Want to cut taxes??

[Dick Tuck]

Use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed..is a use for... the promotion of the general welfare.

--U. S. Supreme Court; 1937

A liberal interpretation of the Constitution, it happens. Specifically pressured by an economic crisis that had recently been experienced. Similiar to allowing searches without a warrant under the Patriot Act.

I tend to go with founders intent. That clause was argued in the Constitutional Convention, and the Federalists prevailed over Madison and the confederates. According to the winning side on that, I suggest you read Alexander Hamilton's explanation of that clause.

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.​

No liberal interpretation there, as the founders intent is very clear on the subject. It seems that it's the conservative interpretation is essentially crap.

 

[saveliberty]

James Madison's Second Rule of Constitutional Interpretation
​

Where a meaning is clear, the consequences, whatever they may be, are to be admitted—where doubtful, it is fairly triable by its consequences.

--James Madison; 1791

Where a meaning is clear

Note that James Madison has not provided us any rules governing the significations/meanings we attach to the words in the Constitution. It appears we are permitted to understand words in their usual and most known significations. But, it also appears that we are allowed to understand them in their unusual and least known significations.

If we were interpreted the term "general welfare", we could attach any of the following definition to the word general.

Comprehending many species or individuals, not special, not particular, lax in signification, not restrained to any special or particular import, not restrained by narrow or distinctive limitations, relating to a whole class or body of men or a whole kind of any being, publick, comprising the whole, having relation to all, extensive though not universal, common, usual. compendious, the whole, the totality, the publick, the interest of the whole or one that has the command over an army.
​

Perhaps James Madison just assumed that words would be generally understood in their usual and most known signification - not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use - according the the well established common law rule of construction, as articulated by the Judge in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, which James Madison held in his hands as he helped frame the Constitution.

Why would they be so careful to enumerate, in Article 1 Section 9, limits to the power of the federal government, if it didn't have general power in the first place?

The prohibition against suspending the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, implies the power to suspend all privileges.

The prohibition against laying a Tax or Duty on Articles exported from any State, implies that the federal government has general power over Articles exported from any State.

The prohibition against giving preference by Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the ports of one State over those of another, implies general power over commerce and revenue in all ports.

The prohibition against imposing duties on a vessel bound to or from a state, implies general power over all vessel bound to or from a state.​

A little something about all powers not enumerated shall be the purvey of the states and/or the individual.

 

[jeffrockit]

The Iraq War will cost us more than $3 trillion. The measures in the stimulus bill are nominally worth $787 billion.

Stating it again changes nothing. Unless you have a real link to back it up, you are the liar.

The Iraq War will cost us more than $3 trillion​

A $3 trillion figure for the total cost strikes us as judicious, and probably errs on the low side.

--From The Times; February 23, 2008; Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes
​

Figuring in macroeconomic costs and interest-the war has been funded with much borrowed money-the cost rises to $4.5 trillion; add Afghanistan, and the bill tops $7 trillion.

--Publishers Weekly
​

See that wasn't so hard but I will take the govt figures over a times writer as the Times has proven again and again to be very left leaning. Nice try though.

 

[DiamondDave]

Use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed..is a use for... the promotion of the general welfare.

--U. S. Supreme Court; 1937

A liberal interpretation of the Constitution, it happens. Specifically pressured by an economic crisis that had recently been experienced. Similiar to allowing searches without a warrant under the Patriot Act.

I tend to go with founders intent. That clause was argued in the Constitutional Convention, and the Federalists prevailed over Madison and the confederates. According to the winning side on that, I suggest you read Alexander Hamilton's explanation of that clause.

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.​

No liberal interpretation there, as the founders intent is very clear on the subject. It seems that it's the conservative interpretation is essentially crap.

