# Two Constitutional Questions about Build Back Better:



## DGS49 (Dec 16, 2021)

Where in Article I does Congress get the power to "reduce or eliminate child poverty"?

and,

Does the power to "...lay and collect taxes..." include the power to GIVE taxpayer funds to people who pay little or no taxes?  (Also applies to EITC).

And if you use the expression "general welfare" in your answer, go to the back of the class and put on a Dunce Cap; you are Constitutionally ignorant.

Editorial comment:  There is a big "hole" in our system of Constitutional review.  The Supreme Court cannot assess the Constitutionality of a law until it is challenged (which usually takes YEARS), and even when that happens, the court usually addresses only the microscopic issues that has come up for review, and not the Constitutionality of the whole law.

The chances of getting a coherent answer to these questions from a Leftist are approximately the same as the chances that I will invent a cure for cancer.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Dec 16, 2021)

Where does it say government gets to build roads or dams?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 16, 2021)

DGS49 said:


> Where in Article I does Congress get the power to "reduce or eliminate child poverty"?
> 
> and,
> 
> Does the power to "...lay and collect taxes..." include the power to GIVE taxpayer funds to people who pay little or no taxes? (Also applies to EITC).



Congress can act in the General Welfare of the country
They can also decide how tax revenue is collected and expended


----------



## Pellinore (Dec 16, 2021)

DGS49 said:


> Where in Article I does Congress get the power to "reduce or eliminate child poverty"?
> 
> and,
> 
> ...


The reason you may be tired of hearing the term "general welfare" is because that's the answer.  It's Congress's job to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.  That means they decide where we spend our money.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 16, 2021)

DGS49 said:


> Where in Article I does Congress get the power to "reduce or eliminate child poverty"?
> 
> and,
> 
> ...


*
Editorial comment:  There is a big "hole" in our system of Constitutional review.  The Supreme Court cannot assess the Constitutionality of a law until it is challenged (which usually takes YEARS), and even when that happens, the court usually addresses only the microscopic issues that has come up for review, and not the Constitutionality of the whole law.*

And even when that happens, they most often give a ruling which strengthens the power of The State.


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 16, 2021)

Pellinore said:


> The reason you may be tired of hearing the term "general welfare" is because that's the answer.  It's Congress's job to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.  That means they decide where we spend our money.


So if they think killing all the seniors in this country is for the "general welfare", they can just kill them all. Aaaaand its perfectly constitutional?
What if congress decides having children is against the general welfare and they force sterilization on every person? Will that be perfectly constitutional?
What if they think killing all the jews is for the general welfare? That ok, too?
Logic. An authoritarians worst nightmare.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 16, 2021)

Pellinore said:


> The reason you may be tired of hearing the term "general welfare" is because that's the answer.  It's Congress's job to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.  That means they decide where we spend our money.


----------



## DGS49 (Dec 16, 2021)

(A). Roads and dams.  Check the legislative history of the interstate highway system.  It was initially called - and probably still is called - the National Defense interstate highway system.  This is because it was acknowledged in the beginning that Congress had no power to authorize or pay for a system of highways.  So the fiction was created that the purpose of the highways was NATIONAL DEFENSE.  That is to say, the highways were being built so that in time of war it would be possible to efficiently transport men and materials around the country on these limited-access roads.  Article I is the reason for calling them the National Defense highways.  Because Congress has no power to do it otherwise.

(B). For those who rely on the words, "*Congress shall have power to...provide for the...general welfare of the United States.*.." as I indicated above, relying on those words is a sign of Constitutional ignorance.  The question was settled hundreds of years ago.  Those general words are superseded by the seventeen specific powers granted in Section 8.  Had the Founders intended the "general welfare" wording to prevail, there was no point in stipulating seventeen specific powers, or alternatively, they would have used the words, "for example," or similar to manifest the intention that the general wording would prevail.

Most people who raise this point are too stupid to recognize a coherent argument on the point, but in the probably-vain hope that one might actually be interested in the facts, I call to mind the relatively recent challenge to "Obamacare."

The specific challenge before the Supreme Court was on the "individual mandate."  The reason that mandate was significant was BECAUSE EVERYONE IN THE DISCUSSION RECOGNIZED THAT *CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DEMAND THAT PEOPLE BUY INSURANCE*.  Hence, if the "individual mandate" was in fact an individual mandate, it would have been unconstitutional.

But Chief Justice Roberts saved the law with his opinion, stating in effect that the "individual mandate" was not a mandate at all, but just an alternative way of imposing a tax (on not having insurance), which Congress clearly can do.

The point is, if Congress has the power to do anything it deems necessary or advisable to promote the "general welfare," then there would have been no question at all about the individual mandate.  If Congress thought it promoted the general welfare, that would have been the end of the discussion.  But Congress has no such power, as the power cannot be inferred from any of the specific powers granted under Section 8.

But you are probably too stupid to recognize it, so never mind.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 16, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> So if they think killing all the seniors in this country is for the "general welfare", they can just kill them all. Aaaaand its perfectly constitutional?
> What if congress decides having children is against the general welfare and they force sterilization on every person? Will that be perfectly constitutional?
> What if they think killing all the jews is for the general welfare? That ok, too?
> Logic. An authoritarians worst nightmare.


Murder is against the law
Helping people who need help isn’t.

Unless you are Conservative


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 16, 2021)

DGS49 said:


> Where in Article I does Congress get the power to "reduce or eliminate child poverty"?
> 
> and,
> 
> ...


I noticed your answers to your questions are non-existent.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 16, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Congress can act in the General Welfare of the country
> They can also decide how tax revenue is collected and expended


the constitution is clear what they can spend tax money on and giving it to people after it was taken from another isnt one of them,,


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 16, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Murder is against the law
> Helping people who need help isn’t.
> 
> Unless you are Conservative


Weak. try again


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 16, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> the constitution is clear what they can spend tax money on and giving it to people after it was taken from another isnt one of them,,


No, it is not

Congress gets to decide how to raise revenue and from whom.  They also get to decide what to spend it on.

If you disagree, you can vote them out of office


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 16, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> No, it is not
> 
> Congress gets to decide how to raise revenue and from whom.  They also get to decide what to spend it on.
> 
> If you disagree, you can vote them out of office


not according to the constitution,,

and welfare isnt spending money its giving it away,,


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 16, 2021)

DGS49 said:


> Where in Article I does Congress get the power to "reduce or eliminate child poverty"?
> 
> and,
> 
> ...


By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the general welfare. The Court accords great deference to Congress’s decision that a spending program advances the general welfare,15 and has even questioned whether the restriction is judicially enforceable.16 Dispute, such as it is, turns on the conditioning of funds.

As with its other powers, Congress may enact legislation necessary and proper to effectuate its purposes in taxing and spending. In upholding a law making it a crime to bribe state and local officials who administer programs that receive federal funds, the Court declared that Congress has authority to see to it that taxpayer dollars . . . are in fact spent for the general welfare, and not frittered away in graft or on projects undermined when funds are siphoned off or corrupt public officers are derelict about demanding value for dollars.17 Congress’s failure to require proof of a direct connection between the bribery and the federal funds was permissible, the Court concluded, because corruption does not have to be that limited to affect the federal interest. Money is fungible, bribed officials are untrustworthy stewards of federal funds, and corrupt contractors do not deliver dollar-for-dollar value.18








						Spending Power | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
					

An annotation about Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States.




					constitution.congress.gov


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 16, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the general welfare. The Court accords great deference to Congress’s decision that a spending program advances the general welfare,15 and has even questioned whether the restriction is judicially enforceable.16 Dispute, such as it is, turns on the conditioning of funds.
> 
> As with its other powers, Congress may enact legislation necessary and proper to effectuate its purposes in taxing and spending. In upholding a law making it a crime to bribe state and local officials who administer programs that receive federal funds, the Court declared that Congress has authority to see to it that taxpayer dollars . . . are in fact spent for the general welfare, and not frittered away in graft or on projects undermined when funds are siphoned off or corrupt public officers are derelict about demanding value for dollars.17 Congress’s failure to require proof of a direct connection between the bribery and the federal funds was permissible, the Court concluded, because corruption does not have to be that limited to affect the federal interest. Money is fungible, bribed officials are untrustworthy stewards of federal funds, and corrupt contractors do not deliver dollar-for-dollar value.18
> 
> ...


welfare isnt spending,, its giving money away,,


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 16, 2021)

DGS49 said:


> (A). Roads and dams.  Check the legislative history of the interstate highway system.  It was initially called - and probably still is called - the National Defense interstate highway system.  This is because it was acknowledged in the beginning that Congress had no power to authorize or pay for a system of highways.  So the fiction was created that the purpose of the highways was NATIONAL DEFENSE.  That is to say, the highways were being built so that in time of war it would be possible to efficiently transport men and materials around the country on these limited-access roads.  Article I is the reason for calling them the National Defense highways.  Because Congress has no power to do it otherwise.
> 
> (B). For those who rely on the words, "*Congress shall have power to...provide for the...general welfare of the United States.*.." as I indicated above, relying on those words is a sign of Constitutional ignorance.  The question was settled hundreds of years ago.  Those general words are superseded by the seventeen specific powers granted in Section 8.  Had the Founders intended the "general welfare" wording to prevail, there was no point in stipulating seventeen specific powers, or alternatively, they would have used the words, "for example," or similar to manifest the intention that the general wording would prevail.
> 
> ...


Actually, your limited scope of Congressional power has never been supported by the courts. 
Congress has wide latitude on how it serves “We the People”
That includes Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, educational support and a myriad of other social and public programs our founders never envisioned


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 16, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> welfare isnt spending,, its giving money away,,



It is helping people who need help
Something all great societies do


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 16, 2021)

Not to mention, "general welfare" implies the collective. Not the individual.
Not that you statist assholes ever care about terminology, context or intent.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 16, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> It is helping people who need help
> Something all great societies do


no it doesnt, and based on the outcome of most welfare recipients it does more harm than good,,


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 16, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> not according to the constitution,,
> 
> and welfare isnt spending money its giving it away,,


The farmers will not give away their crops to feed people so the govt. must by the source of foodstuffs or allow funds allocated to individuals to buy the farmer's products.


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 16, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> Not to mention, "general welfare" implies the collective. Not the individual.
> Not that you statist assholes ever care about terminology, context or intent.


I can tell you are a little short on who's the definition of general welfare you are using you are using.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 16, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> The farmers will not give away their crops to feed people so the govt. must by the source of foodstuffs or allow funds allocated to individuals to buy the farmer's products.


I am sure it was an oversite on your part, but you forgot to provide a link that shows it is in the constitution,,


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 16, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> I am sure it was an oversite on your part, but you forgot to provide a link that shows it is in the constitution,,


I already have linked to the information explaining what you can't.


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 16, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> I can tell you are a little short on who's the definition of general welfare you are using you are using.


huh?


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 16, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> but you forgot to provide a link that shows it is in the constitution


That is ALWAYS the case when you are discussing fed gov power with authoritarians like moonglow


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 16, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> That is ALWAYS the case when you are discussing fed gov power with authoritarians like moonglow


Tie my shoe...now.


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 16, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> Tie my shoe...now.


I figure you just walk around barefoot like all the other burnt out hippies


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 16, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> That is ALWAYS the case when you are discussing fed gov power with authoritarians like moonglow


Federal papers from the founders discussed the laws of the Constitution to give an insight into what they were thinking and what motivation can be applied.


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 16, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> I figure you just walk around barefoot like all the other burnt out hippies


They make slip-on shoes for hippies.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 16, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> I already have linked to the information explaining what you can't.


your link doesnt support your claim,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 16, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> That is ALWAYS the case when you are discussing fed gov power with authoritarians like moonglow


moonbats not smart enough to be an authoritarian,, hes to busy being the forum troll,,


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 16, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> Not to mention, "general welfare" implies the collective. Not the individual.
> Not that you statist assholes ever care about terminology, context or intent.


Laws and expenditures do not work like that
There is no way for everyone to be affected the same by any legislation.
Roads and bridges help some people and not others
Schools help some and not others
Farm subsidies help some and not others
Cancer research helps some and not others

But as a whole, they support the General Welfare of We the People


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 16, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> no it doesnt, and based on the outcome of most welfare recipients it does more harm than good,,


Letting people starve does more harm than good


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 16, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> Federal papers from the founders discussed the laws of the Constitution to give an insight into what they were thinking and what motivation can be applied.


