The General Welfare Clause - Correct Your Ignorance Here

[SpidermanTuba]

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

 

[dilloduck]

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

He spoke to me in a dream and said you were full of shit

 

[jillian]

For the assistance of the pretend 'constitutionalists', they should look at the words: sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase, and they should remember it next time they pretend they KNOW what the Constitution says.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

For the assistance of the pretend 'constitutionalists', they should look at the words: sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase, and they should remember it next time they pretend they KNOW what the Constitution says.

No shit. I like how the 'strict constructionists" insist there is only one correct interpretation to the document, completely ignoring the fact that often the very same people who wrote the document disagreed over its meaning! If Hamilton and Madison - both who helped pen the Constitution - can't agree to its meaning, then how can there be just one true meaning? Its almost as if they meant for it to be vague and ambiguous.

 

[jillian]

For the assistance of the pretend 'constitutionalists', they should look at the words: sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase, and they should remember it next time they pretend they KNOW what the Constitution says.

No shit. I like how the 'strict constructionists" insist there is only one correct interpretation to the document, completely ignoring the fact that often the very same people who wrote the document disagreed over its meaning! If Hamilton and Madison - both who helped pen the Constitution - can't agree to its meaning, then how can there be just one true meaning? Its almost as if they meant for it to be vague and ambiguous.

Not to mention the fact that if constitutional scholars can't agree, then how can people who don't even know what constitutional construction is or understand the effect of us being a common law country think THEY have the answers?

 

[WillowTree]

For the assistance of the pretend 'constitutionalists', they should look at the words: sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase, and they should remember it next time they pretend they KNOW what the Constitution says.

what arrogrance you have. not everyone has a degree in constitutional law, but instead of teaching you demean.. does that make you feel superior? or what?

 

[WillowTree]

For the assistance of the pretend 'constitutionalists', they should look at the words: sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase, and they should remember it next time they pretend they KNOW what the Constitution says.

No shit. I like how the 'strict constructionists" insist there is only one correct interpretation to the document, completely ignoring the fact that often the very same people who wrote the document disagreed over its meaning! If Hamilton and Madison - both who helped pen the Constitution - can't agree to its meaning, then how can there be just one true meaning? Its almost as if they meant for it to be vague and ambiguous.

Not to mention the fact that if constitutional scholars can't agree, then how can people who don't even know what constitutional construction is or understand the effect of us being a common law country think THEY have the answers?

they can only converse on points as they understand them.. sometimes proven wrong sometimes not. You yourself the other day said of the states AG's who planned to sue, "it's histronics" they being 39 other attorneys disagree with you. somebody is wrong.

 

[Truthmatters]

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

ITS SETTLED LAW!

 

[Truthmatters]

Out for the day dudes

 

[WillowTree]

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

ITS SETTLED LAW!

yeah, so was the 2000 election but that didn't fucking stop you morons now did it?

 

[WillowTree]

Out for the day dudes

god bless tiny tymn.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

He spoke to me in a dream and said you were full of shit

I had the same dream, but in mine Madison said you were full-o-shite.

heh, heh, heh...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Madison and Hamilton would both switch sides on what they thought about what they thought. read the book Madison, by Gary Wills

 

[SpidermanTuba]

One must wonder -


were the Founders really that smart? I mean, they got together, wrote a document, and then spent the rest of their lives arguing over the meaning of the document that they themselves wrote! Sounds like something that would happen in a mad house!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

b

 

[Avatar4321]

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

ITS SETTLED LAW!

Actually, no. The SCOTUS isn't the one the Founders picked to decide Constitutional disagreements.

And it is settled law. The Welfare clause isnt a grant of power.

 

[Yurt]

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

not true at all....you cite dicta

next

 

[Yurt]

For the assistance of the pretend 'constitutionalists', they should look at the words: sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase, and they should remember it next time they pretend they KNOW what the Constitution says.

No shit. I like how the 'strict constructionists" insist there is only one correct interpretation to the document, completely ignoring the fact that often the very same people who wrote the document disagreed over its meaning! If Hamilton and Madison - both who helped pen the Constitution - can't agree to its meaning, then how can there be just one true meaning? Its almost as if they meant for it to be vague and ambiguous.

Not to mention the fact that if constitutional scholars can't agree, then how can people who don't even know what constitutional construction is or understand the effect of us being a common law country think THEY have the answers?

i respectfully disagree jillian. constitutional scholars are not always right, nor are they all knowing. i don't believe the constitution was written in such a manner that only those who study it and subsequent case law, are capable of understanding its meaning. i don't believe the founders wanted this country to be ruled, or laws decided by, only scholars of the law.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

 

[ihopehefails]

No shit. I like how the 'strict constructionists" insist there is only one correct interpretation to the document, completely ignoring the fact that often the very same people who wrote the document disagreed over its meaning! If Hamilton and Madison - both who helped pen the Constitution - can't agree to its meaning, then how can there be just one true meaning? Its almost as if they meant for it to be vague and ambiguous.

Not to mention the fact that if constitutional scholars can't agree, then how can people who don't even know what constitutional construction is or understand the effect of us being a common law country think THEY have the answers?

i respectfully disagree jillian. constitutional scholars are not always right, nor are they all knowing. i don't believe the constitution was written in such a manner that only those who study it and subsequent case law, are capable of understanding its meaning. i don't believe the founders wanted this country to be ruled, or laws decided by, only scholars of the law.

I agree. Who said that the only person who has a right to interpret the constitution or have any opinion about exist with the federal judiciary? Some people are acting like no one should have an opinion about the document that was created by the people.