And again... the liberal thinking this changes the meaning of 'general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES"... AKA the UNION... not individuals within the union... and also neglecting the enumerated powers that limit the government from overall or total power that are listed in Article 1 section 8.. the first part of article 1 section 8 is a power to appropriate money.. it is not power to create entitlements or create new responsibilities that are not granted to Congress in the listed enumerated powers... What congress is allowed to do in that aspect is laid out in the rest of the enumerated powers, specifically.... the majority of what we have in place currently, that our over-reaching leadership has added to over time, is against original intent but the powers that be will not remove them because they love their additional power... power they were never supposed to have... but none the less power they do not want to give up

A government, small in scope of power but heavy with the power of those areas has morphed into a mutant octopus of tentacles reaching into every aspect of life

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.".. showing that the powers were to be specific and limited... not unlimited with only a few exceptions

Motherfucking big government statists

 

[DiamondDave]

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States

Congress was granted power to tax and spend to provide for the public welfare of the nation.

ehhh.. wrong answer... not the PUBLIC welfare... but to the welfare, general welfare, of the UNION (aka the United States).. not the public... and certainly not every individual... and certainly not the individual or personal welfare of every individual

if you would interpret like this in a simple English class, you would fail

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Note that James Madison has not provided us any rules governing the significations/meanings we attach to the words in the Constitution. It appears we are permitted to understand words in their usual and most known significations. But, it also appears that we are allowed to understand them in their unusual and least known significations.

If we were interpreted the term "general welfare", we could attach any of the following definition to the word general.

Comprehending many species or individuals, not special, not particular, lax in signification, not restrained to any special or particular import, not restrained by narrow or distinctive limitations, relating to a whole class or body of men or a whole kind of any being, publick, comprising the whole, having relation to all, extensive though not universal, common, usual. compendious, the whole, the totality, the publick, the interest of the whole or one that has the command over an army.
​

Perhaps James Madison just assumed that words would be generally understood in their usual and most known signification - not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use - according the the well established common law rule of construction, as articulated by the Judge in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, which James Madison held in his hands as he helped frame the Constitution.

Why would they be so careful to enumerate, in Article 1 Section 9, limits to the power of the federal government, if it didn't have general power in the first place?

The prohibition against suspending the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, implies the power to suspend all privileges.

The prohibition against laying a Tax or Duty on Articles exported from any State, implies that the federal government has general power over Articles exported from any State.

The prohibition against giving preference by Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the ports of one State over those of another, implies general power over commerce and revenue in all ports.

The prohibition against imposing duties on a vessel bound to or from a state, implies general power over all vessel bound to or from a state.​

A little something about all powers not enumerated shall be the purvey of the states and/or the individual.

The power of Congress to tax and spend for the public welfare is enumerated.

 

[saveliberty]

Why would they be so careful to enumerate, in Article 1 Section 9, limits to the power of the federal government, if it didn't have general power in the first place?

The prohibition against suspending the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, implies the power to suspend all privileges.

The prohibition against laying a Tax or Duty on Articles exported from any State, implies that the federal government has general power over Articles exported from any State.

The prohibition against giving preference by Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the ports of one State over those of another, implies general power over commerce and revenue in all ports.

The prohibition against imposing duties on a vessel bound to or from a state, implies general power over all vessel bound to or from a state.​

A little something about all powers not enumerated shall be the purvey of the states and/or the individual.

The power of Congress to tax and spend for the public welfare is enumerated.

No, it is not. PUBLIC welfare is nowhere in the Constitution. You try to use it in place of GENERAL welfare. They are not the same thing.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed..is a use for... the promotion of the general welfare.

--U. S. Supreme Court; 1937

A liberal interpretation of the Constitution, it happens. Specifically pressured by an economic crisis that had recently been experienced. Similiar to allowing searches without a warrant under the Patriot Act.

I tend to go with founders intent. That clause was argued in the Constitutional Convention, and the Federalists prevailed over Madison and the confederates. According to the winning side on that, I suggest you read Alexander Hamilton's explanation of that clause.

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.​

No liberal interpretation there, as the founders intent is very clear on the subject. It seems that it's the conservative interpretation is essentially crap.

The most ambiguous parts of the said Constitution of government, ought to be laid before Congress, and the convention of the states that shall or may be called for the purpose of amending the said Constitution.

--Resolution of the South Carolina Convention on Ratification of the Federal Constitution​

The powers of Congress are ambiguous and can be reasonably construed by reasonable men to mean different things.

There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle ground, or certainly a penumbra, in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law.

