Two Constitutional Questions about Build Back Better:

[DGS49]

Where in Article I does Congress get the power to "reduce or eliminate child poverty"?

and,

Does the power to "...lay and collect taxes..." include the power to GIVE taxpayer funds to people who pay little or no taxes? (Also applies to EITC).

And if you use the expression "general welfare" in your answer, go to the back of the class and put on a Dunce Cap; you are Constitutionally ignorant.

Editorial comment: There is a big "hole" in our system of Constitutional review. The Supreme Court cannot assess the Constitutionality of a law until it is challenged (which usually takes YEARS), and even when that happens, the court usually addresses only the microscopic issues that has come up for review, and not the Constitutionality of the whole law.

The chances of getting a coherent answer to these questions from a Leftist are approximately the same as the chances that I will invent a cure for cancer.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Where does it say government gets to build roads or dams?

 

[rightwinger]

Where in Article I does Congress get the power to "reduce or eliminate child poverty"?

and,

Does the power to "...lay and collect taxes..." include the power to GIVE taxpayer funds to people who pay little or no taxes? (Also applies to EITC).

Congress can act in the General Welfare of the country
They can also decide how tax revenue is collected and expended

 

[Pellinore]

Where in Article I does Congress get the power to "reduce or eliminate child poverty"?

and,

Does the power to "...lay and collect taxes..." include the power to GIVE taxpayer funds to people who pay little or no taxes? (Also applies to EITC).

And if you use the expression "general welfare" in your answer, go to the back of the class and put on a Dunce Cap; you are Constitutionally ignorant.

Editorial comment: There is a big "hole" in our system of Constitutional review. The Supreme Court cannot assess the Constitutionality of a law until it is challenged (which usually takes YEARS), and even when that happens, the court usually addresses only the microscopic issues that has come up for review, and not the Constitutionality of the whole law.

The chances of getting a coherent answer to these questions from a Leftist are approximately the same as the chances that I will invent a cure for cancer.

The reason you may be tired of hearing the term "general welfare" is because that's the answer. It's Congress's job to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. That means they decide where we spend our money.

 

[Oddball]

Where in Article I does Congress get the power to "reduce or eliminate child poverty"?

and,

Does the power to "...lay and collect taxes..." include the power to GIVE taxpayer funds to people who pay little or no taxes? (Also applies to EITC).

And if you use the expression "general welfare" in your answer, go to the back of the class and put on a Dunce Cap; you are Constitutionally ignorant.

Editorial comment: There is a big "hole" in our system of Constitutional review. The Supreme Court cannot assess the Constitutionality of a law until it is challenged (which usually takes YEARS), and even when that happens, the court usually addresses only the microscopic issues that has come up for review, and not the Constitutionality of the whole law.

The chances of getting a coherent answer to these questions from a Leftist are approximately the same as the chances that I will invent a cure for cancer.

Editorial comment: There is a big "hole" in our system of Constitutional review. The Supreme Court cannot assess the Constitutionality of a law until it is challenged (which usually takes YEARS), and even when that happens, the court usually addresses only the microscopic issues that has come up for review, and not the Constitutionality of the whole law.

And even when that happens, they most often give a ruling which strengthens the power of The State.

 

[TNHarley]

The reason you may be tired of hearing the term "general welfare" is because that's the answer. It's Congress's job to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. That means they decide where we spend our money.

So if they think killing all the seniors in this country is for the "general welfare", they can just kill them all. Aaaaand its perfectly constitutional?
What if congress decides having children is against the general welfare and they force sterilization on every person? Will that be perfectly constitutional?
What if they think killing all the jews is for the general welfare? That ok, too?
Logic. An authoritarians worst nightmare.

 

[Oddball]

The reason you may be tired of hearing the term "general welfare" is because that's the answer. It's Congress's job to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. That means they decide where we spend our money.

 

[DGS49]

(A). Roads and dams. Check the legislative history of the interstate highway system. It was initially called - and probably still is called - the National Defense interstate highway system. This is because it was acknowledged in the beginning that Congress had no power to authorize or pay for a system of highways. So the fiction was created that the purpose of the highways was NATIONAL DEFENSE. That is to say, the highways were being built so that in time of war it would be possible to efficiently transport men and materials around the country on these limited-access roads. Article I is the reason for calling them the National Defense highways. Because Congress has no power to do it otherwise.

