The General Welfare Clause - Correct Your Ignorance Here

[The T]

. 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.

Public money is money collected by the government via taxes and fees.

Forcing me to spend my money on a product such as health insurance is not a use of public moneys.

Now if the government levied a new tax on everyone for the specific intention of funding health care, that would be another thing all together and there would be no discussion of the constitutionality of it because that type of tax falls within the enumerated powers of the federal government.

Exactly. It is a bastardization of the Commerce Clause. Congress does not have the right to force commerce. And second point on this is that this is a violation of the 10th Amendment.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We need 2 Constitutional Amendments:

First, repeal the 16th Amendment and have the states go back to funding the Federal government. Under the current system no one will ever say "we can't afford that!!"

Second, pass an amendment that states, "a law can only be finally deemed Unconstitutional upon a ruling by SCOTUS and then ratification of that ruling by 75% of the States"

 

[Claudette]

The clause specifies that general welfare of the United States which refers to the federal government itself so all taxes have to be laid to go to that government. They might have referred to the official federal government because they did not want tax revenue to go to the states since the first taxes were tariffs only which the states collected. They might have wanted that revenue to go straight to the federal government and put that clause in there to ensure states collecting it did not keep it for themselves.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

I've read the Constitution but I'm certainly no expert on it. Nor do I have all the answers.

I often wondered why they would put the GW clause in the Commerce section. What you have said here makes perfect sense to me. I am a common sense kinda person.

Everything I've read about the Founding Fathers leads me to believe that they didn't want the Fed Govt to have to much power and I sure as hell don't think that they wanted the Govt to "Take care of everybody".

Of course everyone has an opinon on the GW clause. I tend to agree witht his one. Just sayin.

 

[Claudette]

The scotus already desided this one and they are who the founders picked to deside the constitutional disagreements.

ITS SETTLED LAW!

Nothing is ever settled law. A future court could overturn any past ruling.

.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didnt' the SC under FDR find what he was doing Unconstitutional???

The only reason they passed it was because FDR threatened to stack the SC so they caved??

Wonder what the current SC will make of this. Hope they have bigger balls then the SC under FDR.

 

[Charles Stucker]

In every government there are those who seek ever more power. Those who do will use any pretext, including "redefining" texts to gain power. FDR wanted to violate the constitution. The supreme court stopped him, as is their position in a government of checks and balances. FDR then threw away any pretext of constitutionality by stacking the court so his cronies could force through the desired unconstitutional changes.

Now, "constitutional scholars" use FDR's blatant unconstitutional usurpation of power as a rationale for more socialism. Because the federal government administers these socialist programs all the power seekers, who are drawn to government like flies to shit, use FDR's illegal actions as a cloak to cover their own grabs for power.

Simple as that, but the apologists go out of their way to find ever more reasons to let the government erode our liberty.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The scotus already desided this one and they are who the founders picked to deside the constitutional disagreements.

ITS SETTLED LAW!

Nothing is ever settled law. A future court could overturn any past ruling.

.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didnt' the SC under FDR find what he was doing Unconstitutional???

The only reason they passed it was because FDR threatened to stack the SC so they caved??

Correct. Both the Social Security and Minimum Wage Acts were struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional by a 5 to 4 vote. Then FDR tried to expand the size of the court so he could stack it with his own Marxist judges. One of the justices on the court then caved and sided with the four leftists on the court declaring both acts legal.

So the fact of the matter is the Hamiltonian view of the general welfare clause became court precedent through threats and intimidation from the White House. Sounds a lot like today, huh.

But I'm sure the OP is completely ignorant of all this history, while he ironically calls the rest of us ignorant.

 

[jillian]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didnt' the SC under FDR find what he was doing Unconstitutional???

The only reason they passed it was because FDR threatened to stack the SC so they caved??

That was part of it... and ultimately irrelevant because the precedent is what it is.

And if I recall correctly, parts of the New Deal legislation WERE struck down.

Social Security is Constitutional.

And if Scalia and the boys don't act like the political hacks they are, this will hold up, too.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Social Security is Constitutional.

Because of threats and intimidation.

And if Scalia and the boys don't act like the political hacks they are, this will hold up, too.

Was the Warren Court a bunch of political hacks when they overturned Plessy v Ferguson?

