Want to cut taxes??

[DiamondDave]

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.

yet it is you who leaves out context or entire objects in the wording, to make it fit your view...

Yes.. indeed.. you are a hyper-partisan

Now where is your source link for your supposed 1787 version of Johnson's dictionary?

 

[johnrocks]

Without getting into Founder quotes, historical points of views, etc., this is how I define "General Welfare; it may or may not be how the Founders defined it per other people's POV but what can I say, it's MY POV....

A "General Welfare" is something that benefits us all and we all pay for it equally, it does not matter if it's Bill Gates or an inner city welfare Mom, we all benefit from fighting diseases for example with the Center for Disease Control, it's in our best interest not to have an epidemic of yellow fever break out, another example might be something nice like Federal Parks if we ALL can enjoy them and pay to upkeep them equally, I don't think people would want to see the mighty Redwoods go the way of the DoDo bird so it's in society's interest to preserve or set aside some things for future generations.

"General Welfare" is NOT things that benefit only a segment of society or only a segment of society pays for such as entitlements, foreign aid, farm subsidies and other things that we ALL don't contribute to or benefit from , just an opinion.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Without getting into Founder quotes, historical points of views, etc., this is how I define "General Welfare; it may or may not be how the Founders defined it per other people's POV but what can I say, it's MY POV....

A "General Welfare" is something that benefits us all and we all pay for it equally, it does not matter if it's Bill Gates or an inner city welfare Mom, we all benefit from fighting diseases for example with the Center for Disease Control, it's in our best interest not to have an epidemic of yellow fever break out, another example might be something nice like Federal Parks if we ALL can enjoy them and pay to upkeep them equally, I don't think people would want to see the mighty Redwoods go the way of the DoDo bird so it's in society's interest to preserve or set aside some things for future generations.

"General Welfare" is NOT things that benefit only a segment of society or only a segment of society pays for such as entitlements, foreign aid, farm subsidies and other things that we ALL don't contribute to or benefit from , just an opinion.

??? Your second paragraph contradicts your first. Everyone benefits from entitlements, since anyone, when down on their luck, will have that safety net. They also improve the domestic tranquility, since there might be open insurrection during bad times. Foreign aid benefits everyone in theory, since it provides us with additional national security, as most foreign aid is in fact military. Farm subsidies keep a continuous food supply at low prices, and even help our export markets.

Not that it matters if the fact doesn't match the theory, if congress decides that something is in the interest of the general welfare, and it doesn't violate any other section of the constitution, case closed. It's foolish to think that somehow the courts are a solution for a precedent that's been with us since our founding. If you don't like something congress or the executive branch does, vote em out. Don't pretend that something is illegal, that is clearly not, because you don't like it. Hell, I think I could make a valid argument that Bush's tax cuts were clearly contrary to the general welfare, but I know that I had no Constitutional grounds to stop it. I'd be laughed out of court after the first filing.

 

[johnrocks]

Without getting into Founder quotes, historical points of views, etc., this is how I define "General Welfare; it may or may not be how the Founders defined it per other people's POV but what can I say, it's MY POV....

A "General Welfare" is something that benefits us all and we all pay for it equally, it does not matter if it's Bill Gates or an inner city welfare Mom, we all benefit from fighting diseases for example with the Center for Disease Control, it's in our best interest not to have an epidemic of yellow fever break out, another example might be something nice like Federal Parks if we ALL can enjoy them and pay to upkeep them equally, I don't think people would want to see the mighty Redwoods go the way of the DoDo bird so it's in society's interest to preserve or set aside some things for future generations.

"General Welfare" is NOT things that benefit only a segment of society or only a segment of society pays for such as entitlements, foreign aid, farm subsidies and other things that we ALL don't contribute to or benefit from , just an opinion.

??? Your second paragraph contradicts your first. Everyone benefits from entitlements, since anyone, when down on their luck, will have that safety net. They also improve the domestic tranquility, since there might be open insurrection during bad times. Foreign aid benefits everyone in theory, since it provides us with additional national security, as most foreign aid is in fact military. Farm subsidies keep a continuous food supply at low prices, and even help our export markets.