(B). For those who rely on the words, "Congress shall have power to...provide for the...general welfare of the United States..." as I indicated above, relying on those words is a sign of Constitutional ignorance. The question was settled hundreds of years ago. Those general words are superseded by the seventeen specific powers granted in Section 8. Had the Founders intended the "general welfare" wording to prevail, there was no point in stipulating seventeen specific powers, or alternatively, they would have used the words, "for example," or similar to manifest the intention that the general wording would prevail.

Most people who raise this point are too stupid to recognize a coherent argument on the point, but in the probably-vain hope that one might actually be interested in the facts, I call to mind the relatively recent challenge to "Obamacare."

The specific challenge before the Supreme Court was on the "individual mandate." The reason that mandate was significant was BECAUSE EVERYONE IN THE DISCUSSION RECOGNIZED THAT CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DEMAND THAT PEOPLE BUY INSURANCE. Hence, if the "individual mandate" was in fact an individual mandate, it would have been unconstitutional.

But Chief Justice Roberts saved the law with his opinion, stating in effect that the "individual mandate" was not a mandate at all, but just an alternative way of imposing a tax (on not having insurance), which Congress clearly can do.

The point is, if Congress has the power to do anything it deems necessary or advisable to promote the "general welfare," then there would have been no question at all about the individual mandate. If Congress thought it promoted the general welfare, that would have been the end of the discussion. But Congress has no such power, as the power cannot be inferred from any of the specific powers granted under Section 8.

But you are probably too stupid to recognize it, so never mind.

 

[rightwinger]

So if they think killing all the seniors in this country is for the "general welfare", they can just kill them all. Aaaaand its perfectly constitutional?
What if congress decides having children is against the general welfare and they force sterilization on every person? Will that be perfectly constitutional?
What if they think killing all the jews is for the general welfare? That ok, too?
Logic. An authoritarians worst nightmare.

Murder is against the law
Helping people who need help isn’t.

Unless you are Conservative

 

[Moonglow]

Where in Article I does Congress get the power to "reduce or eliminate child poverty"?

and,

Does the power to "...lay and collect taxes..." include the power to GIVE taxpayer funds to people who pay little or no taxes? (Also applies to EITC).

And if you use the expression "general welfare" in your answer, go to the back of the class and put on a Dunce Cap; you are Constitutionally ignorant.

Editorial comment: There is a big "hole" in our system of Constitutional review. The Supreme Court cannot assess the Constitutionality of a law until it is challenged (which usually takes YEARS), and even when that happens, the court usually addresses only the microscopic issues that has come up for review, and not the Constitutionality of the whole law.

The chances of getting a coherent answer to these questions from a Leftist are approximately the same as the chances that I will invent a cure for cancer.

I noticed your answers to your questions are non-existent.

 

[progressive hunter]

Congress can act in the General Welfare of the country
They can also decide how tax revenue is collected and expended

the constitution is clear what they can spend tax money on and giving it to people after it was taken from another isnt one of them,,

 

[TNHarley]

Murder is against the law
Helping people who need help isn’t.

Unless you are Conservative

Weak. try again

 

[rightwinger]

the constitution is clear what they can spend tax money on and giving it to people after it was taken from another isnt one of them,,

No, it is not

Congress gets to decide how to raise revenue and from whom. They also get to decide what to spend it on.

If you disagree, you can vote them out of office

 

[progressive hunter]

No, it is not

Congress gets to decide how to raise revenue and from whom. They also get to decide what to spend it on.

If you disagree, you can vote them out of office

not according to the constitution,,

and welfare isnt spending money its giving it away,,

 

[Moonglow]

Where in Article I does Congress get the power to "reduce or eliminate child poverty"?

and,

Does the power to "...lay and collect taxes..." include the power to GIVE taxpayer funds to people who pay little or no taxes? (Also applies to EITC).

And if you use the expression "general welfare" in your answer, go to the back of the class and put on a Dunce Cap; you are Constitutionally ignorant.

Editorial comment: There is a big "hole" in our system of Constitutional review. The Supreme Court cannot assess the Constitutionality of a law until it is challenged (which usually takes YEARS), and even when that happens, the court usually addresses only the microscopic issues that has come up for review, and not the Constitutionality of the whole law.

The chances of getting a coherent answer to these questions from a Leftist are approximately the same as the chances that I will invent a cure for cancer.

By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the general welfare. The Court accords great deference to Congress’s decision that a spending program advances the general welfare,15 and has even questioned whether the restriction is judicially enforceable.16 Dispute, such as it is, turns on the conditioning of funds.

