it the power to to virtually anything.

 

[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.

By the way, are you a strict constructionist?

If you are, you can't say that the Constitution is clear that the federal government does not have the power to enact social programs. To do so, you would have to completely ignore the wording of the enumerated taxing/spending power. If anything, it is clear (because the words say so) that the government can tax and spend, provided it is for the general welfare.

If you are not a strict constructionist, then we can argue about what we think the founders probably meant to say, and whether under current conditions, the articles should be construed this way or that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Absoilutely it could -- and it was, 27 times.
After all - if something was SO important, it would be easily and quickly passed into an amendment.

The mere fact that the amendment process and the 10th amendment are there at all negates your argument in every way.

 

[M14 Shooter]

By the way, are you a strict constructionist?
If you are, you can't say that the Constitution is clear that the federal government does not have the power to enact social programs.

Sure I can. Your 'catch all' argument is unsound, and so your conclusion that the government has the power to enact social programs not specifically noted in an enumerated power doesnt hold water.

To do so, you would have to completely ignore the wording of the enumerated taxing/spending power.

No, I'd have to point out how your interpretation of that clause is wrong, whcih I have done -- your argument is based on the idea that 'not all things could be forseen', which is exactly why the founders included the amendment process and the 10the amendment.

If anything, it is clear (because the words say so) that the government can tax and spend, provided it is for the general welfare.

Yes. But this does not, as you argue, give the power to provide for that general welfare, as defined however the government might want to define it.
As noted before, this interpretation completely voids the need for enumerated powers.

 

[ReillyT]

Sure it can, especially if government provided health care and retirement benefits do.
What do you suppose would NOT fall under that term, or the 'common defense'?

The government cannot tax and spend in contravention of a right in the Bill of Rights. Neither can it tax and spend to the benefit of one person. In the end, it boils down to a question of how you interpet "general welfare." However, I don't see how a government program available to all citizens (or a significant portion of them) cannot be deemed to fall under the "general welfare."

These are restriction on government power that apply to all the powers that the government have, enumerated, specific, or implied.

Exactly. They apply to the tax/spend power as well.

Says the guy that supports the notion that the clause that gives the government the power to tax gives it the power to to virtually anything.

Strict constructionism is not the same as advocating the most limited government. It is a method of interpretation. It just means that the words of a document should be strictly construed. They only mean what they explicitly say - you don't read into them words that aren't there, or interpretations that stray from the words as defined.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The government cannot tax and spend in contravention of a right in the Bill of Rights.

Noi kidding. But that's a limit on the total power of government -- it doesnt describe what sort of program would NOT fall under the 'power to provide for the general welfare'.

However, I don't see how a government program available to all citizens (or a significant portion of them) cannot be deemed to fall under the "general welfare."

And there is no limit to the number of programs that might do this -- as such, there;s no limit to the power provided (except thse prohibited by the various amendments). Thank you.

 

[ReillyT]

Sure I can. Your 'catch all' argument is unsound, and so your conclusion that the government has the power to enact social programs not specifically noted in an enumerated power doesnt hold water.

Saying it is unsound doesn't make it so. There is an enumerated power. It is the tax/spend power.

No, I'd have to point out how your interpretation of that clause is wrong, whcih I have done -- your argument is based on the idea that 'not all things could be forseen', which is exactly why the founders included the amendment process and the 10the amendment.

My interpretation is of the words as written. You don't get much more strict constructionist than that. My argument as to why they included the tax/spend provision is just my best guess. It has little bearing to the question though, because it was explicitly written into the Constitution. The why's and wherefore's are not something that a strict constructionist would care much about.

Yes. But this does not, as you argue, give the power to provide for that general welfare, as defined however the government might want to define it.
As noted before, this interpretation completely voids the need for enumerated powers.

Does not (as I argue) give the power to provide for the general welfare? What? It says exactly that - in those exact words. How could it be more clear?

Even if you are right that the tax/spend provision makes some of the other enumerated powers redundant, this doesn't confront the fact that it is there. It is written into the Constitution. There is no avoiding that fact - if you are a strict constructionist.

 

[ReillyT]

Noi kidding. But that's a limit on the total power of government -- it doesnt describe what sort of program would NOT fall under the 'power to provide for the general welfare'.

Yes it does. For instance, a government program of spending on new Catholic churches violates the 1st Amendment. It is therefore impermissible.

And there is no limit to the number of programs that might do this -- as such, there;s no limit to the power provided (except thse prohibited by the various amendments). Thank you.

Well, there is a limit to the extent that the words "general welfare" have to be interpreted in some manner. The courts deal with those questions. You don't like what is written and the powers that it provides. Then work to amend the Constitution (good luck) or spend your nights cursing Alexander Hamilton. I am just telling you what it says. I am not saying it is necessarily a good thing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Saying it is unsound doesn't make it so. There is an enumerated power. It is the tax/spend power.

But that's not the power you're ascribing to it -- you are argung that in addition to the power to tax and spend, it ALSO gives the power to create programs on which taxes could be spent.

The programs for the government has the power to create are found in the enumerated powers - and THAT is why your agument is unsound.

My interpretation is of the words as written.

No. your interpretion is the words of a court, which went against the interpretations of previous courts.

Even if you are right that the tax/spend provision makes some of the other enumerated powers redundant...

Which, of course gets back to the question as to why, if you are right, the are there to begin with.

