The General Welfare Clause

[ihopehefails]

The patriot act is perfectly legal and constitutional because of the general welfare clause. According to that the government can do anything it wants as long as it is for our welfare so the patriot act was used to protect the general welfare (and don't forget common defense) so its perfectly legal. Now that we established that the government can do anything it wants under that section of the constitution we can start locking up political dissidents and limiting free speech because it is for the "general welfare" of the public.

This argument sounds pretty lame but this is what all your "general welfare" arguments sound like to us.

 

[California Girl]

You're gonna piss off a LOT of liberals. Have at it!!!!

 

[Truthmatters]

not if it contradicts other parts of the constitution

 

[rightwinger]

The patriot act is perfectly legal and constitutional because of the general welfare clause. According to that the government can do anything it wants as long as it is for our welfare so the patriot act was used to protect the general welfare (and don't forget common defense) so its perfectly legal. Now that we established that the government can do anything it wants under that section of the constitution we can start locking up political dissidents and limiting free speech because it is for the "general welfare" of the public.

This argument sounds pretty lame but this is what all your "general welfare" arguments sound like to us.

Where does anything in Medicare, Social Security or Healthcare violate other Constitutional rights? Patriot act is in direct violation of the 4th Ammendment

The Week Magazine - News reviews and opinion, arts, entertainment & political cartoons

To what end? The Ensign-DeMint exercise will not stop the Reid-Obama plan. Nor will it much impress the courts. Since the challenges to Social Security were rejected by the Supreme Court in 1937, the courts have consistently held that the general welfare clause of the Constitution empowers Congress to create social welfare plans based on compulsory contribution. (Helvering v. Davis is the most relevant case.)


DeMint's and Ensign's argument against the constitutionality of the Obama-Reid health reform rests upon the ancient theory of enumerated powers. Under this theory, Congress may do only what the Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to do. Since (for example) the Constitution does not mention a national bank, Congress may not charter banks.

The theory exerted a lively influence upon the politics of the 1790s, when it was enthusiastically promoted by the party led by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. The heart went out of the theory in 1805, when then President Jefferson purchased Louisiana from the French in 1805. The Constitution had said nothing about THAT either.

The Civil War finished off the theory for all practical political purposes. Since 1865, the doctrine of enumerated power has subsisted at the remote margins of American politics. Are Republicans proposing now to resurrect the constitutional theories of Roger Taney?

 

[DiamondDave]

The patriot act is perfectly legal and constitutional because of the general welfare clause. According to that the government can do anything it wants as long as it is for our welfare so the patriot act was used to protect the general welfare (and don't forget common defense) so its perfectly legal. Now that we established that the government can do anything it wants under that section of the constitution we can start locking up political dissidents and limiting free speech because it is for the "general welfare" of the public.

This argument sounds pretty lame but this is what all your "general welfare" arguments sound like to us.

What they do not get is the difference between "general welfare of the Unites States" and the individual welfare of individual citizens...

What they also never seem to grasp is the history of the US intercepting wartime communications to and from enemies and suspected enemies... even if it originated from or was being sent to a citizen or somewhere specific within the US.... without warrant or need of a warrant... and we've still yet to hear of a single case where other information from anything like a tax violation or even a jaywalking ticket was issued at the hands of the information gathered from suspected enemy communications, on a US citizen

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You're gonna piss off a LOT of liberals. Have at it!!!!

This liberal has no problem with the OP.

 

[ihopehefails]

The patriot act is perfectly legal and constitutional because of the general welfare clause. According to that the government can do anything it wants as long as it is for our welfare so the patriot act was used to protect the general welfare (and don't forget common defense) so its perfectly legal. Now that we established that the government can do anything it wants under that section of the constitution we can start locking up political dissidents and limiting free speech because it is for the "general welfare" of the public.

This argument sounds pretty lame but this is what all your "general welfare" arguments sound like to us.

Where does anything in Medicare, Social Security or Healthcare violate other Constitutional rights? Patriot act is in direct violation of the 4th Ammendment

The Week Magazine - News reviews and opinion, arts, entertainment & political cartoons

To what end? The Ensign-DeMint exercise will not stop the Reid-Obama plan. Nor will it much impress the courts. Since the challenges to Social Security were rejected by the Supreme Court in 1937, the courts have consistently held that the general welfare clause of the Constitution empowers Congress to create social welfare plans based on compulsory contribution. (Helvering v. Davis is the most relevant case.)


DeMint's and Ensign's argument against the constitutionality of the Obama-Reid health reform rests upon the ancient theory of enumerated powers. Under this theory, Congress may do only what the Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to do. Since (for example) the Constitution does not mention a national bank, Congress may not charter banks.

The theory exerted a lively influence upon the politics of the 1790s, when it was enthusiastically promoted by the party led by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. The heart went out of the theory in 1805, when then President Jefferson purchased Louisiana from the French in 1805. The Constitution had said nothing about THAT either.

The Civil War finished off the theory for all practical political purposes. Since 1865, the doctrine of enumerated power has subsisted at the remote margins of American politics. Are Republicans proposing now to resurrect the constitutional theories of Roger Taney?

The general welfare allows you to override all of those sections. It even allows you to expand the power of the federal government beyond what is actuall written it can do so now we have medicare, social security, and more things that go outside the constitution. That includes the patriot act as well so the patriot act can override any other part of the constitution that it wants as long as it is in the general welfare of the public.

Do you still want to have such a wide interpretation of that particular clause?

All your arguments about the constitution's limited powers are null because a civil war didn't change the constitution. The supremacy clause itself states that the constitution is the highest law of the land and that means all governmental authority comes from that document in this country and what it says, not who kicked who's ass, determines what authority any government has. The civil war did not change the constitution!

