The Glade 4.0

The "General Welfare clause" isn't a clause - its an introductory statement.

Madison:
"Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made."

Jefferson:
"[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money."

Besides that and other quotes - how can we have a government that is restrained when it is authorized to do whatever it wants so long as it states that it is for the "general welfare"? The entire idea that the General Welfare statement empowers Congress to pass anything outside of Article 1 Section 8 is insane and only held by those who would rather do as they wish than obey the law.

One cannot believe that our government was designed to be limited and that the General Welfare statement empowers Congress as DE imagines. The two ideas are mutually contradictory.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Yes you do, your argument is the same bullshit that others use to say that only those in the national guard should have firearms. It takes a preliminary sentence giving reason for the rules that follow as if they were a rule themselves. I know you're ok with being a huge hypocrite over this and ignoring what the law says in favor of some conjured and contrived way to arrive at what you want it to say but that in no way imparts such a twisted view of the document on others.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Except that you're just poisoning the well, as usual.

The power given is:



It is not an introductory sentence. It gives a specific power to lay taxes, and then enumerates in very broad terms what it can be used for.

It doesn't matter what Madison and Jefferson thought it should mean after the fact, and it doesn't matter that the General Welfare can mean anything; that's what it says, and all objections aside, NASA falls under providing from the common defense.

The very next power is the power to borrow money, so unless you're going to argue that Congress has the power to borrow but not to pay the debt, providing for the general welfare is a power. Priod. It doesn't matter what Jefferson or Madison thought, it doesn't matter what you think. End of story.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No DE, it doesn't matter what you think (except maybe to you).

You've stated before that we are a nation designed with a limited government. How do you fit this in with that ideal?

Do you believe that it would be Constitutional to lay and collect a 100% tax on income? By your interpretation it would be.

To do away with state and local governments - that to would be acceptable under what you stated (so long of course as the intention is to better the welfare of the people).

And you'll forgive me if I go with the meaning ascribed by the very man who penned the document instead of your boisterous bravado about the meaning that you yourself disagree with when it comes to specifics.

Oh, and yes, it is introductory. Its the first sentence introducing the section.

It provides for the common defense by having a Navy - as you see in an explicit power. It provides for the general welfare by having postal routes, a standard of weights, and a patent office - as are listed in the explicit powers.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

And people that actually study it professionally.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/General+Welfare



Easy. The mere ability to spend money is not the ability to do everything. For example, without the power to make postal routes, the Federal government could not have made the Interstate Highway system without permission from each state, regardless of ability to spend money. From the link above:



The Federal Government cannot establish education standards either, and does not. It requires states to comply voluntarily to get Federal money, but that's it.



Of course it would. There's no Constitutional upper limit on any kind of tax. That doesn't make it a good idea.



Not at all. States are specifically required to exist by the Constitution; it states every state shall provide Repulican forms of governmnet.



No, I won't forgive you. He was just a guy with a pen among many signers from many states. They disagreed heavily and the document that resulted was a compromise. Relying on his personal views as authoritative is simply ascribing him personal primacy over his peers based on nothing more than his fame and your desire to see his views espoused - never mind the fact that they didn't even put these views into practice themselves in the ways that you claim.

That's especially important since you're just cherry-picking people who support your view. Alexander Hamilton supported my view. Again from the link:




That means nothing. Power to pay debts; it's in there and mentioned nowhere else. Power to lay taxes; the same. You're just trying to pick out the two powers you think are too broad and claim they don't count based on your Special Pleading Fallacy.



So what? Those are things Congress can do explicitly; the reason a Navy is mentioned is to differentiate ist funding from the Army which is more limited in that money must be reappropriated every 2 years or less. All the clause regarding the Navy does is establish that it is an unlimited power, unlike the Army.

As to weights and measures, that gives Congress the unlimited power to do so - it does not merely have the power of the purse to ask the States to comply with its determinations of proper weights and measures; it may force the States to comply.

As usual, you've simply ignored the point. The first sentence is not introductory; it gives the power to tax and to pay debts. Again, unless you argue that Congress can incur debt but not pay it, the first sentence is not introductory. The later parts don't become introductory just because it's convenient for you.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Actually the highway system was a result of the military moving troops and supplies coast to coast. Postal routes are not highways.




In your interpretation it absolutely grants the power to legislate for the general welfare. I suggest you examine Helvering v Davis and US v Butler. Helvering is how our SS system got tagged as legal and that includes the legislating of taking SS taxes from the payroll - not just the spending portion. US v Butler ruled "The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution." So yes it can legislate so long as the legislation is deemed for the public welfare. The road to hell is paved with such good intentions.



Only in your mind is our highest legislative body playing the role of extortionist not immoral. Oh, how does it requires states to comply without legislation - that's right, it doesn't.



Ok so people who fought against roughly 5% taxation then established a nation 10 years later where unlimited taxation would be allowed by a central government that they wished to keep small and limited? This doesn't help to illuminate a little flaw in your thought process?




Except by your statement it is empowered to do such a thing. A 100% income tax would deplete all states of income and they would cease to function.



Except its not just him, several other signers, and in fact the impetus for the separation from Britain are wholly at odds with your view.



Yes and Hamilton was completely wrong. The man who wrote the document is the one who knows its meaning despite what other people want that writing to mean. You've still not dealt with the same thing Hamilton never explained is how it is a limited government when the power to tax is unlimited. Taxation is control and power, it is the ability to destroy - with unlimited power to do so we have no such thing as a limited government.




The clause of general welfare is explaining the following listed power - exactly how hard is that to understand especially when the same kind of language and phrasing had been used in the document and you understand how that is used yet for some reason this phrasing is not the same as the other?