--U. S. Supreme Court; 1937​

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

I have the honor to enclose, pursuant to my commission, the Constitution proposed by the Federal Convention...The powers of the legislature are ambiguous.

--Elbridge Gerry; 18th October 1787

 

[saveliberty]

A liberal interpretation of the Constitution, it happens. Specifically pressured by an economic crisis that had recently been experienced. Similiar to allowing searches without a warrant under the Patriot Act.

I tend to go with founders intent. That clause was argued in the Constitutional Convention, and the Federalists prevailed over Madison and the confederates. According to the winning side on that, I suggest you read Alexander Hamilton's explanation of that clause.

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.​

No liberal interpretation there, as the founders intent is very clear on the subject. It seems that it's the conservative interpretation is essentially crap.

The most ambiguous parts of the said Constitution of government, ought to be laid before Congress, and the convention of the states that shall or may be called for the purpose of amending the said Constitution.

--Resolution of the South Carolina Convention on Ratification of the Federal Constitution​

The powers of Congress are ambiguous and can be reasonably construed by reasonable men to mean different things.

There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle ground, or certainly a penumbra, in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law.

--U. S. Supreme Court; 1937​

Your quoting things relating to the amendment process dumbass. Congress does not make the interpretation or change the Constitution. That is done by the states through the voters.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

A little something about all powers not enumerated shall be the purvey of the states and/or the individual.

The power of Congress to tax and spend for the public welfare is enumerated.

No, it is not. PUBLIC welfare is nowhere in the Constitution. You try to use it in place of GENERAL welfare. They are not the same thing.

The word "general" means "public."

GENERAL, (jen'-er-al) a. Comprehending many species or individuals ; not special ; not particular ; lax in signification ; not restrained to any special or particular import; not restrained by narrow or distinctive limitations ; relating to a whole class or body of men, or a whole kind of any being ; publick ; comprising the whole ; having relation to all; extensive, though not universal ; common ; usual; compendious.

--A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE; BY SAMUEL JOHNSON, LL. D.; 1787 EDITION​

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

I tend to go with founders intent. That clause was argued in the Constitutional Convention, and the Federalists prevailed over Madison and the confederates. According to the winning side on that, I suggest you read Alexander Hamilton's explanation of that clause.

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.​

No liberal interpretation there, as the founders intent is very clear on the subject. It seems that it's the conservative interpretation is essentially crap.

The most ambiguous parts of the said Constitution of government, ought to be laid before Congress, and the convention of the states that shall or may be called for the purpose of amending the said Constitution.

--Resolution of the South Carolina Convention on Ratification of the Federal Constitution​

The powers of Congress are ambiguous and can be reasonably construed by reasonable men to mean different things.

There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle ground, or certainly a penumbra, in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law.

--U. S. Supreme Court; 1937​

Your quoting things relating to the amendment process dumbass. Congress does not make the interpretation or change the Constitution. That is done by the states through the voters.

In drawing the line between what is "general" welfare, and what is particular, the determination of Congress must be respected by the courts, unless it be plainly arbitrary.

--See Helvering v. Davis; Case note 4

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)

​

 

[saveliberty]

The most ambiguous parts of the said Constitution of government, ought to be laid before Congress, and the convention of the states that shall or may be called for the purpose of amending the said Constitution.

--Resolution of the South Carolina Convention on Ratification of the Federal Constitution​

The powers of Congress are ambiguous and can be reasonably construed by reasonable men to mean different things.

There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle ground, or certainly a penumbra, in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law.

--U. S. Supreme Court; 1937​

Your quoting things relating to the amendment process dumbass. Congress does not make the interpretation or change the Constitution. That is done by the states through the voters.

In drawing the line between what is "general" welfare, and what is particular, the determination of Congress must be respected by the courts, unless it be plainly arbitrary.

--See Helvering v. Davis; Case note 4

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)

​

SERIOUSLY???

How fricking retarded are you?

It reads GENERAL welfare. YOU keep using PUBLIC welfare.

I can't have an intelligent conversation with someone that can't figure that out.

 

[DiamondDave]

Your quoting things relating to the amendment process dumbass. Congress does not make the interpretation or change the Constitution. That is done by the states through the voters.