 

[ReillyT]

The STATED purpose of the Constitution was to LIMIT the Federal Government by only enumerating its specific powers. By claiming "General Welfare" applies to anything and everything, you have just removed any limit at all. There is no need for amendments, one need just proclaimed it falls under "General Welfare" and it is now covered.

The term does NOT mean what you state it means.

Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 1 is an enumerated power. I didn't claim that "general welfare" has no limit. I think it does. One could argue that social programs don't fall under general welfare (although it would be a hard argument) if one wanted. But to pretend that the clause doesn't exist because you don't like it or don't think it is appropriate is... silly. The Amendment process affects lots of things that don't fall within the spending power. Voting age for instance. It also provides a basis for changing the tax/spend power if you want.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes it does. For instance, a government program of spending on new Catholic churches violates the 1st Amendment. It is therefore impermissible.

But NOT because it doesnt fall under 'general welfare'. The limit you describe here is NOT that it fall outside the scope of 'general welfare' but because it runs afoul of the 1st amendment.

 

[ReillyT]

But that's not the power you're ascribing to it -- you are argung that in addition to the power to tax and spend, it ALSO gives the power to create programs on which taxes could be spent..

Yes, to the extent that spending has to be on something, this clearly the case. "Program" is just another word for a spending scheme, with the rules about disbursement included. Any spending scheme in the "general welfare" that does not violate another prohibition in the Constitution is okay.

The programs for the government has the power to create are found in the enumerated powers - and THAT is why your agument is unsound.

Taxing/spending is an enumerated power, so to that extent, you are right, although (as a side point) I see no reason that Congress couldn't base a program on an unenumerated power (i.e., commerce clause, necessary and proper clause).

No. your interpretion is the words of a court, which went against the interpretations of previous courts.

It has been a decided issue for nearly a century - best come to grips with it.

Which, of course gets back to the question as to why, if you are right, the are there to begin with.

I gave you some reasons (which were my best guesses). Your best way to get an answer would be to ask Alexander Hamilton. However, it doesn't matter. If you are a strict constructionist (or even if you are not), you need to accept that the words are there - written clear as day. Like it or not.

 

[ReillyT]

But NOT because it doesnt fall under 'general welfare'. The limit you describe here is NOT that it fall outside the scope of 'general welfare' but because it runs afoul of the 1st amendment.

Quite right, the "general welfare" clause is constrained by the Bill of Rights? Does it have any other constraint? I am sure there are some cases where it is clear that something is not in the general welfare. For instance, apportioning 1% of all tax revenue to Betty Smith of Lincoln, Nebraska because she is a swell gal clearly is not in the "general welfare." Somewhere between that and social security are a broad range of possible cases, and I am sure that the line is drawn somewhere along that slope.

Is it a very broad power? Yes. Is it within the power of government? Obviously, some of the founders believed it was and so it was placed in the text. The Courts for the last 100 years have agreed with them. Should it be more circumscribed? Maybe, but that is what the amendment process is for.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, to the extent that spending has to be on something, this clearly the case. "Program" is just another word for a spending scheme, with the rules about disbursement included.

The power to tax/spend does not equate to tax/spend/create programs to spend on.

although (as a side point) I see no reason that Congress couldn't base a program on an unenumerated power (i.e., commerce clause, necessary and proper clause).

Those are enumerated powers.

It has been a decided issue for nearly a century - best come to grips with it.

I'll remember that next time someone complains about how the supreme court appointed GWB.

Your best way to get an answer would be to ask Alexander Hamilton

Tell me why Hamilton holds more water than Madison?

 

[ReillyT]

The power to tax/spend does not equate to tax/spend/create programs to spend on.

That clearly is not true. Even under your interpretation of the world as it should be, Congress could tax and spend to created a program furthering an enumerated power. The GI bill was a program to further recruitment into the military, which clearly falls within both sec. 8(1) and 8(12?).

However, on the main point with respect to other types of programs, I disagree, and so does the Supreme Court... and Alexander Hamilton... must we go on about this. The issue has been decided for almost a century.

Those are enumerated powers.

Fair enough. I tend to think of these clauses as clauses to effectuate powers, but you are quite correct - they are enumerated.

I'll remember that next time someone complains about how the supreme court appointed GWB.

It is okay to say that you don't like the decision and you wish it had come out another way, but it is silly to pretend that there is no legal basis for GWB to be president. There is - b/c the USSC said so.

 

[ReillyT]

Tell me why Hamilton holds more water than Madison?

Because in a situation with conflicting views, his view won the day.

 

[ReillyT]

Tell me why Hamilton holds more water than Madison?

If you are a strict constructionist, why does this even matter? Just use the text as written and let that be your guide.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you are a strict constructionist, why does this even matter? Just use the text as written and let that be your guide.

I am.
The power to tax and spend is the power to tax and to spend, not to tax and to spend -and- to create the programs to spend on. That's what the rest of the enumerated powers are for.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That clearly is not true. Even under your interpretation of the world as it should be, Congress could tax and spend to created a program furthering an enumerated power. The GI bill was a program to further recruitment into the military, which clearly falls within both sec. 8(1) and 8(12?).

I have no argument against that example, as you have noted that the GI bill was created under an enumerated power.

However, on the main point with respect to other types of programs, I disagree, and so does the Supreme Court... and Alexander Hamilton... must we go on about this. The issue has been decided for almost a century.

Yes. And the court's interpretation doesnt have a sound basis.
Its that way because they said its that way, and nothing more.