What is it that ideas and people are 'left' or 'right' of?

[danielpalos]

As time has passed, many nouns and descriptions have become so over-used as to have at best very vague meanings.
'Right' and 'left' originally referred to positions with a monarch at the center. Today, what do 'right' and 'left' mean? In relation to what do they derive their orientation?

We have been lied to. Surprise, surprise. I know.

We have been given a false political spectrum, one with Stalin to the Left and Hitler to the Right, when in reality, they are one in the same.

The real political spectrum should be about collectivism vs. individual liberty. I would note that anarchism, however, leads directly to the other side of the spectrum, whish is why I think many Left wingers tend to go that direction.

The issue is, how to maintain a civil society with the least amount of government interference.

For the Left, however, we are just lab rats to be experimented with and cattle to be herded around. With such thinking, individual freedom causes unfairness, harm to the environment, and bad thinking, which is why a wide range of strategies, such as political correctness and passing some 40,000 new laws and regulations in the US every year, is key to curbing the sins of individual freedom.

Naturally guns need to go. No one should have such freedom to do harm to another, unless, of course, we are discussing cutting an unborn child out of the womb and throwing it in the dumpster, but I think that is only common sense.

our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are right wing initiatives.

For the conservative, the issue is on how to keep a civil society.

IF people are dying to the tune of 200 per day, with street violence to boot and with a huge burden on the medical community, at what point does society need to draw and line and say that measures need to be taken?

The same can be said of guns, only, more than double of the nation deaths are caused by illegal drugs than guns. In addition, much of the gun violence is caused by illicit drugs.

The role of government should be maintaining a civil society, but not running the said society. If it were not for keeping law and order, government has no real legitimate function.

Now if gun violence gets to the same levels then perhaps something needs to be done about that as well.

As Ben Franklin aptly said, individual freedom hinges on individual morality. Once people become incapable of governing their own morality, then the government is forced to do it for them. Tyranny stems from such societies. After all, if you had a nation full of convicts, all that can be done is build a wall around them and hire a warden.

Morality is the key to maintaining a civil society apart from tyranny, which is why I think many on the Left are hell bent on destroying morality. We see them yank prayer out of schools only to be replaced by gun violence and we wonder what went wrong.

As for Ben Franklin, he was convinced that the morality of society would eventually devolve into tyranny as all world societies had done beforehand.

Perhaps its just our nature.

the power to provide for the general welfare is general.

there is no power to provide for the general badfare.

 

[Votto]

As time has passed, many nouns and descriptions have become so over-used as to have at best very vague meanings.
'Right' and 'left' originally referred to positions with a monarch at the center. Today, what do 'right' and 'left' mean? In relation to what do they derive their orientation?

We have been lied to. Surprise, surprise. I know.

We have been given a false political spectrum, one with Stalin to the Left and Hitler to the Right, when in reality, they are one in the same.

The real political spectrum should be about collectivism vs. individual liberty. I would note that anarchism, however, leads directly to the other side of the spectrum, whish is why I think many Left wingers tend to go that direction.

The issue is, how to maintain a civil society with the least amount of government interference.

For the Left, however, we are just lab rats to be experimented with and cattle to be herded around. With such thinking, individual freedom causes unfairness, harm to the environment, and bad thinking, which is why a wide range of strategies, such as political correctness and passing some 40,000 new laws and regulations in the US every year, is key to curbing the sins of individual freedom.

Naturally guns need to go. No one should have such freedom to do harm to another, unless, of course, we are discussing cutting an unborn child out of the womb and throwing it in the dumpster, but I think that is only common sense.

our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are right wing initiatives.

For the conservative, the issue is on how to keep a civil society.

IF people are dying to the tune of 200 per day, with street violence to boot and with a huge burden on the medical community, at what point does society need to draw and line and say that measures need to be taken?

The same can be said of guns, only, more than double of the nation deaths are caused by illegal drugs than guns. In addition, much of the gun violence is caused by illicit drugs.

The role of government should be maintaining a civil society, but not running the said society. If it were not for keeping law and order, government has no real legitimate function.

Now if gun violence gets to the same levels then perhaps something needs to be done about that as well.

As Ben Franklin aptly said, individual freedom hinges on individual morality. Once people become incapable of governing their own morality, then the government is forced to do it for them. Tyranny stems from such societies. After all, if you had a nation full of convicts, all that can be done is build a wall around them and hire a warden.

