Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You are a hypocrite. First you claim you are going by what the constitution says, then when presented with what is MEANT by what the constitution says you get to conveniently ignore it.
You don't have to present me with what it means, I already understand the meaning of words. I don't need James Madison to explain it to me, the Congress has the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; - I know this because it says PRECISELY that in the constitution.
LOL....so to you, GW means anything YOU want it too
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper
You don't have to present me with what it means, I already understand the meaning of words. I don't need James Madison to explain it to me, the Congress has the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; - I know this because it says PRECISELY that in the constitution.
LOL....so to you, GW means anything YOU want it too
No, it means the general welfare.
general - 1 : involving, applicable to, or affecting the who
General - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
welfare - 1 : the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity
Welfare - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Hey, I'm sorry, I had no idea that James Madison was the only founding father. I thought there was a guy named Thomas Jefferson, too.
[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. - Thomas Jefferson
But I guess only the Founding Fathers whose views are in line with the modern right wingers actually count.
Me, personally, I'll go with what the Constitution says.
lmao....he doesn't define general welfare and this is your response....
you don't know, so you'll call it anything you want
what is pathetic about the same people claiming h/c is constitutional because of some vague term are the very same people who have no problem claiming the specific type of waterboarding is unconstitutional....they very same people who claim a court must determine if h/c is unconstitutional, have already claimined the specific waterboarding is unconstitutional....
irony, to say the least
Torture is a federal crime.
And if you don't know what "general welfare" means pick up a dictionary.
"With respect to the two words general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." James Madison in letter to James Robertson
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792
Hey, I'm sorry, I had no idea that James Madison was the only founding father. I thought there was a guy named Thomas Jefferson, too.
[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. - Thomas Jefferson
But I guess only the Founding Fathers whose views are in line with the modern right wingers actually count.
Me, personally, I'll go with what the Constitution says.
lmao....he doesn't define general welfare and this is your response....
you don't know, so you'll call it anything you want
what is pathetic about the same people claiming h/c is constitutional because of some vague term are the very same people who have no problem claiming the specific type of waterboarding is unconstitutional....they very same people who claim a court must determine if h/c is unconstitutional, have already claimined the specific waterboarding is unconstitutional....
irony, to say the least
lmao....he doesn't define general welfare and this is your response....
you don't know, so you'll call it anything you want
what is pathetic about the same people claiming h/c is constitutional because of some vague term are the very same people who have no problem claiming the specific type of waterboarding is unconstitutional....they very same people who claim a court must determine if h/c is unconstitutional, have already claimined the specific waterboarding is unconstitutional....
irony, to say the least
Torture is a federal crime.
And if you don't know what "general welfare" means pick up a dictionary.
what court has ruled that specific technique specifically used at that time is torture? if you don't have a case, then you have past judgment on what is constitutional or not constitutional behavior without a court doing so and thus a hypocrite for whining about people claiming this is unconstitutional.
Hey Bern80, why is Madison the only one whose opinion counts?
What about Alexander Hamilton? He wrote 51 of the Federalist papers to Madison's 29. And this is what he had to say about it:
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
Does his opinion just not count because you don't happen to like it? Guess what, too bad!
That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
In other words, Hamilton says, don't object to the funding part of it by improperly inferring that I think the federal government can legislate on anything it might deem to be in the general welfare. Or--more simply--just because you can fund it doesn't mean you can legislate it. Maybe Madison and Hamilton were more in agreement about the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution than has been generally thought.
Regardless of whether the Founders disagreed on the "general ability" of the federal government to legislate as regards the General Welfare, it seems easy to intuit that the Founders, were they alive today, would be unanimous in bemoaning that a great deal of what the federal government funds today is of a very un-general nature, and is therefore unconstitutional.
why does the constitution even list certain enumerated powers if the general welfare clause means....anything we want for the general welfare? whats the point of even listing those enumerated powers as one can argue each enumerated power is for the general welfare...
seems redundant and nonsensical
LOL....so to you, GW means anything YOU want it too
No, it means the general welfare.
general - 1 : involving, applicable to, or affecting the who
General - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
welfare - 1 : the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity
Welfare - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
like i said, so anything YOU want it to be
I understand that old english can be a bit tough to read.
The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state."
why does the constitution even list certain enumerated powers if the general welfare clause means....anything we want for the general welfare? whats the point of even listing those enumerated powers as one can argue each enumerated power is for the general welfare...
seems redundant and nonsensical
That is exactly my point. For the general wellfare clause to be construed as broadly as Spider would like takes some true mental gymnastics, intentional ignorance of context and intent of the framers.
what court has ruled that specific technique specifically used at that time is torture? if you don't have a case, then you have past judgment on what is constitutional or not constitutional behavior without a court doing so and thus a hypocrite for whining about people claiming this is unconstitutional.
Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?
Who is it that is making that argument?
Rush, hannity, beck, all their fans and the idiots in here.
If you have insurance, this wont affect you in the least bit. Well, it will change the costs eventually. It will be lower because of COMPETITION.
Did you enjoy your last rate hike?
I understand that old english can be a bit tough to read.
Alexander Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures" isn't written in old English you dolt, I can understand the wording just fine and I don't need anyone to explain it to me, I'm not a moron.The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state."
No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
That is exactly my point. For the general wellfare clause to be construed as broadly as Spider would like takes some true mental gymnastics, intentional ignorance of context and intent of the framers.
I don't think you've actually READ the snippet by Hamilton that I linked. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
But you don't have to, and no mental gymnastics are required. There's no need to ponder endlessly about what the writers meant - because its quite clear what they meant, its written in plain English. The Congress has the power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
why does the constitution even list certain enumerated powers if the general welfare clause means....anything we want for the general welfare? whats the point of even listing those enumerated powers as one can argue each enumerated power is for the general welfare...
seems redundant and nonsensical
It doesn't mean anything we want for the general welfare, its the power to tax and spend for the general welfare.
For example, Congress may levy a tax on cigarettes and spend the tax money on helping smokers to quit smoking, if it judges that to be in the interest of the general welfare. Congress cannot, however, abolish tobacco use. That could be something they might judge in the interest of the general welfare - but its not taxing and spending, its a law regulating peoples actions, and thus, not an enumerated power.
Under the Constitution, Congress isn't authorized to run, regulate, or subsidize our health care. Because the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from doing anything the Constitution doesn't expressly authorize it to do, federal intervention in health care is unconstitutional.
Wrong, the Congress clearly has the power to levy taxes for the purposes of providing for the general welfare.
Article I
Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
Yes, the Supreme Court hasn't struck down unconstitutional programs such as Medicaid and the prescription drug benefit
Oh, in fact, it is here, and its everywhere. By your tone I take it you're retired and presently enjoying the benefits of these socialist unconstitutional programs.
Apparently you do as you believe he agrees with your interpretation. He doesn't. Twice now you have displayed the text book definition of 'out of context'. You immaturely find whatever sentence you need to find that could be construed as supporting your position and ignore everything else. You are sorely lacking in intellectual integrity.
A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.
The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
[/QUOTE]No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum
Si þin nama gehalgod
to becume þin rice
gewurþe ðin willa
on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.
urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg
and forgyf us ure gyltas
swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum
and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge
ac alys us of yfele soþlice
