What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The General Welfare Clause - Why the current use of it is unconstitutional

PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
17,416
Reaction score
3,063
Points
183
Location
America's Home Town
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 by having the duties, imposts, and excises being applied non-uniformly for health care in the legislation.

EDIT: Taxes on cadillac plans have been removed. This is no longer an issue
EDIT2: If the taxes on employers and employees who have employer provided health plans is still in then this is an issue. It is not being implimented uniformly as american's who either purchase it on their own, are on a government program already, or dont choose to have it have don't have to pay the tax but those who get it from their employer do. not uniform
EDIT3: The special tax break deals for states like florida and nebraska are also a direct violation of the constitution as those are not being applied uniformly.
 
Last edited:

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,734
Reaction score
7,917
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
Doesn't matter.
"General welfare" is the purpose of the entire constitution, not a power of government enumerated by it. If it were it would be in Article I.
If that were the case there would be no limit whatsoever on what government could do. Justice Thomas made that exact comment about use of the commerce clause.

But since when did the Constitution become a consideration in the health care debate? As Nancy said, is that a serious question? Are you serious?
 
OP
PLYMCO_PILGRIM

PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
17,416
Reaction score
3,063
Points
183
Location
America's Home Town
Doesn't matter.
"General welfare" is the purpose of the entire constitution, not a power of government enumerated by it. If it were it would be in Article I.
If that were the case there would be no limit whatsoever on what government could do. Justice Thomas made that exact comment about use of the commerce clause.

But since when did the Constitution become a consideration in the health care debate? As Nancy said, is that a serious question? Are you serious?

What?

The specific legislation imposes taxes that are not uniform in an attempt to fund the providing of general welfare. That in itself violates the very clause being used to justify the government's funding of the health care bill according to the bill's language. By violating that clause this bill violates the constitutional restrictions put upon the federal government.
 

Claudette

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
42,313
Reaction score
12,956
Points
2,250
Doesn't matter.
"General welfare" is the purpose of the entire constitution, not a power of government enumerated by it. If it were it would be in Article I.
If that were the case there would be no limit whatsoever on what government could do. Justice Thomas made that exact comment about use of the commerce clause.

But since when did the Constitution become a consideration in the health care debate? As Nancy said, is that a serious question? Are you serious?

What?

The specific legislation imposes taxes that are not uniform in an attempt to fund the providing of general welfare. That in itself violates the very clause being used to justify the government's funding of the health care bill according to the bill's language. By violating that clause this bill violates the constitutional restrictions put upon the federal government.

Judge Naplitano said much the same.

I would dearly love to hear what the SC has to say on this. Would be interesting reading.
 
Last edited:

Ravi

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
90,899
Reaction score
13,995
Points
2,205
Location
Hating Hatters
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 by having the duties, imposts, and excises being applied non-uniformly for health care in the legislation.
I'm pretty sure the cadillac plans were taken out of the bill. They aren't increasing tax on the rich but on income level. Subtle, but different, and uniform.

Fail.
 
OP
PLYMCO_PILGRIM

PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
17,416
Reaction score
3,063
Points
183
Location
America's Home Town
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 by having the duties, imposts, and excises being applied non-uniformly for health care in the legislation.
I'm pretty sure the cadillac plans were taken out of the bill. They aren't increasing tax on the rich but on income level. Subtle, but different, and uniform.

Fail.

You just said "they aren't increasing the tax on the rich but (increasing it) on income level. Are you saying some income level will have to pay more taxes than another income level? If so how is that uniform?
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,734
Reaction score
7,917
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
Doesn't matter.
"General welfare" is the purpose of the entire constitution, not a power of government enumerated by it. If it were it would be in Article I.
If that were the case there would be no limit whatsoever on what government could do. Justice Thomas made that exact comment about use of the commerce clause.

But since when did the Constitution become a consideration in the health care debate? As Nancy said, is that a serious question? Are you serious?

What?

The specific legislation imposes taxes that are not uniform in an attempt to fund the providing of general welfare. That in itself violates the very clause being used to justify the government's funding of the health care bill according to the bill's language. By violating that clause this bill violates the constitutional restrictions put upon the federal government.