Not that it matters if the fact doesn't match the theory, if congress decides that something is in the interest of the general welfare, and it doesn't violate any other section of the constitution, case closed. It's foolish to think that somehow the courts are a solution for a precedent that's been with us since our founding. If you don't like something congress or the executive branch does, vote em out. Don't pretend that something is illegal, that is clearly not, because you don't like it. Hell, I think I could make a valid argument that Bush's tax cuts were clearly contrary to the general welfare, but I know that I had no Constitutional grounds to stop it. I'd be laughed out of court after the first filing.

Do rich people benefit from food stamps, do people who die benefit from SS or Medicare benefit , no, not everyone benefits since not everyone is on these programs, there are exemptions from the Railroad to government employees and not everyone pays an equal amount, some don't pay in at all.

Just telling all my interpretation, does not mean it is right or that anyone has to agree but;imo; everyone benefiting and contributing such as R&D concerning a disease that can wipe out millions is vastly different from "if" they go down on their luck, the benefit will be there.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

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.

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

Jeez, you are DENSE

It appears that Congress has power to tax and spend to provide for the welfare comprehending many individuals of the United States.

What signification do we attach to the word "welfare?"

WELFARE, (wel'-fare) n.i. Happiness; success; prosperity.

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

I think we should go with "happiness."

It now appears that Congress has power to tax and spend to provide for the happiness comprehending many individuals of the United States.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

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.

it is you who leaves out context

I see no reason to consider context. Using the usual and most know significations of the words "general" and "welfare" results in a meaning that is clear. That meaning is,

Congress shall have power to tax and spend to provide for the happiness comprehending many individuals of the United States.

​

 

[saveliberty]

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.

Now your getting closer. Comprehending in 1788 probably meant all-inclusive. It seems general welfare will mean providing a benefit to all Americans in the same measure. Quite different from public assistance in its present form.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Without getting into Founder quotes, historical points of views, etc., this is how I define "General Welfare; it may or may not be how the Founders defined it per other people's POV but what can I say, it's MY POV....

A "General Welfare" is something that benefits us all and we all pay for it equally, it does not matter if it's Bill Gates or an inner city welfare Mom, we all benefit from fighting diseases for example with the Center for Disease Control, it's in our best interest not to have an epidemic of yellow fever break out, another example might be something nice like Federal Parks if we ALL can enjoy them and pay to upkeep them equally, I don't think people would want to see the mighty Redwoods go the way of the DoDo bird so it's in society's interest to preserve or set aside some things for future generations.

"General Welfare" is NOT things that benefit only a segment of society or only a segment of society pays for such as entitlements, foreign aid, farm subsidies and other things that we ALL don't contribute to or benefit from , just an opinion.

??? Your second paragraph contradicts your first. Everyone benefits from entitlements, since anyone, when down on their luck, will have that safety net. They also improve the domestic tranquility, since there might be open insurrection during bad times. Foreign aid benefits everyone in theory, since it provides us with additional national security, as most foreign aid is in fact military. Farm subsidies keep a continuous food supply at low prices, and even help our export markets.

Not that it matters if the fact doesn't match the theory, if congress decides that something is in the interest of the general welfare, and it doesn't violate any other section of the constitution, case closed. It's foolish to think that somehow the courts are a solution for a precedent that's been with us since our founding. If you don't like something congress or the executive branch does, vote em out. Don't pretend that something is illegal, that is clearly not, because you don't like it. Hell, I think I could make a valid argument that Bush's tax cuts were clearly contrary to the general welfare, but I know that I had no Constitutional grounds to stop it. I'd be laughed out of court after the first filing.

Do rich people benefit from food stamps, do people who die benefit from SS or Medicare benefit , no, not everyone benefits since not everyone is on these programs, there are exemptions from the Railroad to government employees and not everyone pays an equal amount, some don't pay in at all.

Do rich people benefit from food stamps? Of course they do. Without a surplus of labor, rich people might actually have to be competitive in hiring. They benefit from the domestic tranquility of those at the bottom end of the economic ladder not starving and starting food riots. They benefit by their employees who clean their toilets have better nutrition.

Do dead people pay taxes? Only those incurred by while they were living.

You really ought to take a more macro sociological and economic view of the realities that contribute to our general welfare. Using your analysis, only those of us who are being attacked ought to pay for the military.

Just telling all my interpretation, does not mean it is right or that anyone has to agree but;imo; everyone benefiting and contributing such as R&D concerning a disease that can wipe out millions is vastly different from "if" they go down on their luck, the benefit will be there.