Morality is the key to maintaining a civil society apart from tyranny, which is why I think many on the Left are hell bent on destroying morality. We see them yank prayer out of schools only to be replaced by gun violence and we wonder what went wrong.

As for Ben Franklin, he was convinced that the morality of society would eventually devolve into tyranny as all world societies had done beforehand.

Perhaps its just our nature.

the power to provide for the general welfare is general.

there is no power to provide for the general badfare.

The General Welfare clause has been hijacked by the Left. It is literally the fake foundation that they have laid for their entire existence.

Here is what James Madison said about the General Welfare clause he wrote in the Constitution.

James Madison, (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
[URL='https://twitter.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Flibertytree.ca%2Fquotes%2FJames.Madison.Quote.3254&text=James+Madison+quote'][URL='http://libertytree.ca/send-quote/James.Madison.Quote.3254'][URL='http://www.printfriendly.com/print/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flibertytree.ca%2Fquotes%2FJames.Madison.Quote.3254']“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”[/URL][/URL][/URL]

 

[Tehon]

As time has passed, many nouns and descriptions have become so over-used as to have at best very vague meanings.
'Right' and 'left' originally referred to positions with a monarch at the center. Today, what do 'right' and 'left' mean? In relation to what do they derive their orientation?

We have been lied to. Surprise, surprise. I know.

We have been given a false political spectrum, one with Stalin to the Left and Hitler to the Right, when in reality, they are one in the same.

The real political spectrum should be about collectivism vs. individual liberty. I would note that anarchism, however, leads directly to the other side of the spectrum, whish is why I think many Left wingers tend to go that direction.

The issue is, how to maintain a civil society with the least amount of government interference.

For the Left, however, we are just lab rats to be experimented with and cattle to be herded around. With such thinking, individual freedom causes unfairness, harm to the environment, and bad thinking, which is why a wide range of strategies, such as political correctness and passing some 40,000 new laws and regulations in the US every year, is key to curbing the sins of individual freedom.

Naturally guns need to go. No one should have such freedom to do harm to another, unless, of course, we are discussing cutting an unborn child out of the womb and throwing it in the dumpster, but I think that is only common sense.

our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are right wing initiatives.

For the conservative, the issue is on how to keep a civil society.

IF people are dying to the tune of 200 per day, with street violence to boot and with a huge burden on the medical community, at what point does society need to draw and line and say that measures need to be taken?

The same can be said of guns, only, more than double of the nation deaths are caused by illegal drugs than guns. In addition, much of the gun violence is caused by illicit drugs.

The role of government should be maintaining a civil society, but not running the said society. If it were not for keeping law and order, government has no real legitimate function.

Now if gun violence gets to the same levels then perhaps something needs to be done about that as well.

As Ben Franklin aptly said, individual freedom hinges on individual morality. Once people become incapable of governing their own morality, then the government is forced to do it for them. Tyranny stems from such societies. After all, if you had a nation full of convicts, all that can be done is build a wall around them and hire a warden.

Morality is the key to maintaining a civil society apart from tyranny, which is why I think many on the Left are hell bent on destroying morality. We see them yank prayer out of schools only to be replaced by gun violence and we wonder what went wrong.

As for Ben Franklin, he was convinced that the morality of society would eventually devolve into tyranny as all world societies had done beforehand.

Perhaps its just our nature.

the power to provide for the general welfare is general.

there is no power to provide for the general badfare.

The General Welfare clause has been hijacked by the Left. It is literally the fake foundation that they have laid for their entire existence.

Here is what James Madison said about the General Welfare clause he wrote in the Constitution.

James Madison, (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

He probably should have included that language in the document itself.

 

[Natural Citizen]

the power to provide for the general welfare is general.

Bull pucky.

Here. Learn what General Welfare means: Limited Government: Governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed"


Here's a snip...


The "General Welfare" in Relation to the Constitution

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.

Continued - Limited Government: Governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed"

 

[Oddball]

the power to provide for the general welfare is general.

there is no power to provide for the general badfare.

 

[Votto]

the power to provide for the general welfare is general.

there is no power to provide for the general badfare.

View attachment 221306

Come on now, it's not like kids are taught this in school.

He has just been indoctrinated and is spewing that dogma.