You missed my point.
"General welfare" is the purpose of the entire constitution, not a power of government under it. So any legislation justified solely as "for the general welfare" fails the test of being a power of government. Because if the only constitutional test of a piece of legislation were "general welfare" they would all pass. There would be no limit on government. And the Founders did not intend that.
But the constitutionality of the measure is the last thing that will get considered.
 

Mr Clean

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,884
Reaction score
4,839
Points
290
The truth is, since they're not around to explain themselves, it's speculation of what they meant by "General Welfare".

And all the shit house lawyers in the world can debate this point until the end of time and we'll never really know what was the Founders real intent.
 

manu1959

Left Coast Isolationist
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
13,761
Reaction score
1,651
Points
48
Location
california
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 by having the duties, imposts, and excises being applied non-uniformly for health care in the legislation.
I'm pretty sure the cadillac plans were taken out of the bill. They aren't increasing tax on the rich but on income level. Subtle, but different, and uniform.

Fail.

income tax is the only tax that taxes one group of people at a higher rate than another.....

if i am good at something the government takes more from me.....and gives it to people that aren't so good at it.....
 

Ravi

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
90,899
Reaction score
13,995
Points
2,205
Location
Hating Hatters
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 by having the duties, imposts, and excises being applied non-uniformly for health care in the legislation.
I'm pretty sure the cadillac plans were taken out of the bill. They aren't increasing tax on the rich but on income level. Subtle, but different, and uniform.

Fail.

income tax is the only tax that taxes one group of people at a higher rate than another.....

if i am good at something the government takes more from me.....and gives it to people that aren't so good at it.....
Or you could be bad at everything and have investment income.

Income tax taxes income, not people.
 
OP
PLYMCO_PILGRIM

PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
17,416
Reaction score
3,063
Points
183
Location
America's Home Town
Doesn't matter.
"General welfare" is the purpose of the entire constitution, not a power of government enumerated by it. If it were it would be in Article I.
If that were the case there would be no limit whatsoever on what government could do. Justice Thomas made that exact comment about use of the commerce clause.

But since when did the Constitution become a consideration in the health care debate? As Nancy said, is that a serious question? Are you serious?

What?

The specific legislation imposes taxes that are not uniform in an attempt to fund the providing of general welfare. That in itself violates the very clause being used to justify the government's funding of the health care bill according to the bill's language. By violating that clause this bill violates the constitutional restrictions put upon the federal government.

You missed my point.
"General welfare" is the purpose of the entire constitution, not a power of government under it. So any legislation justified solely as "for the general welfare" fails the test of being a power of government. Because if the only constitutional test of a piece of legislation were "general welfare" they would all pass. There would be no limit on government. And the Founders did not intend that.
But the constitutionality of the measure is the last thing that will get considered.

The entire purpose of the constitution is to restrict the power of the federal government and to enumarate the rights of the people, as endowed by their creator (according to the langauge of the constitution)
 
OP
PLYMCO_PILGRIM

PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
17,416
Reaction score
3,063
Points
183
Location
America's Home Town
The truth is, since they're not around to explain themselves, it's speculation of what they meant by "General Welfare".

And all the shit house lawyers in the world can debate this point until the end of time and we'll never really know what was the Founders real intent.

Instead of guessing their intent, like so many do, lets just take it at the words they used to write it. If you do so our current income tax system is unconstitutional based on its progressive nature.

I should have to pay the same income tax rate, according to the constitution, as the multi-millionaires out there like Obama and Bill Gates.
 

Jarhead

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
20,670
Reaction score
2,378
Points
245
I'm pretty sure the cadillac plans were taken out of the bill. They aren't increasing tax on the rich but on income level. Subtle, but different, and uniform.

Fail.

income tax is the only tax that taxes one group of people at a higher rate than another.....

if i am good at something the government takes more from me.....and gives it to people that aren't so good at it.....
Or you could be bad at everything and have investment income.

Income tax taxes income, not people.

And with few exceptions, income is based on the person.
But why include that minor little detail.
 
OP
PLYMCO_PILGRIM

PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
17,416
Reaction score
3,063
Points
183
Location
America's Home Town
I'm pretty sure the cadillac plans were taken out of the bill. They aren't increasing tax on the rich but on income level. Subtle, but different, and uniform.

Fail.

income tax is the only tax that taxes one group of people at a higher rate than another.....

if i am good at something the government takes more from me.....and gives it to people that aren't so good at it.....
Or you could be bad at everything and have investment income.

