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

[danielpalos]

You do realize that one requirement for minimum wage is having a job?

unemployment compensation for simply being, naturally unemployed by capitalism's natural rate of unemployment must be market friendly and more cost effective as a result.

Yeah, I figured that would be a surprise, maybe even a shock to you.

the left has to have solutions; echelon order really is the order of the day with the right wing.

I figured that might be a shock, sorry for the bad news. On the upside, the economy is doing well enough even for you to get a job. McDonalds, Walmart, Burger King, any of those catch your interest?

There is nothing shameful about working at Walmart or BK or McDonalds.

But in actuality, manufacturing and mining jobs are also picking up.

The Trump Economy is superb, and that's why our Liberal Friends are so anxious to change the topic to the caravan or to the bombs or whatever. If the libs could destroy the economy, Soros wouldn't need to orchestrate a bombing hoax

cognitive dissonance is what the right wing is best at.

tax cut economics are simply unsustainable.

 

[Thinker101]

You do realize that one requirement for minimum wage is having a job?

unemployment compensation for simply being, naturally unemployed by capitalism's natural rate of unemployment must be market friendly and more cost effective as a result.

Yeah, I figured that would be a surprise, maybe even a shock to you.

the left has to have solutions; echelon order really is the order of the day with the right wing.

I figured that might be a shock, sorry for the bad news. On the upside, the economy is doing well enough even for you to get a job. McDonalds, Walmart, Burger King, any of those catch your interest?

There is nothing shameful about working at Walmart or BK or McDonalds.

But in actuality, manufacturing and mining jobs are also picking up.

The Trump Economy is superb, and that's why our Liberal Friends are so anxious to change the topic to the caravan or to the bombs or whatever. If the libs could destroy the economy, Soros wouldn't need to orchestrate a bombing hoax

I agree, just trying to come up with suggestions for Danny.

 

[Anathema]

Very simply “general welfare and common defense” are defined at the eighteen items listed after that clause in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution. If it’s not listed there, it doesn’t meet the definition.

See, I told you it was simple.

 

[danielpalos]

The problem with people who claim to know what our Founders wanted by way of welfare and taxation is that they don't have any clue what our Founders were all about. They merely parrot what their propagandists have told them, and have never actually read the words and letters of our Founders for themselves.

I have yet to meet a pseudocon who thinks for themselves. If they did, they would not be pseudocons.

As I have just shown, Thomas Paine was practically a communist, while Thomas Jefferson was at the very least a progressive. Quite a few of our Founders had a pet peeve about ruling classes and wealth gaps. They spent a lot of time thinking and talking about how to reduce income inequalities. This makes sense when you consider they had just rebelled against an aristocracy.

For them, equality was economic as much as it was about personal liberties.

we have the federal doctrine, in writing.

And you clearly don't understand it.

what part? or, are you just trolling for the right wing.

 

[g5000]

While living in France, Jefferson observed massive wealth inequality which violated the natural rights of mankind. He made it his goal, along with James Madison, to prevent such an occurrence in his own country.

Jefferson began constructing ideas which would distribute wealth more evenly. Eliminating primogeniture, progressive taxation, etc.

Thomas Paine went even further. He advocated a national basic income and an old age government pension.

These guys were way ahead of their time. Anyone who says our Founders ideas are obsolete are dead wrong. People are still championing their ideas to this day.

 

[Thinker101]

unemployment compensation for simply being, naturally unemployed by capitalism's natural rate of unemployment must be market friendly and more cost effective as a result.

Yeah, I figured that would be a surprise, maybe even a shock to you.

the left has to have solutions; echelon order really is the order of the day with the right wing.

I figured that might be a shock, sorry for the bad news. On the upside, the economy is doing well enough even for you to get a job. McDonalds, Walmart, Burger King, any of those catch your interest?

There is nothing shameful about working at Walmart or BK or McDonalds.

But in actuality, manufacturing and mining jobs are also picking up.

The Trump Economy is superb, and that's why our Liberal Friends are so anxious to change the topic to the caravan or to the bombs or whatever. If the libs could destroy the economy, Soros wouldn't need to orchestrate a bombing hoax

cognitive dissonance is what the right wing is best at.

tax cut economics are simply unsustainable.

Certainly not sustainable if you don't have a job.

 

[danielpalos]

Very simply “general welfare and common defense” are defined at the eighteen items listed after that clause in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution. If it’s not listed there, it doesn’t meet the definition.

See, I told you it was simple.

there are no express powers to provide for the general warfare, the common offense, nor any alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

 

[danielpalos]

Yeah, I figured that would be a surprise, maybe even a shock to you.

the left has to have solutions; echelon order really is the order of the day with the right wing.

I figured that might be a shock, sorry for the bad news. On the upside, the economy is doing well enough even for you to get a job. McDonalds, Walmart, Burger King, any of those catch your interest?

There is nothing shameful about working at Walmart or BK or McDonalds.

But in actuality, manufacturing and mining jobs are also picking up.

The Trump Economy is superb, and that's why our Liberal Friends are so anxious to change the topic to the caravan or to the bombs or whatever. If the libs could destroy the economy, Soros wouldn't need to orchestrate a bombing hoax

cognitive dissonance is what the right wing is best at.

tax cut economics are simply unsustainable.

Certainly not sustainable if you don't have a job.

it is natural for capitalism to have a rate of unemployment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

unemployment compensation for simply being, naturally unemployed by capitalism's natural rate of unemployment must be market friendly and more cost effective as a result.

Yeah, I figured that would be a surprise, maybe even a shock to you.

the left has to have solutions; echelon order really is the order of the day with the right wing.

I figured that might be a shock, sorry for the bad news. On the upside, the economy is doing well enough even for you to get a job. McDonalds, Walmart, Burger King, any of those catch your interest?

There is nothing shameful about working at Walmart or BK or McDonalds.

But in actuality, manufacturing and mining jobs are also picking up.

The Trump Economy is superb, and that's why our Liberal Friends are so anxious to change the topic to the caravan or to the bombs or whatever. If the libs could destroy the economy, Soros wouldn't need to orchestrate a bombing hoax

cognitive dissonance is what the right wing is best at.

tax cut economics are simply unsustainable.

There it is, folks. The leftist cause in one retarded sentence.

To leftists, the only sustainable economies are those where large portions of productive value are confiscated and mostly wasted.

America is the most successful nation on earrh (double the next country) for a reason.

.

 

[g5000]

Very simply “general welfare and common defense” are defined at the eighteen items listed after that clause in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution. If it’s not listed there, it doesn’t meet the definition.

See, I told you it was simple.

Thomas Paine advocated a national basic income and an old age government pension. So he clearly did not believe these violated the Constitution.

Paine was there from the beginning. He was an authority on the subject of "general welfare". You are just some hack.

You think just pointing at the Constitution means something. It's just a meaningless throwaway gesture. You can't argue an actual point.

"Duuuhhhhh...Freedom! Da Constitution! I win!"

 

[bodecea]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

How's that wall coming along?

 

[Natural Citizen]

The General Welfare Clause serves as a limitation on the federal government. Not the other way around.

Congress possesses no "general legislative authority," as Hamilton stated in The Federalist number 83.

Here you go - The "General Welfare" in Relation to the Constitution

Snip (though I do recommend studying the entirety of the content at the link)...

Preamble of the United States Constitution specifies "the general Welfare" merely as one of the listed goals to be served by the Federal government in the exercise of the limited powers delegated to it, as enumerated in the body of that instrument. This mention of "the general Welfare" in the Preamble was intended, therefore, to serve in effect as a limit on the use of those delegated powers. The Preamble does not constitute a grant of any power whatever to the government. The only other mention of the words "general welfare" in the Constitution is in the Taxing Clause (Article I, Section 8) which authorizes Congress to collect taxes ". . . to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States . . ." Here, too, the words "general Welfare" were designed to serve as a limitation in effect--as a limit on the power granted under that clause. This excludes any power to tax and spend for all purposes which would not qualify as being for the "general Welfare of the United States" as a whole--for instance, it is excluded if for the benefit merely of a locality or some Individuals in the United States. The clause does not empower Congress to spend tax monies for any and every purpose it might select merely on the pretense, or even in the belief, that it is for the "general welfare." (Discussed also in Pars. 4 and 5 of Principle 11.) Congress possesses no "general legislative authority," as Hamilton stated in The Federalist number 83.

Hamilton's Opinion

9. All of those who framed and ratified the Constitution were in agreement on this point of the limited and limiting meaning of the words "general Welfare" in the Taxing Clause. As Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton contended for the first time in 1791 ("Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States") in favor of a broader interpretation of this clause than he had formerly espoused and broader than that which Madison - with Hamilton's silent acquiescence--had presented in 1788 in The Federalist (especially number 41) as reflecting the controlling intent of the Framing Convention, which Madison and Jefferson consistently supported. Hamilton did not claim, however, that this clause gives to the Federal government any power, through taxing-spending, so as in effect to control directly or indirectly anything or anybody, or any activities of the people or of the State governments. Despite his assertion that this clause gives Congress a separate and substantive spending power, Hamilton cautioned expressly (Report on "Manufactures," 1791) that it only authorizes taxing and spending within the limits of what would serve the "general welfare" and does not imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the "general welfare"--that it does "not carry a power to do any other thing not authorized in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication."

The Supreme Court's 1936 Decision Ascertaining and Defining the Original, Controlling Intent

10. As the Supreme Court decided (1936 Carter case) in ascertaining and defining the original, controlling intent of the Constitution as proved by all pertinent records and confirming its prior decisions over the generations since the adoption of the Constitution, the contentions advanced from time to time that "Congress, entirely apart from those powers delegated by the Constitution, may enact laws to promote the general welfare, have never been accepted but always definitely rejected by this court." It also decided that the Framing Convention "made no grant of authority to Congress to legislate substantively for the general welfare . . . [citing 1936 Butler case] . . . and no such authority exists, save as the general welfare may be promoted by the exercise of the powers which are granted." The American people have never amended the Constitution so as to change the limited and limiting meaning of the words "general Welfare" in the Taxing Clause, as thus originally intended by The Framers and Adopters in 1787-1788.

The Founders' Warnings

11. As Jefferson warned many times in his writings, public and private--for instance in the Kentucky Resolution--in keeping with the traditional American philosophy, strict enforcement of the Constitution's limits on the Federal government's power is essential for the protection of the people's liberties. This point was stressed at great length in The Federalist (notably numbers 17, 28, 33 and 78 by Hamilton and 44 and 46 by Madison) in reporting and explaining the intent of the Framing Convention expressed in the Constitution--as was understood and accepted by the State Ratifying Conventions. Hamilton's repeated warnings against permitting public servants to flout the people's mandate as to the limits on government's power, as specified in their basic laws (Constitutions) creating their governments, were in keeping with his words on one occasion in relation to the New York State Constitution. He stated ("Letters of Phocion," 1784) that any such defiance, by public servants, of the Constitution would be "a treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people . . ." Washington's Farewell Address expressed the conviction of The Founders of the Republic and their fellow leaders, in keeping with history's lesson, when he warned that usurpation "is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

 

[bodecea]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

Our welfare clause is general because it must be comprehensive enough to provide a general solution for any contingency. FDR proved this is the Case in our federal republic; thank Goodness FDR was a left winger.

Exactly....leading up to Pearl Harbor, the GOP in Congress was very admiring of Hitler and Mussolini.

 

[danielpalos]

Yeah, I figured that would be a surprise, maybe even a shock to you.

the left has to have solutions; echelon order really is the order of the day with the right wing.

I figured that might be a shock, sorry for the bad news. On the upside, the economy is doing well enough even for you to get a job. McDonalds, Walmart, Burger King, any of those catch your interest?