 

[there4eyeM]

The Constitution, as has been said elsewhere, has a potential peaceful revolution built into it every two years. All Federal expenditures are financed through bills passed by the House of Representatives. It is only necessary that the voters, the 'people' vote and turn out those who wish to spend too much. When too much is spent, it is the fault of the voters. The Constitution is clear and simple about that point, at least. Perhaps Madison overlooked that provision.

 

[Votto]

the power to provide for the general welfare is general.

Bull pucky.

Here. Learn what General Welfare means: Limited Government: Governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed"


Here's a snip...


The "General Welfare" in Relation to the Constitution

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.

Continued - Limited Government: Governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Yes, but do they care?

No.

 

[there4eyeM]

So, loosening/liberalizing 'general welfare' is left of a tight interpretation of the Constitution's mention of the term?

 

[Votto]

So, loosening/liberalizing 'general welfare' is left of a tight interpretation of the Constitution's mention of the term?

The Left is all about increased government control in our lives.

Conservatives see government control as merely a way to maintain a civil society, not control

For example, the right to bear arms. No one ever thought that the right to bear arms meant that the government is obligated to go out and buy a gun for you if you do not have the funds to do so, yet the Left takes this approach to all other rights it seems.

To do this, then you must rob from taxpayers and redistribute it the way you think is "fair".

Naturally, tax money is never enough so they must print money out of thin air, which then devalues the rest of what money we have left.

Thus a never ending spiral towards complete dependence on the government.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Yes, but do they care?

No.

I really believe that a lot of people just don't understand this stuff. It's not really taught anymore. There's nothing wrong with not knowing. We're just going have to keep trying to do better in our efforts to teach. Or as best we can to get the facts out there for any other casual passers-by who might come across these threads/discussions.

You beat me to the punch when you referenced Hamilton. It's always rewarding whenever we get a chance to reference Hamilton under statesmanlike circumstances, when debating/teaching our leftist friends. Those instances are few and far between with Hamilton. Ha.

 

[there4eyeM]

Aren't those who approve Federal funding elected Representatives in the House of Representatives? Since it is the voters who decide who is in the seats of power to tax, how can it be called theft?
In any case, the government having ever more power is just returning to a monarchy-like center, so the tendency is to the 'right', right?

 

[there4eyeM]

Yes, but do they care?

No.

I really believe that a lot of people just don't understand this stuff. It's not really taught anymore. There's nothing wrong with not knowing. We're just going have to keep trying to do better in our efforts to teach. Or as best we can to get the facts out there for any other casual passers-by who might come across these threads/discussions.

You beat me to the punch when you referenced Hamilton. It's always rewarding whenever we get a chance to reference Hamilton under statesmanlike circumstances, when debating/teaching our leftist friends. Those instances are few and far between with Hamilton. Ha.

The only thing 'wrong' with their not knowing is when they hold erroneous beliefs so dear as to cause havoc or don't have the knowledge to reject falsehood on the part of power seekers.

 

[danielpalos]

As time has passed, many nouns and descriptions have become so over-used as to have at best very vague meanings.
'Right' and 'left' originally referred to positions with a monarch at the center. Today, what do 'right' and 'left' mean? In relation to what do they derive their orientation?

We have been lied to. Surprise, surprise. I know.

We have been given a false political spectrum, one with Stalin to the Left and Hitler to the Right, when in reality, they are one in the same.

The real political spectrum should be about collectivism vs. individual liberty. I would note that anarchism, however, leads directly to the other side of the spectrum, whish is why I think many Left wingers tend to go that direction.

The issue is, how to maintain a civil society with the least amount of government interference.

For the Left, however, we are just lab rats to be experimented with and cattle to be herded around. With such thinking, individual freedom causes unfairness, harm to the environment, and bad thinking, which is why a wide range of strategies, such as political correctness and passing some 40,000 new laws and regulations in the US every year, is key to curbing the sins of individual freedom.

Naturally guns need to go. No one should have such freedom to do harm to another, unless, of course, we are discussing cutting an unborn child out of the womb and throwing it in the dumpster, but I think that is only common sense.

our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are right wing initiatives.

For the conservative, the issue is on how to keep a civil society.

IF people are dying to the tune of 200 per day, with street violence to boot and with a huge burden on the medical community, at what point does society need to draw and line and say that measures need to be taken?

The same can be said of guns, only, more than double of the nation deaths are caused by illegal drugs than guns. In addition, much of the gun violence is caused by illicit drugs.

The role of government should be maintaining a civil society, but not running the said society. If it were not for keeping law and order, government has no real legitimate function.

Now if gun violence gets to the same levels then perhaps something needs to be done about that as well.

As Ben Franklin aptly said, individual freedom hinges on individual morality. Once people become incapable of governing their own morality, then the government is forced to do it for them. Tyranny stems from such societies. After all, if you had a nation full of convicts, all that can be done is build a wall around them and hire a warden.

Morality is the key to maintaining a civil society apart from tyranny, which is why I think many on the Left are hell bent on destroying morality. We see them yank prayer out of schools only to be replaced by gun violence and we wonder what went wrong.

As for Ben Franklin, he was convinced that the morality of society would eventually devolve into tyranny as all world societies had done beforehand.

Perhaps its just our nature.

the power to provide for the general welfare is general.

there is no power to provide for the general badfare.

The General Welfare clause has been hijacked by the Left. It is literally the fake foundation that they have laid for their entire existence.

Here is what James Madison said about the General Welfare clause he wrote in the Constitution.

James Madison, (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

yes, we could; but we have more common sense than the right wing in modern times.

the power is provide for the general welfare limited only by our Constitution.

what the right wing claims, is the general badfare is the same as the general welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

the power to provide for the general welfare is general.

Bull pucky.

Here. Learn what General Welfare means: Limited Government: Governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed"


Here's a snip...


The "General Welfare" in Relation to the Constitution

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.

Continued - Limited Government: Governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed"

it says general welfare not limited welfare. it is Expressed.

 

[danielpalos]

So, loosening/liberalizing 'general welfare' is left of a tight interpretation of the Constitution's mention of the term?

The Left is all about increased government control in our lives.

Conservatives see government control as merely a way to maintain a civil society, not control

For example, the right to bear arms. No one ever thought that the right to bear arms meant that the government is obligated to go out and buy a gun for you if you do not have the funds to do so, yet the Left takes this approach to all other rights it seems.

To do this, then you must rob from taxpayers and redistribute it the way you think is "fair".

Naturally, tax money is never enough so they must print money out of thin air, which then devalues the rest of what money we have left.

Thus a never ending spiral towards complete dependence on the government.

the right wing doesn't believe in capitalism and eschew it at every capital opportunity.

 

[Hum Dinger]

As time has passed, many nouns and descriptions have become so over-used as to have at best very vague meanings.
'Right' and 'left' originally referred to positions with a monarch at the center. Today, what do 'right' and 'left' mean? In relation to what do they derive their orientation?

The whole 'Right' vs. 'Left' concept should be bogus in a free thinking society. It's a way of narrowly defining us as individuals and of dividing us according to those definitions.

The question is: "How have we allowed ourselves to be defined this way"?

As far as I see, any individual should have political points of view on particular issues that span both the 'Right' and 'Left'. No thinking person can be absolutely right or absolutely left. No thinking person can consider the opposite point of view to be all wrong.

For example. a person may have Conservative points of view on social issues, but liberal views on economics. Possibly having conservative views on some social issues and some liberal views on other social issues.

Somehow (and I believe that some persecution complex and the associated paranoia) has induced us to unite on issues that we don't, as individuals, really support but since we need allies we form a political phalanx. Anti-Abortion people unite with Pro-gun people, Pro-Abortion people unite with the LGBT people...etc...

We create absolute strawmen of the 'other' side and then scare ourselves into believing that they are all evil.

Politicians gain from this division, they rest of us suffer. We ALL need to wake up!

 

[Hum Dinger]

the power to provide for the general welfare is general.

Bull pucky.

Here. Learn what General Welfare means: Limited Government: Governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed"


Here's a snip...


The "General Welfare" in Relation to the Constitution

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.

Continued - Limited Government: Governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed"

The idea that the body of the Constitution somehow limits the responsibilities of Government as stated in the Preamble is bogus.

The Preamble is a statement of the very purpose of government and it's responsibilities. The body is a framework for the structure of government that's purpose is to fulfill the responsibilities listed in the Preamble.

When the structure and powers of the government fail to fulfill the responsibilities listed in the Preamble, the government is a failure and must be changed.

The mechanism for changing the government, so it does fulfill those responsibilities, is Constitutional amendments. We've had 27 so far. We probably could use a few more.

 

[there4eyeM]

The wording does seem open to much nuance and the manner of treating it has become more of a tradition than an imperative.

 

[danielpalos]

compensating unemployed labor for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment ensures they can pay taxes in our market economy.