What's wrong with your analysis is you fail to see the consequenses of limiting "general welfare" only to those things to those things that affects you directly and personally. We all benefit from things like public education whether or not we have kids in public schools. We all benefit from programs that provide a survival level safety net to those who fall on hard economic times. And the really funny part is that the rich benefit most of all by these social programs. They just like to ***** about having to pay for things. Hell, everyone who owns stock in a public corporation benefits from them.

 

[Dick Tuck]

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.

Now your getting closer. Comprehending in 1788 probably meant all-inclusive. It seems general welfare will mean providing a benefit to all Americans in the same measure. Quite different from public assistance in its present form.

Not according to the architect of that clause, Alexander Hamilton, and the Federalists who fought hard to get it passed. It meant whatever congress decided was for our general welfare, pure and simple and unambiguously. Madison and the confederates fought against it because they believed it meant too much power for congress. They lost that debate then, and the rivisionist versions of that episode doesn't change those facts.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

this is how I define "General Welfare

The men who made the Constitution probably wanted us to adhere to the rule that,

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use. Thus the law mentioned by Puffendorf, which forbad a layman to lay hands on a priest, was adjudged to extend to him, who had hurt a priest with a weapon.

--Blackstone​

 

[johnrocks]

??? Your second paragraph contradicts your first. Everyone benefits from entitlements, since anyone, when down on their luck, will have that safety net. They also improve the domestic tranquility, since there might be open insurrection during bad times. Foreign aid benefits everyone in theory, since it provides us with additional national security, as most foreign aid is in fact military. Farm subsidies keep a continuous food supply at low prices, and even help our export markets.

Not that it matters if the fact doesn't match the theory, if congress decides that something is in the interest of the general welfare, and it doesn't violate any other section of the constitution, case closed. It's foolish to think that somehow the courts are a solution for a precedent that's been with us since our founding. If you don't like something congress or the executive branch does, vote em out. Don't pretend that something is illegal, that is clearly not, because you don't like it. Hell, I think I could make a valid argument that Bush's tax cuts were clearly contrary to the general welfare, but I know that I had no Constitutional grounds to stop it. I'd be laughed out of court after the first filing.

Do rich people benefit from food stamps, do people who die benefit from SS or Medicare benefit , no, not everyone benefits since not everyone is on these programs, there are exemptions from the Railroad to government employees and not everyone pays an equal amount, some don't pay in at all.

Do rich people benefit from food stamps? Of course they do. Without a surplus of labor, rich people might actually have to be competitive in hiring. They benefit from the domestic tranquility of those at the bottom end of the economic ladder not starving and starting food riots. They benefit by their employees who clean their toilets have better nutrition.

Do dead people pay taxes? Only those incurred by while they were living.

You really ought to take a more macro sociological and economic view of the realities that contribute to our general welfare. Using your analysis, only those of us who are being attacked ought to pay for the military.

Just telling all my interpretation, does not mean it is right or that anyone has to agree but;imo; everyone benefiting and contributing such as R&D concerning a disease that can wipe out millions is vastly different from "if" they go down on their luck, the benefit will be there.

What's wrong with your analysis is you fail to see the consequenses of limiting "general welfare" only to those things to those things that affects you directly and personally. We all benefit from things like public education whether or not we have kids in public schools. We all benefit from programs that provide a survival level safety net to those who fall on hard economic times. And the really funny part is that the rich benefit most of all by these social programs. They just like to ***** about having to pay for things. Hell, everyone who owns stock in a public corporation benefits from them.

No because it clearly states "common defense" and that is where I have my problem with conservatives, that means OUR defense, not foreign aid, not defending Europe,Israel or South Korea but OUR Defense and Defense...not Offense.


I don't get involved in this debate too much because, we're all entrenched in our own philosophy regarding this as well as the Constitution in general and why I don't debate things;normally; from a Constitutional perspective since I interpret the Constitution one way, you and liberals do from another and conservatives yet from another.

Debating these issues from an economic POV or government intervention vs. govt. non intervention POV is more interesting to me.

BTW, your posting style seems familiar, have we chatted before on another forum?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

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.

Now your getting closer. Comprehending in 1788 probably meant all-inclusive. It seems general welfare will mean providing a benefit to all Americans in the same measure. Quite different from public assistance in its present form.

To COMPREHEND, (kom-pre-hend') v. a. To comprise ; to include ; to contain in the mind ; to understand; to conceive.​

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

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

general welfare will mean providing a benefit to all Americans in the same measure.

Nope, you're wrong.

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.
--Blackstone
​

The gentlemen on different sides of the question do not disagree with respect to the meaning of the terms taxes, duties, imposts, excises, &c., and of borrowing money, but of the word necessary; and the question is, What is the general and popular meaning of the term?

--Elbridge Gerry;1791; interpreting the word "necessary" in the Article 1 Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution​

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.
​

WELFARE, (wel'-fare) n.i. Happiness; success; prosperity.
​

"General welfare" means "happiness of many individuals."

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Do rich people benefit from food stamps, do people who die benefit from SS or Medicare benefit , no, not everyone benefits since not everyone is on these programs, there are exemptions from the Railroad to government employees and not everyone pays an equal amount, some don't pay in at all.

Do rich people benefit from food stamps? Of course they do. Without a surplus of labor, rich people might actually have to be competitive in hiring. They benefit from the domestic tranquility of those at the bottom end of the economic ladder not starving and starting food riots. They benefit by their employees who clean their toilets have better nutrition.

Do dead people pay taxes? Only those incurred by while they were living.

You really ought to take a more macro sociological and economic view of the realities that contribute to our general welfare. Using your analysis, only those of us who are being attacked ought to pay for the military.

Just telling all my interpretation, does not mean it is right or that anyone has to agree but;imo; everyone benefiting and contributing such as R&D concerning a disease that can wipe out millions is vastly different from "if" they go down on their luck, the benefit will be there.

What's wrong with your analysis is you fail to see the consequenses of limiting "general welfare" only to those things to those things that affects you directly and personally. We all benefit from things like public education whether or not we have kids in public schools. We all benefit from programs that provide a survival level safety net to those who fall on hard economic times. And the really funny part is that the rich benefit most of all by these social programs. They just like to ***** about having to pay for things. Hell, everyone who owns stock in a public corporation benefits from them.

No because it clearly states "common defense" and that is where I have my problem with conservatives, that means OUR defense, not foreign aid, not defending Europe,Israel or South Korea but OUR Defense and Defense...not Offense.


I don't get involved in this debate too much because, we're all entrenched in our own philosophy regarding this as well as the Constitution in general and why I don't debate things;normally; from a Constitutional perspective since I interpret the Constitution one way, you and liberals do from another and conservatives yet from another.

Debating these issues from an economic POV or government intervention vs. govt. non intervention POV is more interesting to me.

BTW, your posting style seems familiar, have we chatted before on another forum?

COMMON, (kom'-mun) a. Belonging equally to more than one ; having no possessor or owner; vulgar ; mean ; of no rank; of little value; not scarce ; publick; general; serving the use of all; frequent; usual; ordinary

DEFENCE, (de-fense') n. s. Guard ; protection ; vindication; justification; apology; resistance. In law, The defendant's reply. In fortification, That part that flanks another work; Science of defence, military skill; fencing.​

"Common defense" means "guard belonging equally to more than one."

 

[Dick Tuck]

Do rich people benefit from food stamps, do people who die benefit from SS or Medicare benefit , no, not everyone benefits since not everyone is on these programs, there are exemptions from the Railroad to government employees and not everyone pays an equal amount, some don't pay in at all.

Do rich people benefit from food stamps? Of course they do. Without a surplus of labor, rich people might actually have to be competitive in hiring. They benefit from the domestic tranquility of those at the bottom end of the economic ladder not starving and starting food riots. They benefit by their employees who clean their toilets have better nutrition.

Do dead people pay taxes? Only those incurred by while they were living.

You really ought to take a more macro sociological and economic view of the realities that contribute to our general welfare. Using your analysis, only those of us who are being attacked ought to pay for the military.

Just telling all my interpretation, does not mean it is right or that anyone has to agree but;imo; everyone benefiting and contributing such as R&D concerning a disease that can wipe out millions is vastly different from "if" they go down on their luck, the benefit will be there.

What's wrong with your analysis is you fail to see the consequenses of limiting "general welfare" only to those things to those things that affects you directly and personally. We all benefit from things like public education whether or not we have kids in public schools. We all benefit from programs that provide a survival level safety net to those who fall on hard economic times. And the really funny part is that the rich benefit most of all by these social programs. They just like to ***** about having to pay for things. Hell, everyone who owns stock in a public corporation benefits from them.