Income tax taxes income, not people.

Right income tax taxes income and the constitution says that taxes must be uniform hence my first post in this thread. You can't charge me 19% and charge donald trump 35%, thats not constitutional according to article 1, ammendment 16, and the preamble.
 

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,744
Reaction score
2,466
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
Doesn't matter.
"General welfare" is the purpose of the entire constitution, not a power of government enumerated by it. If it were it would be in Article I.
If that were the case there would be no limit whatsoever on what government could do. Justice Thomas made that exact comment about use of the commerce clause.

But since when did the Constitution become a consideration in the health care debate? As Nancy said, is that a serious question? Are you serious?

What?

The specific legislation imposes taxes that are not uniform in an attempt to fund the providing of general welfare. That in itself violates the very clause being used to justify the government's funding of the health care bill according to the bill's language. By violating that clause this bill violates the constitutional restrictions put upon the federal government.

You missed my point.
"General welfare" is the purpose of the entire constitution, not a power of government under it. So any legislation justified solely as "for the general welfare" fails the test of being a power of government. Because if the only constitutional test of a piece of legislation were "general welfare" they would all pass. There would be no limit on government. And the Founders did not intend that.
But the constitutionality of the measure is the last thing that will get considered.


That is irrelevant.

The Welfare/Warfare State defines "general welfare" as that policy which will get a politician elected.

The "general welfare" is enforced by Article 69:

m4comp-l.jpg


.
 

Ravi

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
90,899
Reaction score
13,995
Points
2,205
Location
Hating Hatters
income tax is the only tax that taxes one group of people at a higher rate than another.....

if i am good at something the government takes more from me.....and gives it to people that aren't so good at it.....
Or you could be bad at everything and have investment income.

Income tax taxes income, not people.

Right income tax taxes income and the constitution says that taxes must be uniform hence my first post in this thread. You can't charge me 19% and charge donald trump 35%, thats not constitutional according to article 1, ammendment 16, and the preamble.
They are uniform as they go by income bracket and not the person in question, "Bill Gates" or "Pilgrim."

I suppose you could make a case that EITCs are unconstitutional. :eusa_eh: But even they are uniform as they are applied based on income...
 

Zoom-boing

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
25,764
Reaction score
7,803
Points
350
Location
East Japip
I'm pretty sure the cadillac plans were taken out of the bill. They aren't increasing tax on the rich but on income level. Subtle, but different, and uniform.

Fail.

Excise Tax -- Beginning in 2018, insurance companies will pay a 40 percent excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" high-end insurance plans worth over $27,500 for families ($10,200 for individuals). Dental and vision plans are exempt and will not be counted in the total cost of a family's plan.

Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look At What's in the Bill - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
 

The T

George S. Patton Party
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
48,082
Reaction score
5,533
Points
1,773
Location
What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
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 by having the duties, imposts, and excises being applied non-uniformly for health care in the legislation.

Great thread but one thing I would add...by "welfare" that doesn't mean the current form as we know it today.
 

The T

George S. Patton Party
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
48,082
Reaction score
5,533
Points
1,773
Location
What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
income tax is the only tax that taxes one group of people at a higher rate than another.....

if i am good at something the government takes more from me.....and gives it to people that aren't so good at it.....
Or you could be bad at everything and have investment income.

Income tax taxes income, not people.

Right income tax taxes income and the constitution says that taxes must be uniform hence my first post in this thread. You can't charge me 19% and charge donald trump 35%, thats not constitutional according to article 1, ammendment 16, and the preamble.

So much for the "backRoom deals" and Presidential Exec orders regarding pretty much everything Government does.

I really think we need to either purge this government or demand a total redo. Those two paths is where all this will end up. Mark my words.
 

The T

George S. Patton Party
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
48,082
Reaction score
5,533
Points
1,773
Location
What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
The truth is, since they're not around to explain themselves, it's speculation of what they meant by "General Welfare".

And all the shit house lawyers in the world can debate this point until the end of time and we'll never really know what was the Founders real intent.

They left a manual of sorts behind. Try reading the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers. (And BTW)? The FEDERALISTS WON the DAY.:eusa_shhh:

Your words are nothing but a lazy excuse. Educate yourself. it's your DUTY as an American.
 
Last edited:

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top