In drawing the line between what is "general" welfare, and what is particular, the determination of Congress must be respected by the courts, unless it be plainly arbitrary.

--See Helvering v. Davis; Case note 4

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)

​

SERIOUSLY???

How fricking retarded are you?

It reads GENERAL welfare. YOU keep using PUBLIC welfare.

I can't have an intelligent conversation with someone that can't figure that out.

The guy is a hyper-partisan retard... trying to throw enough shit against the wall in hopes that a small piece will stick

 

[Wry Catcher]

A little something about all powers not enumerated shall be the purvey of the states and/or the individual.

The power of Congress to tax and spend for the public welfare is enumerated.

No, it is not. PUBLIC welfare is nowhere in the Constitution. You try to use it in place of GENERAL welfare. They are not the same thing.

Which school of law did you attend, saveliberty?

 

[saveliberty]

The power of Congress to tax and spend for the public welfare is enumerated.

No, it is not. PUBLIC welfare is nowhere in the Constitution. You try to use it in place of GENERAL welfare. They are not the same thing.

Which school of law did you attend, saveliberty?

Would telling you create a miracle and change general to public in the Constitution? Nope. By the way, your weak attempt at debate was a failure too.

 

[DiamondDave]

The power of Congress to tax and spend for the public welfare is enumerated.

No, it is not. PUBLIC welfare is nowhere in the Constitution. You try to use it in place of GENERAL welfare. They are not the same thing.

The word "general" means "public."

GENERAL, (jen'-er-al) a. Comprehending many species or individuals ; not special ; not particular ; lax in signification ; not restrained to any special or particular import; not restrained by narrow or distinctive limitations ; relating to a whole class or body of men, or a whole kind of any being ; publick ; comprising the whole ; having relation to all; extensive, though not universal ; common ; usual; compendious.

--A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE; BY SAMUEL JOHNSON, LL. D.; 1787 EDITION​

No.. .it does not mean 'public' in terms of for each person in the public...

Try looking at how he described the word NATIONAL... NA’TIONAL. adj. [national, Fr. from nation.]
I. Publick; general; not private; not particular.

Funny.. National, then and now, did not refer to every last person within the country



Comprehension was never your strong point, was it

Oh... and please cite your link for reference as to where you are pulling definitions from some 1787 version... I have a reference point from the 1755 version (last I can see he published)
Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Your quoting things relating to the amendment process dumbass. Congress does not make the interpretation or change the Constitution. That is done by the states through the voters.

In drawing the line between what is "general" welfare, and what is particular, the determination of Congress must be respected by the courts, unless it be plainly arbitrary.

--See Helvering v. Davis; Case note 4

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)

​

It reads GENERAL welfare. YOU keep using PUBLIC welfare.

In 1788, "public" was one of the significations attached to the word "general." However, the most usual and known signification was "comprehending many species or individuals."

Thus, it appears that Congress has power to tax and spend to provide for the welfare comprehending many species or individuals.

 

[DiamondDave]

In drawing the line between what is "general" welfare, and what is particular, the determination of Congress must be respected by the courts, unless it be plainly arbitrary.

--See Helvering v. Davis; Case note 4

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)

​

It reads GENERAL welfare. YOU keep using PUBLIC welfare.

In 1788, "public" was one of the significations attached to the word "general." However, the most usual and known signification was "comprehending many species or individuals."

Thus, is appears that Congress has power to tax and spend to provide for the welfare comprehending many species or individuals.

Not when the direct object of the sentence is already laid out as "The UNITED STATES"... AKA the UNION

Jeez, you are DENSE

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

In drawing the line between what is "general" welfare, and what is particular, the determination of Congress must be respected by the courts, unless it be plainly arbitrary.

--See Helvering v. Davis; Case note 4

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)

​

SERIOUSLY???

How fricking retarded are you?

It reads GENERAL welfare. YOU keep using PUBLIC welfare.

I can't have an intelligent conversation with someone that can't figure that out.

The guy is a hyper-partisan.

Nope. I'm just using the common law rules of construction that were well established in 1788.

You're the hype-partisan interpreting the Constitution to suit your personal views.