Yes, that is rather my point. Those both fall under general defense which is why they are explicit power which the government has which it can use to provide for the general defense as outlined in the clause we are discussing.

As to weights and measures, that gives Congress the unlimited power to do so - it does not merely have the power of the purse to ask the States to comply with its determinations of proper weights and measures; it may force the States to comply.


The phrase general defense and welfare is introductory, it introduces the explicit powers listed below exactly like the introductory phrase of the second amendment. The specific powers granted to follow through with the introduction are listed below as I have already explained. The parts do not grant unlimited power to the Federal Government just because it is convenient for you and convenient for those in the federal government.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Actually, any road is a postal route. Mail and packages regularly move by large truck. The Constitution doesn't say what is or isn't a postal route; you don't get to impose your own limitations.



SS is taxation and spending legislation, not directly legisating the general welfare. SS taxes income and then spends the money.

As for the road to hell, that's just appeal to consequences.



Exactly it doesn't. It's not extortion at all, and whether it's moral has nothing to do with whether it's Constitutional. Frankly I think it's stupid and possibly immoral, but perfectly legal. Claiming it's illegal is just setting your own morality in place of law.



They didn't fight against particular tax rates; they fought against the lack of representation they had in the government that established them. In any case, it doesn't illuminate any "flaw in my thought process" because I really don't care what they thought at the time. They are not Saints nor are their written ideas Holy Government Scripture, excpt for the Constitution itself. They are simply citizens, and their ideas applied in their time. If they didn't write an upper tax rate limit in, one doesn't exist unless it was later established by an Ammendment.

I would support such an ammendment, but right now it doesn't exist.



Obviously. That would require the Federal government to fund the states sufficiently to run their governments. Such a move would be wildly impractical and stupid. It would also be Constitutional. Stop appealing to consequences.



That's nice. I also pointed out that some agree with me. They're all just citizens in any case. Their writings are not special.



No, the man who wrote it is not the one who knows what it means. He wrote based on what others decided; he was just a secretary. His own views on what it meant do not count beyond his representation as a delegate.

In any case, I don't need to "deal" with anything, nor does Hamilton. The limitation is quite clear; the government can tax and spend. Yes, taxation is very powerful, but it is limited by the fact that excess will destroy the source of revenue. Just because it passes some arbitrary line in your mind of power does not mean it's not "limited". Having "limited government" does not mean "limited to Elmo's satisfaction".

This is just you claiming "this view is wrong because I like someone else's better!!!"



Because it is not explaining the following powers, and is not the same language as used earlier. The item is the first in a list, and it is preceeded in the sentence by other specifically mentioned powers. You're just making up bullshit.



Yes, it can, but it is not limited to only those actions in providing for the common defense.



Aside from the fact that the Scond Ammendment was written AFTER the rest of the Constitution, making your claim to use the same phrase absurd in itself, the "well-regulated militia" part is BEFORE the specific right it discusses. The first item in the list of powers has no introduction. It starts right out with taxation and debts and moves on to grant powers for common defense and general welfare.

So, yes, they do. All you're doing is trying to impose limitations that don't exist, and based on fictitious claims about "phraseology".

Rant harder, though. come on, RANT HARDER!! REPEAT YOURSELF MORE!!! ALL THOSE IMAGINARY PEOPLE THAT AGREE WITH YOU ARE GONNA HELP YOU WITH THE REVOLUTTTIOOONNN!!!"

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I had a long reply ready but I don't think I could do any better than just quoting you to highlight exactly how warped your view is:

"No, the man who wrote it is not the one who knows what it means."

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Madison did not write the Constitution, it was the work of 55 delegates from 12 States. Giving Madison credit for the whole Constitution is ridiculous.

Your statement makes as much sense as saying that since Madison was a student of, and in correspondence with, Thomas Jefferson, maybe Jefferson himself wrote the Constitution and sent it to Madison to present to the Philadelphia Convention.

My understanding is it was a long and well fought compromise that ended up being an amazing piece of work.

Still, many broods of lawyers practice constitutional law and make a good living doing so. Seems like the crystal clarity you are stating is there is debatable.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Since wrote in this case just means "physically penned the views of a compromise of 55 people" the only thing it highlights is how much you're willing to fabricate to pretend your views have merit.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I think you need to check your history a bit more DE.

Here so you can read up, but I have no desire to discuss this any more with someone so slavish to their ignorance.

http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/draft.html

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

You do realize that the point of a later draft is to correct and supercede earlier ones?

Maybe if you keep using predjudicial language and poisoning the well fallacies they'll miraculously gain some validity.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Its amusing that anyone that disagrees with you is ignorant.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Only on topics in which I am better informed, which tend to be topics I am interested in, which tend to be ones I discuss.

Honestly its quite wearing having to engage in arguments I've dissected and understood years ago and come against the same kind of jumbled thought process again and again, especially when they are so arrogant in their ignorance. I used to be that way on some of these arguments which makes it even more tiring as I've been on both sides. Maybe I just hope too much that others can have the kind of will and self respect in themselves to hold themselves to a tight measure. Hell I know its a hard thing to do but if I can do it I expect others to be able to do it, eventually.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I once argued with Screeling about which types of toilet seats best facilitate marathon sessions.

I got pwnt.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I expect others to hear the same voices I hear, too.

Eventually.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

[youtube]F_itSnr6-QU[/youtube]

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

You heard it too, right?

REDRUM....whatever that means

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I had to double check and make sure Monte hadn't written this post.

Good for you. *claps*

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville