The 'General Welfare' thread

[M14 Shooter]

If the liberals' interpretation of the GW clause is sound, then doesn't that clause in question give Congress the power to do anything necessary and proper regarding the Common defense?

hmmmmmm, good question....
no, i don't think so....they were specifically limited in the constitution regarding defense....

Yes... to the powers specified in the remainder of Section 8.
And so too would it then be limited in the Constitution regarding general welfare.

 

[The T]

Whaaaaaa poor swarthy people whaaaaa, can't live with 'em, can't have 'em euthanized. whaaaaa.


such fun

Present for you courtesy of our bretheren currently suffering in Japan...Complete with Line entries on the Computer...

*Thank me*

 

[manifold]

If the liberals' interpretation of the GW clause is sound, then doesn't that clause in question give Congress the power to do anything necessary and proper regarding the Common defense?

hmmmmmm, good question....
no, i don't think so....they were specifically limited in the constitution regarding defense....

Yes... to the powers specified in the remainder of Section 8.
And so too would it then be limited in the Constitution regarding general welfare.

This guy agrees with you...

The General Welfare Clause

Definitely makes you think, if you're open to that sort of thing.

 

[Ravi]

So now you're going to be like Jesus and advocate being a homeless bum?Not if you don't luck into the wealth to do so. Of course, then you have capital gains tax- plus taxes on any real estate you might have. You're back where you startedAnd your partner's money is taxed instead...

But...you DO have choices. And since you have choices, your liberty isn't infringed.

By that reasoning, I didn't violate any of your rights or liberties when I 'forced' you to have sex. You had a choice and you made the choice to spread your legs instead of seeing your family shot to death with a Smith & Wesson

Hell, did we violate anyone's liberties when we put them in internment camps? They had the choice of hiding in a basement or committing suicide, right?

Your hyperbole is retarded.

 

[manifold]

The General Welfare Clause

According to this guy..

The limits on federal power to legislate for the "general welfare" remains, to this date, undefined and presumably, boundless

And he blames it specifically on FDR's usurpation of the Constitution via the implementation of Social Security. Says that the case Steward Machine Co. v Davis effectively set the precedent that...

Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare."

Interesting stuff...

 

[DiamondDave]

That it stands for the general welfare of the United States.. AKA the Union.... which is a LOT different than how entitlement junkies and their supporting politicians interpret it.... I fully contend that it is for the union as a whole and not for the personal wants or needs of individual citizens

 

[Ravi]

The General Welfare Clause

According to this guy..

The limits on federal power to legislate for the "general welfare" remains, to this date, undefined and presumably, boundless

And he blames it specifically on FDR's usurpation of the Constitution via the implementation of Social Security. Says that the case Steward Machine Co. v Davis effectively set the precedent that...

Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare."

Interesting stuff...

I'd say he is correct, but it is silly to blame
FDR. The clause is in the constitution and basically amounts to a fail safe.

Blame the founders.

 

[manifold]

The General Welfare Clause

According to this guy..

The limits on federal power to legislate for the "general welfare" remains, to this date, undefined and presumably, boundless

And he blames it specifically on FDR's usurpation of the Constitution via the implementation of Social Security. Says that the case Steward Machine Co. v Davis effectively set the precedent that...

Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare."

Interesting stuff...

I'd say he is correct, but it is silly to blame
FDR. The clause is in the constitution and basically amounts to a fail safe.

Blame the founders.

So your contribution to this discussion is to quibble over which dead guy(s) to blame?

 

[Ravi]

You found the answer to your question so assigning blame is the only thing left to do.

 

[kaz]

If you want to use 'whom', learn how to do so correctly. Otherwise you simply look like an idiot trying pretend you're more educated that you actually are.

Who Versus Whom : Grammar Girl :: Quick and Dirty Tips ™

I like the current trend to use "I" wrong as well, and for the same reason. Object/subject, it's not that hard.

 

[manifold]

You found the answer to your question so assigning blame is the only thing left to do.

What makes you think I found the answer?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare.

it should be noted that the preamble though not law
may shed so light on to the founders thinking.

The use of provide and promote .

The General clause would seem to be established to embrace unforeseen government problems, not to create permanent solutions to common personal issues. Thus infringing on personal liberties beyond what is already more then enough.
IMO.
Interesting question.

 

[Bern80]

The General Welfare Clause

According to this guy..

The limits on federal power to legislate for the "general welfare" remains, to this date, undefined and presumably, boundless

And he blames it specifically on FDR's usurpation of the Constitution via the implementation of Social Security. Says that the case Steward Machine Co. v Davis effectively set the precedent that...

Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare."

Interesting stuff...

I'd say he is correct, but it is silly to blame
FDR. The clause is in the constitution and basically amounts to a fail safe.

Blame the founders.

You can't blame the founders for the 'vagueness'. I put that in parentheses really because there is no vagueness. When people cite only the first portion of the clause as evidence that government can do pretty much whatever it wants in the name of the general welfare, the fact is they are not quoting the clause in its entirety. They are omitting the list of enumerated powers that follow it in order to make their case which is about as intellectually dishonest as it gets. Madison (one of the founders you say we should blame) said as much in federalist 41. The only thing you can blame him for is possible naivete in assuming future generations would abide by rules of written english that say that which comes after a semi-colon is meant to refer to what came before it.

 

[BenNatuf]

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?

That you ignore the deffinition of the "GENERAL welfare of the United States" doesn't mean the word GENERAL means anything other than what it does. Taking money from the public at large (That would be the GENERAL public for idiots) DETRACTS from the GENERAL welfare, giving it to a specific minority of individuals only adds to those individuals SPECIFIC welfare. The congress is NOT empowered to DETRACT from the GENERAL welfare to provide some people with SPECIFIC welfare. Considering this practice providing for the GENERAL welfare is purposefully ignoring the clear deffinition of the actual words and replacing them with the idea of the words you want to be there. If you call an apple an orange... it's not a ******* orange, you're just an idiot.

You also ignore who the "general welfare" can be provided for... The United States. That would be the WHOLE ******* United States, not "some people in it". The clause is written to allow the congress to look after the needs of THE GOVERNMENT, not the people.

 

[manifold]

The General Welfare Clause

According to this guy..

And he blames it specifically on FDR's usurpation of the Constitution via the implementation of Social Security. Says that the case Steward Machine Co. v Davis effectively set the precedent that...


Interesting stuff...

I'd say he is correct, but it is silly to blame
FDR. The clause is in the constitution and basically amounts to a fail safe.

Blame the founders.

You can't blame the founders for the 'vagueness'. I put that in parentheses really because there is no vagueness. When people cite only the first portion of the clause as evidence that government can do pretty much whatever it wants in the name of the general welfare, the fact is they are not quoting the clause in its entirety. They are omitting the list of enumerated powers that follow it in order to make their case which is about as intellectually dishonest as it gets. Madison (one of the founders you say we should blame) said as much in federalist 41. The only thing you can blame him for is possible naivete in assuming future generations would abide by rules of written english that say that which comes after a semi-colon is meant to refer to what came before it.

So what do you make of Steward Machine Co. v Davis?

Do you agree with the site I linked that FDR usurped the Constitution in implementing SS, which was allowed to happen by the SCOTUS in ruling SS constitutional in this decision?

 

[kaz]

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?

That you ignore the deffinition of the "GENERAL welfare of the United States" doesn't mean the word GENERAL means anything other than what it does. Taking money from the public at large (That would be the GENERAL public for idiots) DETRACTS from the GENERAL welfare, giving it to a specific minority of individuals only adds to those individuals SPECIFIC welfare. The congress is NOT empowered to DETRACT from the GENERAL welfare to provide some people with SPECIFIC welfare. Considering this practice providing for the GENERAL welfare is purposefully ignoring the clear deffinition of the actual words and replacing them with the idea of the words you want to be there. If you call an apple an orange... it's not a ******* orange, you're just an idiot.

Thank you, the argument I've been making as as well. Things like National Parks, Interstate highways, military defense of the US and things like serve the general interest of the United States and whether you think we should or shouldn't spend on those things, they are reasonably Constitional at least. Clearly redistribution of money in all it's forms is not in the General Welfare of the United States. It's not that hard.

And you have to ignore the 10th amendment as well. Why did people who thought they'd created a limited government and write the 9th and 10th amendments then say government can do anything? It makes no sense.

 

[manifold]

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?

That you ignore the deffinition of the "GENERAL welfare of the United States" doesn't mean the word GENERAL means anything other than what it does. Taking money from the public at large (That would be the GENERAL public for idiots) DETRACTS from the GENERAL welfare, giving it to a specific minority of individuals only adds to those individuals SPECIFIC welfare. The congress is NOT empowered to DETRACT from the GENERAL welfare to provide some people with SPECIFIC welfare. Considering this practice providing for the GENERAL welfare is purposefully ignoring the clear deffinition of the actual words and replacing them with the idea of the words you want to be there. If you call an apple an orange... it's not a ******* orange, you're just an idiot.