As with its other powers, Congress may enact legislation necessary and proper to effectuate its purposes in taxing and spending. In upholding a law making it a crime to bribe state and local officials who administer programs that receive federal funds, the Court declared that Congress has authority to see to it that taxpayer dollars . . . are in fact spent for the general welfare, and not frittered away in graft or on projects undermined when funds are siphoned off or corrupt public officers are derelict about demanding value for dollars.17 Congress’s failure to require proof of a direct connection between the bribery and the federal funds was permissible, the Court concluded, because corruption does not have to be that limited to affect the federal interest. Money is fungible, bribed officials are untrustworthy stewards of federal funds, and corrupt contractors do not deliver dollar-for-dollar value.18

Spending Power | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

An annotation about Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

 

[progressive hunter]

By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the general welfare. The Court accords great deference to Congress’s decision that a spending program advances the general welfare,15 and has even questioned whether the restriction is judicially enforceable.16 Dispute, such as it is, turns on the conditioning of funds.

As with its other powers, Congress may enact legislation necessary and proper to effectuate its purposes in taxing and spending. In upholding a law making it a crime to bribe state and local officials who administer programs that receive federal funds, the Court declared that Congress has authority to see to it that taxpayer dollars . . . are in fact spent for the general welfare, and not frittered away in graft or on projects undermined when funds are siphoned off or corrupt public officers are derelict about demanding value for dollars.17 Congress’s failure to require proof of a direct connection between the bribery and the federal funds was permissible, the Court concluded, because corruption does not have to be that limited to affect the federal interest. Money is fungible, bribed officials are untrustworthy stewards of federal funds, and corrupt contractors do not deliver dollar-for-dollar value.18

Spending Power | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

An annotation about Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

welfare isnt spending,, its giving money away,,

 

[rightwinger]

(A). Roads and dams. Check the legislative history of the interstate highway system. It was initially called - and probably still is called - the National Defense interstate highway system. This is because it was acknowledged in the beginning that Congress had no power to authorize or pay for a system of highways. So the fiction was created that the purpose of the highways was NATIONAL DEFENSE. That is to say, the highways were being built so that in time of war it would be possible to efficiently transport men and materials around the country on these limited-access roads. Article I is the reason for calling them the National Defense highways. Because Congress has no power to do it otherwise.

(B). For those who rely on the words, "Congress shall have power to...provide for the...general welfare of the United States..." as I indicated above, relying on those words is a sign of Constitutional ignorance. The question was settled hundreds of years ago. Those general words are superseded by the seventeen specific powers granted in Section 8. Had the Founders intended the "general welfare" wording to prevail, there was no point in stipulating seventeen specific powers, or alternatively, they would have used the words, "for example," or similar to manifest the intention that the general wording would prevail.

Most people who raise this point are too stupid to recognize a coherent argument on the point, but in the probably-vain hope that one might actually be interested in the facts, I call to mind the relatively recent challenge to "Obamacare."

The specific challenge before the Supreme Court was on the "individual mandate." The reason that mandate was significant was BECAUSE EVERYONE IN THE DISCUSSION RECOGNIZED THAT CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DEMAND THAT PEOPLE BUY INSURANCE. Hence, if the "individual mandate" was in fact an individual mandate, it would have been unconstitutional.

But Chief Justice Roberts saved the law with his opinion, stating in effect that the "individual mandate" was not a mandate at all, but just an alternative way of imposing a tax (on not having insurance), which Congress clearly can do.

The point is, if Congress has the power to do anything it deems necessary or advisable to promote the "general welfare," then there would have been no question at all about the individual mandate. If Congress thought it promoted the general welfare, that would have been the end of the discussion. But Congress has no such power, as the power cannot be inferred from any of the specific powers granted under Section 8.

But you are probably too stupid to recognize it, so never mind.

Actually, your limited scope of Congressional power has never been supported by the courts.
Congress has wide latitude on how it serves “We the People”
That includes Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, educational support and a myriad of other social and public programs our founders never envisioned

 

[rightwinger]

welfare isnt spending,, its giving money away,,

It is helping people who need help
Something all great societies do

 

[TNHarley]

Not to mention, "general welfare" implies the collective. Not the individual.
Not that you statist assholes ever care about terminology, context or intent.

 

[progressive hunter]

It is helping people who need help
Something all great societies do

no it doesnt, and based on the outcome of most welfare recipients it does more harm than good,,