And yes, we are going to shrink the federal government down to nothing so that individual state governments can do as they please within the confines of the constitution. The assault on your way of thinking is going to be relentless until we get our way so just give up right now and enjoy the new level of freedom you will get.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

What they do not get is the difference between "general welfare of the Unites States" and the individual welfare of individual citizens...

What people don't get is

Section 8. 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

Red it the power given, blue is the reason.

The specific powers granted are enumerated in articles 1-3.

 

[rightwinger]

The general welfare allows you to override all of those sections. It even allows you to expand the power of the federal government beyond what is actuall written it can do so now we have medicare, social security, and more things that go outside the constitution. That includes the patriot act as well so the patriot act can override any other part of the constitution that it wants as long as it is in the general welfare of the public.

Afraid it doesn't

Kind of invalidates your whole thread doesn't it?

And yes, we are going to shrink the federal government down to nothing so that individual state governments can do as they please within the confines of the constitution. The assault on your way of thinking is going to be relentless until we get our way so just give up right now and enjoy the new level of freedom you will get.

As can be seen in my previous post, your whacko fringe has no chance of success

 

[DiamondDave]

What they do not get is the difference between "general welfare of the Unites States" and the individual welfare of individual citizens...

What people don't get is

Section 8. 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

Red it the power given, blue is the reason.

The specific powers granted are enumerated in articles 1-3.

Read the whole fucking statement and stop leaving off the last part, you fucking ignoramus

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;

As stated.. there is a huge difference between "general welfare of the Unites States" and the individual welfare of individual citizens...

We are not arguing whether or not taxes or duties or tariffs can be collected

 

[ihopehefails]

The patriot act is perfectly legal and constitutional because of the general welfare clause. According to that the government can do anything it wants as long as it is for our welfare so the patriot act was used to protect the general welfare (and don't forget common defense) so its perfectly legal. Now that we established that the government can do anything it wants under that section of the constitution we can start locking up political dissidents and limiting free speech because it is for the "general welfare" of the public.

This argument sounds pretty lame but this is what all your "general welfare" arguments sound like to us.

What they do not get is the difference between "general welfare of the Unites States" and the individual welfare of individual citizens...

What they also never seem to grasp is the history of the US intercepting wartime communications to and from enemies and suspected enemies... even if it originated from or was being sent to a citizen or somewhere specific within the US.... without warrant or need of a warrant... and we've still yet to hear of a single case where other information from anything like a tax violation or even a jaywalking ticket was issued at the hands of the information gathered from suspected enemy communications, on a US citizen

I think the "general welfare" meant something similar to the "common defense" in that particular sentence because that sentence starts declaring the right of the congress to tax for the common defense and general welfare so it is saying any taxation must be for the benefit of all states and not for any one particular state.

That is my opinion about the meaning of that clause because I can't imagine putting and do all phrase that overrides the purpose of limited government.

 

[ihopehefails]

The general welfare allows you to override all of those sections. It even allows you to expand the power of the federal government beyond what is actuall written it can do so now we have medicare, social security, and more things that go outside the constitution. That includes the patriot act as well so the patriot act can override any other part of the constitution that it wants as long as it is in the general welfare of the public.

Afraid it doesn't

Kind of invalidates your whole thread doesn't it?

And yes, we are going to shrink the federal government down to nothing so that individual state governments can do as they please within the confines of the constitution. The assault on your way of thinking is going to be relentless until we get our way so just give up right now and enjoy the new level of freedom you will get.

As can be seen in my previous post, your whacko fringe has no chance of success

We shall see. There shit in the works that you guys don't see coming.

 

[ihopehefails]

What they do not get is the difference between "general welfare of the Unites States" and the individual welfare of individual citizens...

What people don't get is

Section 8. 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

Red it the power given, blue is the reason.

The specific powers granted are enumerated in articles 1-3.

That is a good point about what purpose taxes can be collected for but if general welfare meant doing everything under the sun then why have a list of things that the congress can do and limited to doing?

Also, why isn't this logic applied to the common defense clause? The same section also spells out what congress can spend for the common defense such as raising a navy. Now raising a navy is pretty specific so why would they narrow down any spending to that particular branch when a broad interpretation of "common defense" would allow the congress to spend money on anything for that purpose.

I believe this clause gives the congress the power to tax for those purposes but the exact nature of those purposes are spelled out in the same section.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

What they do not get is the difference between "general welfare of the Unites States" and the individual welfare of individual citizens...

What people don't get is

Section 8. 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

Red it the power given, blue is the reason.

The specific powers granted are enumerated in articles 1-3.

Read the whole fucking statement and stop leaving off the last part, you fucking ignoramus

of the United States? Doesn't change anything. My point remains valid and the meaning of the post was clear,

Are you incapable of discussing things like an adult?

 

[Oddball]

Madison on the Meaning of the "General Welfare," the "Purpose" of Enumerated Powers, and the "Definition" of Constitutional Government -- Sorenson 22 (2): 109 -- Publius: The Journal of Federalism

Federalist #41

 

[rightwinger]

The general welfare allows you to override all of those sections. It even allows you to expand the power of the federal government beyond what is actuall written it can do so now we have medicare, social security, and more things that go outside the constitution. That includes the patriot act as well so the patriot act can override any other part of the constitution that it wants as long as it is in the general welfare of the public.

Afraid it doesn't

Kind of invalidates your whole thread doesn't it?

And yes, we are going to shrink the federal government down to nothing so that individual state governments can do as they please within the confines of the constitution. The assault on your way of thinking is going to be relentless until we get our way so just give up right now and enjoy the new level of freedom you will get.

As can be seen in my previous post, your whacko fringe has no chance of success

We shall see. There shit in the works that you guys don't see coming.

Good luck with your shit

You haven't been successful with this lame argument for 200 years...better be some good shit