 

[ihopehefails]

Nothing is ever settled law. A future court could overturn any past ruling.

.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didnt' the SC under FDR find what he was doing Unconstitutional???

The only reason they passed it was because FDR threatened to stack the SC so they caved??

Correct. Both the Social Security and Minimum Wage Acts were struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional by a 5 to 4 vote. Then FDR tried to expand the size of the court so he could stack it with his own Marxist judges. One of the justices on the court then caved and sided with the four leftists on the court declaring both acts legal.

So the fact of the matter is the Hamiltonian view of the general welfare clause became court precedent through threats and intimidation from the White House. Sounds a lot like today, huh.

But I'm sure the OP is completely ignorant of all this history, while he ironically calls the rest of us ignorant.

I agree that S.S. and similar federal programs are unconstitutional but I've been thinking about the tenth amendment and nullification. I believe that the tenth was a check against federal overflow of delegated powers because all laws regardless of constitutionality would be enforceable. There is no mechanism to stop them from enforcing unconstitutional laws except the tenth amendment.

When their is an opposing state law to that unconstitutional federal law then state law nullifies federal law but only when their is an opposing state law and the federal law is unconstitutional. When their is no opposing law then it is enforceable which means that programs like S.S. are enforceable while there are no opposing state laws to it.

I think this would be a good compromise because most people will opt for those programs and their state can choose to participate in them but a few states can nullify them if they want. This way states that like them can keep them while states that don't can delete them.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Really read what it says in the constitution people...here is a quote of it

Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article 1, section 8, clause 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;


In the preamble there is clearly a difference between common defense and general welfare. That difference being that one is to be provided for and the other is to be promoted, not provided.

In article 1 it says the government can lay taxes to provide for both the defense and welfare of american citizens. However, these taxes must be uniform throughout the country. By having our progressive tax system, only taxing people with cadillac plans, or only increasing the taxes on the rich to pay for health care this legislation directily violates article 1, section 8, clause 1.


Its so blatantly obvious i'm surprised people still play this silly game.

 

[ihopehefails]

Really read what it says in the constitution people...here is a quote of it

Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article 1, section 8, clause 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;


In the preamble there is clearly a difference between common defense and general welfare. That difference being that one is to be provided for and the other is to be promoted, not provided.

In article 1 it says the government can lay taxes to provide for both the defense and welfare of american citizens. However, these taxes must be uniform throughout the country. By having our progressive tax system, only taxing people with cadillac plans, or only increasing the taxes on the rich to pay for health care this legislation directily violates article 1, section 8, clause 1.


Its so blatantly obvious i'm surprised people still play this silly game.

I actually think that uniform tax law can nuke a lot of other federal taxes such as S.S. tax, death tax, and etc but since the federal court will probably side with itself and not vote to cut off its own revenue it will be impossible to get rid of those.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Now if the government levied a new tax on everyone for the specific intention of funding health care, that would be another thing all together and there would be no discussion of the constitutionality of it because that type of tax falls within the enumerated powers of the federal government.

So we have you on record as supporting the Constitutionality of universal public health care.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

and the court is not the final arbitor nitwit.

who is?

The Correct answer is Separate but EQUAL Branches...You don't know how your government works do you? You need to really read more on it.

That's not an answer. Perhaps I should restate the question.

Who is the final arbiter of whether or not a law is Constitutional?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didnt' the SC under FDR find what he was doing Unconstitutional???

The only reason they passed it was because FDR threatened to stack the SC so they caved??

That was part of it... and ultimately irrelevant because the precedent is what it is.

And if I recall correctly, parts of the New Deal legislation WERE struck down.

Social Security is Constitutional.

And if Scalia and the boys don't act like the political hacks they are, this will hold up, too.

Sonya's wise Latina vagina is voting for ObamaCare? You sure?

White men ruled in favor last time, maybe she's coming at it from a new direction?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

We need 2 Constitutional Amendments:

First, repeal the 16th Amendment and have the states go back to funding the Federal government.

I don't think the states ever did. At least not in any significant way. For instance, from 1812 till 1861 the federal government was funded entirely by excises and duties and sale of public land.

To raise money for the War of 1812, Congress imposed additional excise taxes, raised certain customs duties, and raised money by issuing Treasury notes. In 1817 Congress repealed these taxes, and for the next 44 years the Federal Government collected no internal revenue. Instead, the Government received most of its revenue from high customs duties and through the sale of public land.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

Under the current system no one will ever say "we can't afford that!!"