Thank you, the argument I've been making as as well. Things like National Parks, Interstate highways, military defense of the US and things like serve the general interest of the United States and whether you think we should or shouldn't spend on those things, they are reasonably Constitional at least. Clearly redistribution of money in all it's forms is not in the General Welfare of the United States. It's not that hard.

And you have to ignore the 10th amendment as well. Why did people who thought they'd created a limited government and write the 9th and 10th amendments then say government can do anything? It makes no sense.

So let's assume you are right.

What do you think can be done about it? Especially since we now know that there actually exists a precedent (Steward Machine Co. v Davis) where the decision effectively established that: Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare."

How many justices do you think would rule today that Social Security is in fact unconstitutional given the chance?

 

[BenNatuf]

I'd say he is correct, but it is silly to blame
FDR. The clause is in the constitution and basically amounts to a fail safe.

Blame the founders.

You can't blame the founders for the 'vagueness'. I put that in parentheses really because there is no vagueness. When people cite only the first portion of the clause as evidence that government can do pretty much whatever it wants in the name of the general welfare, the fact is they are not quoting the clause in its entirety. They are omitting the list of enumerated powers that follow it in order to make their case which is about as intellectually dishonest as it gets. Madison (one of the founders you say we should blame) said as much in federalist 41. The only thing you can blame him for is possible naivete in assuming future generations would abide by rules of written english that say that which comes after a semi-colon is meant to refer to what came before it.

So what do you make of Steward Machine Co. v Davis?

Do you agree with the site I linked that FDR usurped the Constitution in implementing SS, which was allowed to happen by the SCOTUS in ruling SS constitutional in this decision?

Do you know the history of it? The same court previously found it UNCONSTITUIONAL and only relented due to Emporor Roosevelts threats to neuter them.

 

[BenNatuf]

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?

That you ignore the deffinition of the "GENERAL welfare of the United States" doesn't mean the word GENERAL means anything other than what it does. Taking money from the public at large (That would be the GENERAL public for idiots) DETRACTS from the GENERAL welfare, giving it to a specific minority of individuals only adds to those individuals SPECIFIC welfare. The congress is NOT empowered to DETRACT from the GENERAL welfare to provide some people with SPECIFIC welfare. Considering this practice providing for the GENERAL welfare is purposefully ignoring the clear deffinition of the actual words and replacing them with the idea of the words you want to be there. If you call an apple an orange... it's not a ******* orange, you're just an idiot.

Thank you, the argument I've been making as as well. Things like National Parks, Interstate highways, military defense of the US and things like serve the general interest of the United States and whether you think we should or shouldn't spend on those things, they are reasonably Constitional at least. Clearly redistribution of money in all it's forms is not in the General Welfare of the United States. It's not that hard.

And you have to ignore the 10th amendment as well. Why did people who thought they'd created a limited government and write the 9th and 10th amendments then say government can do anything? It makes no sense.

To succumb to the progressive deffinition of the clause requires one to suffer from a severe and purposeful reading comprehension defficiency.

Even if the clause stopped at "general welfare" (which it doesn't) you'd have to ignore the definition of "gerneral" to assume the government can take money from the generalpublic to give it to the few lazy ignorant bastards on the dole.

 

[Ravi]

The General Welfare Clause

According to this guy..

And he blames it specifically on FDR's usurpation of the Constitution via the implementation of Social Security. Says that the case Steward Machine Co. v Davis effectively set the precedent that...


Interesting stuff...

I'd say he is correct, but it is silly to blame
FDR. The clause is in the constitution and basically amounts to a fail safe.

Blame the founders.

You can't blame the founders for the 'vagueness'. I put that in parentheses really because there is no vagueness. When people cite only the first portion of the clause as evidence that government can do pretty much whatever it wants in the name of the general welfare, the fact is they are not quoting the clause in its entirety. They are omitting the list of enumerated powers that follow it in order to make their case which is about as intellectually dishonest as it gets. Madison (one of the founders you say we should blame) said as much in federalist 41. The only thing you can blame him for is possible naivete in assuming future generations would abide by rules of written english that say that which comes after a semi-colon is meant to refer to what came before it.

Which semi-colon do you mean?

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;

After the first one, taxes are not mentioned again...only duties, imposts, and excises are.

BUT all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

No mention there of taxes.

Then the subsequent statements would seem to refer to only duties, imposts and excises.