What did our founders really mean when they said “general welfare”?

[lafayette]

Here ya go. What did our founders really mean when they said “general welfare”?

So what do you got? What makes you think Madison agrees with modern Dems on the general welfare cause? Or are you just blowing smoke?

It does not matter today what Madison or Hamilton thought.

 

[lafayette]

The correct and proper way is for Yolanda's babydaddy to man up and provide for his own damned kids! This also means government needs to get out of the private sector's way and allow businesses to flourish without government meddling.

No, it is not.

We are a socially regulated market economy, much closer to economic fascism than classic capitalism, not great but better than the other.

 

[lafayette]

??? I guess you're just trolling. Whatever.

Trolls need not appl, troll.

 

[dblack]

It does not matter today what Madison or Hamilton thought.

If we're talking about the meaning of the Constitution, it matters a great deal what Madison thought. He wrote the fucking thing.

 

[dblack]

Trolls need not appl, troll.

Are you drunk?

 

[GMCGeneral]

No, it is not.

We are a socially regulated market economy, much closer to economic fascism than classic capitalism, not great but better than the other.

Sure it is the proper way. The Left's "war on poverty" was designed specifically to rip apart the black inner city family by making it a requirement that fathers not be in the household. Lower taxes, do away with onerous regulations, increase security (especially nowadays) and businesses, along with opportunities, will come clamoring.

 

[lafayette]

Nah, we are not going back. Accept that, and you can find a place.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

MAGAs, after the election, will conform or move to Hungary or Russia.

 

[GMCGeneral]

Nah, we are not going back. Accept that, and you can find a place.

We won't accept the Socialist shithole you want to turn MY country into. We will fight you.

 

[eagle1462010]

MAGAs, after the election, will conform or move to Hungary or Russia.

Screw you

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Screw you

Nah. You are losing, and you know it.

 

[lafayette]

MAGA is going down in defeat.

 

[GMCGeneral]

MAGA is going down in defeat.

Not gonna happen
If anyone goes down, it you and your fellow Commies.

 

[lafayette]

There only commies are in your fantasies.

 

[GMCGeneral]

There only commies are in your fantasies.

No. They are all in the Democrat party

 

[dblack]

dblack fails to comprehend the power to tax includes the power to spend the tax for the general welfare of the citizens and the country.

I comprehend it fine. It's just a lie, an exploit pushed by those who wanted the federal government to have much more power than the founders intended. They (the powermongers) "won", for now, and the Court endorsed their horseshit. But anyone with reasonable reading comprehension can see mistake.

The original debate is summarized here:

After the Constitution was ratified, Alexander Hamilton (representing the Federalist Party) and James Madison (representing the Democratic Republican Party) debated the scope of the Taxing Clause. According to Hamilton, Congress possessed a robust power to tax (and spend) regardless of whether the tax (or expenditure) could plausibly be viewed as carrying out another enumerated power of Congress, such as regulating interstate commerce or raising and supporting a military. Madison argued that Congress had no independent power to tax and spend in pursuit of its conception of the general welfare; rather, Madison contended, the constitutional meaning of the phrase “general Welfare” is defined and limited by the specific grants of authority in the rest of Section 8. The Supreme Court did not weigh in on this longstanding debate over the scope of the federal taxing and spending powers until 1936, in United States v. Butler (1936), when it sided with Hamilton. Ever since, the law has been that Congress can use the Taxing Clause without tying such use to another of its constitutional powers.
Click to expand...

So, Hamilton wanted the taxing clause to be interpreted as a general power for Congress to do any fucking thing they want (as long as they can pretend its for the general welfare). Madison, who wrote the Constitution and knew what he meant, denied that.

He clarifies his position in Federalists Papers #41. Here he is addressing those who oppose the Constitution based on their concern that someone will come along and twist the meaning of the taxation clause, pretending that it is a broad implied spending power:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases.
Click to expand...

Sadly, the opponents were right. Despite the fact that Madison thought it was a ridiculous concern, and the argument entirely specious, Hamilton jumped on it as soon as the inked dried on the Constitution. And, eventually, the Court caved.

 

[lafayette]

No. They are all in the Democrat party

Where? Who? You have no idea other than to you it is a naughty name.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I comprehend it fine. It's just a lie, an exploit pushed by those who wanted the federal government to have much more power than the founders intended. They (the powermongers) "won", for now, and the Court endorsed their horseshit. But anyone with reasonable reading comprehension can see mistake.

The original debate is summarized here:

So, Hamilton wanted the taxing clause to be interpreted as a general power for Congress to do any fucking thing they want (as long as they can pretend its for the general welfare). Madison, who wrote the Constitution and knew what he meant, denied that.

He clarifies his position in Federalists Papers #41. Here he is addressing those who oppose the Constitution based on their concern that someone will come along and twist the meaning of the taxation clause, pretending that it is a broad implied spending power:


Sadly, the opponents were right. Despite the fact that Madison thought it was a ridiculous concern, and the argument entirely specious, Hamilton jumped on it as soon as the inked dried on the Constitution. And, eventually, the Court caved.

That is a failed opinion that has no meaning today.

 

[dblack]

That is a failed opinion that has no meaning today.

LOL - did you even read it?

 

[lafayette]

LOL - did you even read it?

Did you? It's failed opinion.