No because it clearly states "common defense" and that is where I have my problem with conservatives, that means OUR defense, not foreign aid, not defending Europe,Israel or South Korea but OUR Defense and Defense...not Offense.


I don't get involved in this debate too much because, we're all entrenched in our own philosophy regarding this as well as the Constitution in general and why I don't debate things;normally; from a Constitutional perspective since I interpret the Constitution one way, you and liberals do from another and conservatives yet from another.

Debating these issues from an economic POV or government intervention vs. govt. non intervention POV is more interesting to me.

BTW, your posting style seems familiar, have we chatted before on another forum?

It clearly states general welfare as well, and we have Hamilton's words as to what that means. But using your logic, if our military isn't protecting all of us, than it shouldn't be used. It sure didn't protect many Americans in Vietnam.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

It clearly states general welfare as well, and we have Hamilton's words as to what that means.

The men who made the Constitution probably didn't intend for it to be interpreted according to the words of Alexander Hamilton. They probably wanted it interpreted according to the well established common law rules of construction.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

On the Establishment of a National Bank
​

Mr. William Branch Giles of Virginia said he was disposed to consider the plan as containing a principle not agreeable to the Constitution, and in itself not altogether expedient.

To show its unconstitutionality, he read the 1st section of the bill which established the subscribers of the bank into a corporation, to do which, be conceived the Constitution had given Congress no power.​

--A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875 Elliot's Debates, Volume 4 Page 411​

Despite the fact that the Constitution had given Congress no specifically enumerated power to establish the subscribers of a bank into a corporation, it did it anyway. It seems the founding fathers intended a rather loose, liberal, expansive, big government, socialistic, statist construction of the powers of Congress.

The founding fathers intended a rather loose, liberal, expansive, big
government, socialistic, statist construction of the powers of Congress.​

 

[Dick Tuck]

It clearly states general welfare as well, and we have Hamilton's words as to what that means.

The men who made the Constitution probably didn't intend for it to be interpreted according to the words of Alexander Hamilton. They probably wanted it interpreted according to the well established common law rules of construction.

But they did. That was clear in the debate, and Madison essentially made the argument that it gave almost unlimited power to congress. Yet the federalist position won the day. Madison was given his Bill of Rights as a compromise.

A practical example of founders intent was, Washington asked for and got the first piece of healthcare legislation through, i.e. the hospital for merchant seaman, which quickly morphed into the Public Health Service.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

It clearly states general welfare as well, and we have Hamilton's words as to what that means.

The men who made the Constitution probably didn't intend for it to be interpreted according to the words of Alexander Hamilton. They probably wanted it interpreted according to the well established common law rules of construction.

But they did. That was clear in the debate, and Madison essentially made the argument that it gave almost unlimited power to congress. Yet the federalist position won the day. Madison was given his Bill of Rights as a compromise.

A practical example of founders intent was, Washington asked for and got the first piece of healthcare legislation through, i.e. the hospital for merchant seaman, which quickly morphed into the Public Health Service.

The founders established a limited government. That's why Congress is limited to the power to tax and spend to provide for the "happiness of many individuals."

Recent surveys reveal that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe Social Security provides happiness for many individuals. However, if it ever comes to pass that a majority believe it provides unhappiness, Congress will lose it's power to maintain a system of Social Security.

 

[Dick Tuck]

The men who made the Constitution probably didn't intend for it to be interpreted according to the words of Alexander Hamilton. They probably wanted it interpreted according to the well established common law rules of construction.

But they did. That was clear in the debate, and Madison essentially made the argument that it gave almost unlimited power to congress. Yet the federalist position won the day. Madison was given his Bill of Rights as a compromise.

A practical example of founders intent was, Washington asked for and got the first piece of healthcare legislation through, i.e. the hospital for merchant seaman, which quickly morphed into the Public Health Service.

The founders established a limited government. That's why Congress is limited to the power to tax and spend to provide for the "happiness of many individuals."

Forcing every male to belong to a militia, and having authority to nationalize those militias certainly wasn't limited government. Passing the Alien Sedition act certainly wasn't. The policy of Manifest Destiny sure wasn't. Neither was the largest land purchase probably in world history. You seem to have some romanticized view of our founders, especially the Federalists who prevailed in drafting the Constitution.

I think one problem I have with the right, is they develop a world view, and cherry pick facts that support it, while pretending that facts which contradict it don't exist. Stephen Colbert seemed to nail it when he coined the term, "truthiness."