There is nothing shameful about working at Walmart or BK or McDonalds.

But in actuality, manufacturing and mining jobs are also picking up.

The Trump Economy is superb, and that's why our Liberal Friends are so anxious to change the topic to the caravan or to the bombs or whatever. If the libs could destroy the economy, Soros wouldn't need to orchestrate a bombing hoax

cognitive dissonance is what the right wing is best at.

tax cut economics are simply unsustainable.

There it is, folks. The leftist cause in one retarded sentence.

To leftists, the only sustainable economies are those where large portions of productive value are confiscated and mostly wasted.

America is the most successful nation on earrh (double the next country) for a reason.

.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics; tax cut economics are simple income redistribution that favors capitalists of wealth.

 

[bodecea]

Before Republicans comment on such topics they need to catch up to reality.

Red states are economic basketcases for following failed conservative policies for the last 150 years.

Most of them are horribly polluted and dangerous to raise children in because of the nasty pollution.

Then there’s the lack of education.

In fact it’s so bad in so many red states that in the entire Appalachian area infant mortality rates are rising and life expectancy is falling.

Republican conservatism is not really a failed policy. It’s a disguised policy. The whole point of it is to fuk most Americans and everything they do is aimed at helping needy billionaires.

Your theory self destructs quickly though because Mexifornia is home to only 12% of the national population and 33% of the nations welfare filth. In case you didn’t know, Mexifornia is a blue state that operates solely on progressive ideals. Weird huh?

And the 6th largest economy in the world.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

the left has to have solutions; echelon order really is the order of the day with the right wing.

I figured that might be a shock, sorry for the bad news. On the upside, the economy is doing well enough even for you to get a job. McDonalds, Walmart, Burger King, any of those catch your interest?

There is nothing shameful about working at Walmart or BK or McDonalds.

But in actuality, manufacturing and mining jobs are also picking up.

The Trump Economy is superb, and that's why our Liberal Friends are so anxious to change the topic to the caravan or to the bombs or whatever. If the libs could destroy the economy, Soros wouldn't need to orchestrate a bombing hoax

cognitive dissonance is what the right wing is best at.

tax cut economics are simply unsustainable.

Certainly not sustainable if you don't have a job.

it is natural for capitalism to have a rate of unemployment.

Unemployment is certain and encouraged under communism or any other system.

In nature, those who don't work to get food and shelter will die. There is no unemployment in nature.

 

[g5000]

If you invent a better mousetrap, and the world beats a path to your door, you deserve to be rich. You have acquired wealth naturally. And you should have as little of that wealth confiscated by the government as possible. Thomas Jefferson was in full agreement on this point.

If you pay a member of Congress to put a tax credit in the income tax code for people who buy your mousetraps, then you are tilting the playing field and acquiring wealth unnaturally. You are also causing everyone else to pay higher tax rates and are causing massive deficits.

We currently have $1.4 trillion of such unnatural tilting of the playing field each year. Wealth is accumulating into a few hands, and Jefferson found this to be totally abhorrent.

 

[danielpalos]

Congress possesses no "general legislative authority," as Hamilton stated in The Federalist number 83.

Here you go - The "General Welfare" in Relation to the Constitution

Snip...

Preamble of the United States Constitution specifies "the general Welfare" merely as one of the listed goals to be served by the Federal government in the exercise of the limited powers delegated to it, as enumerated in the body of that instrument. This mention of "the general Welfare" in the Preamble was intended, therefore, to serve in effect as a limit on the use of those delegated powers. The Preamble does not constitute a grant of any power whatever to the government. The only other mention of the words "general welfare" in the Constitution is in the Taxing Clause (Article I, Section 8) which authorizes Congress to collect taxes ". . . to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States . . ." Here, too, the words "general Welfare" were designed to serve as a limitation in effect--as a limit on the power granted under that clause. This excludes any power to tax and spend for all purposes which would not qualify as being for the "general Welfare of the United States" as a whole--for instance, it is excluded if for the benefit merely of a locality or some Individuals in the United States. The clause does not empower Congress to spend tax monies for any and every purpose it might select merely on the pretense, or even in the belief, that it is for the "general welfare." (Discussed also in Pars. 4 and 5 of Principle 11.) Congress possesses no "general legislative authority," as Hamilton stated in The Federalist number 83.

Hamilton's Opinion

9. All of those who framed and ratified the Constitution were in agreement on this point of the limited and limiting meaning of the words "general Welfare" in the Taxing Clause. As Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton contended for the first time in 1791 ("Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States") in favor of a broader interpretation of this clause than he had formerly espoused and broader than that which Madison - with Hamilton's silent acquiescence--had presented in 1788 in The Federalist (especially number 41) as reflecting the controlling intent of the Framing Convention, which Madison and Jefferson consistently supported. Hamilton did not claim, however, that this clause gives to the Federal government any power, through taxing-spending, so as in effect to control directly or indirectly anything or anybody, or any activities of the people or of the State governments. Despite his assertion that this clause gives Congress a separate and substantive spending power, Hamilton cautioned expressly (Report on "Manufactures," 1791) that it only authorizes taxing and spending within the limits of what would serve the "general welfare" and does not imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the "general welfare"--that it does "not carry a power to do any other thing not authorized in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication."

The Supreme Court's 1936 Decision Ascertaining and Defining the Original, Controlling Intent

10. As the Supreme Court decided (1936 Carter case) in ascertaining and defining the original, controlling intent of the Constitution as proved by all pertinent records and confirming its prior decisions over the generations since the adoption of the Constitution, the contentions advanced from time to time that "Congress, entirely apart from those powers delegated by the Constitution, may enact laws to promote the general welfare, have never been accepted but always definitely rejected by this court." It also decided that the Framing Convention "made no grant of authority to Congress to legislate substantively for the general welfare . . . [citing 1936 Butler case] . . . and no such authority exists, save as the general welfare may be promoted by the exercise of the powers which are granted." The American people have never amended the Constitution so as to change the limited and limiting meaning of the words "general Welfare" in the Taxing Clause, as thus originally intended by The Framers and Adopters in 1787-1788.

The Founders' Warnings

11. As Jefferson warned many times in his writings, public and private--for instance in the Kentucky Resolution--in keeping with the traditional American philosophy, strict enforcement of the Constitution's limits on the Federal government's power is essential for the protection of the people's liberties. This point was stressed at great length in The Federalist (notably numbers 17, 28, 33 and 78 by Hamilton and 44 and 46 by Madison) in reporting and explaining the intent of the Framing Convention expressed in the Constitution--as was understood and accepted by the State Ratifying Conventions. Hamilton's repeated warnings against permitting public servants to flout the people's mandate as to the limits on government's power, as specified in their basic laws (Constitutions) creating their governments, were in keeping with his words on one occasion in relation to the New York State Constitution. He stated ("Letters of Phocion," 1784) that any such defiance, by public servants, of the Constitution would be "a treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people . . ." Washington's Farewell Address expressed the conviction of The Founders of the Republic and their fellow leaders, in keeping with history's lesson, when he warned that usurpation "is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

the problem is, the right wing alleges the general badfare is covered by our common defense clause.

 

[kyzr]

WTF are "Art History" majors supposed to do to earn a living? <g>

 

[bodecea]

Before Republicans comment on such topics they need to catch up to reality.

Red states are economic basketcases for following failed conservative policies for the last 150 years.
.

In actuality, a lot of the red states were Deep Blue for most of the time over the past 150 years.

Further, some of the nation's biggest successes like the GS of Texas and Florida are doing outstanding. People want to move there, the idea of no state income tax is one that people believe in.

OTOH, people are moving out of New York and California. The sky high taxes and stifling political correctness, the pandering to groups like MS13 is pathetic.

Let us know when California is no longer the most populous state in the Union, ok?