Its called an election.

Second, pass an amendment that states, "a law can only be finally deemed Unconstitutional upon a ruling by SCOTUS and then ratification of that ruling by 75% of the States"

That's ridiculous. Nothing would ever be ruled unconstitutional. You'd be effectively destroying the Constitution because there would be no effective means to throw out unconstitutional laws.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I often wondered why they would put the GW clause in the Commerce section.

Its in the enumeration of power section.

Everything I've read about the Founding Fathers leads me to believe that they didn't want the Fed Govt to have to much power

They also didn't want women to vote.

and I sure as hell don't think that they wanted the Govt to "Take care of everybody".

Tell that to the newspapers that received massive federal subsidies in the early part of our nations history.

 

[Claudette]

I often wondered why they would put the GW clause in the Commerce section.

Its in the enumeration of power section.

Everything I've read about the Founding Fathers leads me to believe that they didn't want the Fed Govt to have to much power

They also didn't want women to vote.

and I sure as hell don't think that they wanted the Govt to "Take care of everybody".

Tell that to the newspapers that received massive federal subsidies in the early part of our nations history.

I think it applied to Commerce though. Not the public largess given to anyone. No. I don't think that would have flown back then at all.

Women voting?? Don't think that was even an issue back then.

They didn't want the Govt to be to powerfull. Shades of Tyaranny. King George.

If they gave subsidies to newspapers it was probably so they could get the news out. Not give em a free ride.

Ahhh Spider. You and I and anyone can go round and round with this but in the end we will think what we think. LOL.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Really read what it says in the constitution people...here is a quote of it

Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article 1, section 8, clause 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;


In the preamble there is clearly a difference between common defense and general welfare. That difference being that one is to be provided for and the other is to be promoted, not provided.

In article 1 it says the government can lay taxes to provide for both the defense and welfare of american citizens. However, these taxes must be uniform throughout the country. By having our progressive tax system, only taxing people with cadillac plans, or only increasing the taxes on the rich to pay for health care this legislation directily violates article 1, section 8, clause 1.


Its so blatantly obvious i'm surprised people still play this silly game.

I actually think that uniform tax law can nuke a lot of other federal taxes such as S.S. tax, death tax, and etc but since the federal court will probably side with itself and not vote to cut off its own revenue it will be impossible to get rid of those.

spidermantuba what do you think of my statement?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I think it applied to Commerce though. Not the public largess given to anyone. No. I don't think that would have flown back then at all.

READ THE FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD


'

They didn't want the Govt to be to powerfull.

That must be why they tossed out the Articles of Confederation, which provided for a weak central government, and wrote the Constitution which provides for a stronger central government.

Shades of Tyaranny. King George.

You're not even speaking in complete sentences.

If they gave subsidies to newspapers it was probably so they could get the news out. Not give em a free ride.

What's the difference?

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is for all the folks who babble on about James Madison whenever the general welfare clause turns up in conversation.


If you want to discuss actual, practical, real world law, and not what you wish was the law in your fanciful fantasy land, I'd suggest you familiarized yourself with a Supreme Court case called U.S. v Butler (1936). In the majority opinion, Republican appointed Justice Roberts rejects Madison's view on the general welfare clause and adopts Hamilton's view.

Since the foundation of the Nation, sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view, the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are, or may be, necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the 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, [p66] limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. [n12] We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. 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


That is the actual, binding, practical law that is being applied and that is the reality of it. Sorry if you don't like it, but Madison's views on the GW clause are not legally relevant

Your post is misdirected.

I'm leaning toward the Constitutional dictum as selected by the senior member of the Judiciary Committee:

"While Conyers did pledge to give in and read the full bill before voting last week, he apparently made up a clause in the U.S. Constitution to defend the individual mandate during an interview last week with the conservative Web site CNSNews.com.

It's legal "under several clauses," he explained. "The good and welfare clause and a couple others. All the constitutional scholars that I know -- I'm chairman of the Judiciary Committee as you know -- they all say there's nothing unconstitutional in this bill. And if there were, I would have tried to correct it."
Rep. John Conyers 'invents' clause to defend health care law; Sean Hannity takes notice | - MLive.com