The 'General Welfare' thread

manifold

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
57,723
Reaction score
8,608
Points
2,030
Location
your dreams
from Article I section 8 of the US Constitution:

"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"

I don't see any explicit limit placed on what CAN or CANNOT be considered providing for the general welfare of the United States. However, I've seen several people here lately argue that there is only ONE acceptable definition of 'general welfare' (conveniently their own) and it excludes anything that even slightly constitutes a redistribution of wealth.

I understand philosophical and ideological opposition to wealth redistribution. But I don't understand constitutional opposition.

How do you interpret the General Welfare clause?
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: mal

Cuyo

Training a Guineapig army
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
5,681
Reaction score
992
Points
98
Location
Denver, PA
Like most of the constitution, it is intentionally ambiguous. :thup:
 

Jack Fate

I'm Your Daddy
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
3,037
Reaction score
338
Points
48
Location
Northern Washington state
from Article I section 8 of the US Constitution:

"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"

I don't see any explicit limit placed on what CAN or CANNOT be considered providing for the general welfare of the United States. However, I've seen several people here lately argue that there is only ONE acceptable definition of 'general welfare' (conveniently their own) and it excludes anything that even slightly constitutes a redistribution of wealth.

I understand philosophical and ideological opposition to wealth redistribution. But I don't understand constitutional opposition.

How do you interpret the General Welfare clause?
I believe the GW clause refers to public works, etc. General welfare. It's not that complicated. A looney lefty would have you believe it means everyone should be guaranteed a job, home, education, etc. When a lefty sees the word "welfare" they automatically think of getting funded by some government program.
 

Trajan

conscientia mille testes
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
29,048
Reaction score
5,456
Points
48
Location
The Bay Area Soviet
It become ambiguous in the cause to provide everything to everyone. becasue there is imho, a lack of honest and logical interpretation as to what (are) enumerated power(s) means.
 

johnrocks

Silver Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
1,919
Reaction score
282
Points
98
Location
West Monroe, La.
General Welfare;like "Common Defense" and the "Commerce Clause" has been so widely and broadly interpreted to render it meaningless;imho; but "General Welfare" to me; means for all of our good and all of us share equally in the cost. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ;it could be argued; is for all of our benefit, it can fight epidemics that could kill millions but Obamacare or Medicare Part D ;not so much, we pay different costs,some don't pay anything, others get subsidized for providing coverage,some don't need it so there is no "General " benefit; not the way I interpret it anyway.
 

ClosedCaption

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
53,238
Reaction score
6,691
Points
1,830
I really cannot stand the way repubs intentionally misrepresent the oppositions arguments. Not ONE person has ever said everyone should have a job amd a house. Not one!
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
54,640
Reaction score
5,556
Points
1,840
Location
Independence Hall
from Article I section 8 of the US Constitution:

"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"

I don't see any explicit limit placed on what CAN or CANNOT be considered providing for the general welfare of the United States. However, I've seen several people here lately argue that there is only ONE acceptable definition of 'general welfare' (conveniently their own) and it excludes anything that even slightly constitutes a redistribution of wealth.

I understand philosophical and ideological opposition to wealth redistribution. But I don't understand constitutional opposition.

How do you interpret the General Welfare clause?
So your argument is that when the Founding Fathers signed what they thought was a document that strictly limited Federal Power and preserved individual freedoms and protected State rights, one of those enumerated powers was "oh, and the Federal Government can do whatever the hell it wants."

Very persuasive argument that is...
 
OP
manifold

manifold

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
57,723
Reaction score
8,608
Points
2,030
Location
your dreams
from Article I section 8 of the US Constitution:

"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"

I don't see any explicit limit placed on what CAN or CANNOT be considered providing for the general welfare of the United States. However, I've seen several people here lately argue that there is only ONE acceptable definition of 'general welfare' (conveniently their own) and it excludes anything that even slightly constitutes a redistribution of wealth.

I understand philosophical and ideological opposition to wealth redistribution. But I don't understand constitutional opposition.

How do you interpret the General Welfare clause?
I believe the GW clause refers to public works, etc. General welfare. It's not that complicated.
Then why wasn't that spelled out specifically?
 

Intense

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
44,909
Reaction score
6,769
Points
48
FEDERALIST No. 41
General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution
For the Independent Journal.
James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:

THE Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered under two general points of view. The FIRST relates to the sum or quantity of power which it vests in the government, including the restraints imposed on the States. The SECOND, to the particular structure of the government, and the distribution of this power among its several branches.

Under the FIRST view of the subject, two important questions arise: 1. Whether any part of the powers transferred to the general government be unnecessary or improper? 2. Whether the entire mass of them be dangerous to the portion of jurisdiction left in the several States?

Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have been vested in it? This is the FIRST question.


It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.

That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers. ..........
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.

"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. " The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
-Madison (Before He lost His first Supreme Court Case)

Federalist Papers: FEDERALIST No. 41
 

Cuyo

Training a Guineapig army
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
5,681
Reaction score
992
Points
98
Location
Denver, PA
I didn't read all that... But I hope you realize Madison is hardly the person you want to be quoting. His views were quite incompatible with Democracy as we understand it today.
 
OP
manifold

manifold

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
57,723
Reaction score
8,608
Points
2,030
Location
your dreams
from Article I section 8 of the US Constitution:

"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"

I don't see any explicit limit placed on what CAN or CANNOT be considered providing for the general welfare of the United States. However, I've seen several people here lately argue that there is only ONE acceptable definition of 'general welfare' (conveniently their own) and it excludes anything that even slightly constitutes a redistribution of wealth.

I understand philosophical and ideological opposition to wealth redistribution. But I don't understand constitutional opposition.

How do you interpret the General Welfare clause?
So your argument is that when the Founding Fathers signed what they thought was a document that strictly limited Federal Power and preserved individual freedoms and protected State rights, one of those enumerated powers was "oh, and the Federal Government can do whatever the hell it wants."

Very persuasive argument that is...
No, that's not my argument. That is what's known in the business as a strawman.

My argument is that the federal government's authority to provide for the 'general welfare' is bound by what 'we the people' determine is necessary and acceptable as long as it doesn't infringe upon individual liberty.
 

xsited1

Agent P
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
17,746
Reaction score
5,777
Points
198
Location
Little Rock, AR
from Article I section 8 of the US Constitution:

"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"

I don't see any explicit limit placed on what CAN or CANNOT be considered providing for the general welfare of the United States. However, I've seen several people here lately argue that there is only ONE acceptable definition of 'general welfare' (conveniently their own) and it excludes anything that even slightly constitutes a redistribution of wealth.

I understand philosophical and ideological opposition to wealth redistribution. But I don't understand constitutional opposition.

How do you interpret the General Welfare clause?
I tend to go back to original intent where the Founders never intended for Uncle Sam to become a dole-dishing agent of wealth redistribution. Unfortunately, that all ended with cases like U.S. vs. Butler in 1936 and Helvering v. Davis in 1937 allowing Congress, the very branch that was redistributing with ever-greater particularity, would be left to police itself.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
53,602
Reaction score
12,349
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
During the Vietnam war, our gvt began spending more on our defense budget than on the 'general welfare' of our citizens.....our population became infuriated with this...all the tv shows were making skits and comments on it....even shows like Laugh In....it was a part of the whole fury against the war....

So President Johnson took measures to MASK the percentage of income taxes being spent on Vietnam....and he moved Social Security in to the gvt's overall budget, even though no income taxes went towards it....

By doing this, the percentage of what was being spent on defense, got reduced over night with SS in this budget as well....

HE screwed us over...

Social Security surplus monies are now being spent on our defense budget.

General Welfare spending WAS WHAT the income tax payers expected the majority of their tax monies to go to....NOT towards a defense budget/ or military industrial complex, from here to kingdom come!

MY MY how things have changed.....
 

Jack Fate

I'm Your Daddy
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
3,037
Reaction score
338
Points
48
Location
Northern Washington state
During the Vietnam war, our gvt began spending more on our defense budget than on the 'general welfare' of our citizens.....our population became infuriated with this...all the tv shows were making skits and comments on it....even shows like Laugh In....it was a part of the whole fury against the war....

So President Johnson took measures to MASK the percentage of income taxes being spent on Vietnam....and he moved Social Security in to the gvt's overall budget, even though no income taxes went towards it....

By doing this, the percentage of what was being spent on defense, got reduced over night with SS in this budget as well....

HE screwed us over...

Social Security surplus monies are now being spent on our defense budget.

General Welfare spending WAS WHAT the income tax payers expected the majority of their tax monies to go to....NOT towards a defense budget/ or military industrial complex, from here to kingdom come!

MY MY how things have changed.....
That's not the problem in my opinion. The problem seems to be this mess of a health care bill that is going to take us into bankruptcy. We simply can't afford it. Obama and Pelosi took money from Medicare right when the baby boomers are ready to retire. That's insane.
 
OP
manifold

manifold

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
57,723
Reaction score
8,608
Points
2,030
Location
your dreams
I find it more than just a little bit ironic that people who claim to be Jeffersonian supporters of state rights and a small central government cite the Federalist papers, written mostly be Hamilton, the FF's most ardent advocate of a strong central government, to support their alleged Jeffersonion viewpoint.
 
Last edited:

spectrumc01

I give you....the TRUTH
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
1,820
Reaction score
257
Points
48
Location
The United States
This is comical. Everyone has a different opinion of what "general welfare" means, yet the majority of people, to include politicians, would have us believe they are occupying a pew at the local church on Sunday. I wonder how the Republicans who are against welfare justify their actions to their faith.

Most will sit and try to figure out what the constitution means by "General Welfare" yet give less than two shits what their bible says about general welfare.
 
OP
manifold

manifold

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
57,723
Reaction score
8,608
Points
2,030
Location
your dreams
The problem seems to be this mess of a health care bill that is going to take us into bankruptcy. We simply can't afford it.
I share your concern. But not because I harbor any delusions that federal government funding of healthcare is somehow unconstitutional.
 

Jack Fate

I'm Your Daddy
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
3,037
Reaction score
338
Points
48
Location
Northern Washington state
This is comical. Everyone has a different opinion of what "general welfare" means, yet the majority of people, to include politicians, would have us believe they are occupying a pew at the local church on Sunday. I wonder how the Republicans who are against welfare justify their actions to their faith.

Most will sit and try to figure out what the constitution means by "General Welfare" yet give less than two shits what their bible says about general welfare.
Don't you believe in "separation of church and state"? Are you confused?

The "general welfare" clause has nothign to do with the needs of individuals. Welfare or "relief" is not what the "welfare clause: is about.
 

Jack Fate

I'm Your Daddy
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
3,037
Reaction score
338
Points
48
Location
Northern Washington state
The problem seems to be this mess of a health care bill that is going to take us into bankruptcy. We simply can't afford it.
I share your concern. But not because I harbor any delusions that federal government funding of healthcare is somehow unconstitutional.
It is unconstitutional. It became unconstitutional when I am forced to buy it.
 
OP
manifold

manifold

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
57,723
Reaction score
8,608
Points
2,030
Location
your dreams
The problem seems to be this mess of a health care bill that is going to take us into bankruptcy. We simply can't afford it.
I share your concern. But not because I harbor any delusions that federal government funding of healthcare is somehow unconstitutional.
It is unconstitutional. It became unconstitutional when I am forced to buy it.
I didn't say anything about the mandate, I specifically said 'federal government funding'...

I agree that the mandate makes it unconstitutional.

But if it were replaced by a public option, it wouldn't be.

Be careful what you wish for. :thup:
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top