Like number 41?
_ “For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?”_
Thanks for reminding me. 
/thread


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 16, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> Like number 41?
> _ “For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?”_
> Thanks for reminding me.
> /thread


Yo rightwinger ^^^
Of course, intent matters not to you and your ilk


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 16, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> Yo rightwinger ^^^
> Of course, intent matters not to you and your ilk


Sorry but I dont allow some 18th century slaveholding aristocrat define what my Government can do for me


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 16, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Sorry but I dont allow some 18th century slaveholding aristocrat define what my Government can do for me


Actually, thats exactly what he did, you stupid fuck. He wrote the enumerated powers list in the constitution.
Every person that signed the constitution defined what the govt can do for you.


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 16, 2021)

See? You leftists are so disingenuous its fucking PATHETIC.
"the general welfare means blah blah blah" "idc what he says even though he wrote the part that i cling to justify my statism"
You guys are the stupidest mother fuckers on the planet.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 16, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> Actually, thats exactly what he did, you stupid fuck. He wrote the enumerated powers list in the constitution.
> Every person that signed the constitution defined what the govt can do for you.


Actually, they dont  and nobody has accepted your definition in over 200 years

If you believe laws passed by Congress are outside their Constitutional authority……why dont you challenge them?

Nobody else has


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 16, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> See? You leftists are so disingenuous its fucking PATHETIC.
> "the general welfare means blah blah blah" "idc what he says even though he wrote the part that i cling to justify my statism"
> You guys are the stupidest mother fuckers on the planet.


Take it to court and see what they say


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 16, 2021)

The OP treats our Constitution as a Cookbook with specific limits on what you are allowed to cook and the ingredients you can use.

Our glorious Constitution builds a grand Kitchen comprised of three branches in which future generations can cook whatever they need


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 16, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Actually, they dont  and nobody has accepted your definition in over 200 years
> 
> If you believe laws passed by Congress are outside their Constitutional authority……why dont you challenge them?
> 
> Nobody else has


its not "my" definition, genius. Its THE definition


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 16, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> The OP treats our Constitution as a Cookbook with specific limits on what you are allowed to cook and the ingredients you can use.


OMFG thats EXACTLY what it is.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 16, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> its not "my" definition, genius. Its THE definition


Really?
Why don’t you sue then?


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 16, 2021)

Statist shit stains like RW are all about the govt abusing powers until its something he doesnt like. Then its "but the constitution says blah blah blah"
Never listen to a leftist. They are so disingenuous about EVERYTHING.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 16, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Letting people starve does more harm than good


who said they would starve??

they can always go to their local churchs and other places that have free food,,

sounds like you support everyone quit working and live off the fed government,,

and of course I noticed you abandoned trying to prove its constitutional,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 16, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Sorry but I dont allow some 18th century slaveholding aristocrat define what my Government can do for me


why does the government need to do anything for you??

are you a free person or a serf??


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 16, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> why does the government need to do anything for you??
> 
> are you a free person or a serf??


Why?

Because We the People created a more perfect union 
A Government of the people, by the people and FOR the people


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 16, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Why?
> 
> Because We the People created a more perfect union
> A Government of the people, by the people and FOR the people


yep,, youre a serf,,


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 16, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> who said they would starve??
> 
> they can always go to their local churchs and other places that have free food,,
> 
> ...


Been there, done that

Private charities have proven incapable of handling the load


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 16, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> yep,, youre a serf,,


Better than that
I am an AMERICAN Citizen


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 16, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Been there, done that
> 
> Private charities have proven incapable of handling the load


prove it??

around here they dont have a problem other than not having enough money because donors are taxed to much and cant afford to give more,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 16, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Better than that
> I am an AMERICAN Citizen


explain??

what is it you want the government top do for you that doesnt require them to take from another person first??


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 16, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> explain??
> 
> what is it you want the government top do for you that doesnt require them to take from another person first??


Well, it works like this…

We the People elect a Government to do what is best for this great nation.

In the case of welfare and public services, we want a Government that helps those who need help.

Most modern societies do


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 16, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Well, it works like this…
> 
> We the People elect a Government to do what is best for this great nation.
> 
> ...


no WE dont,, and according to the constitution they feds dont have legal authority,,


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 16, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> no WE dont,, and according to the constitution they feds dont have legal authority,,



They don’t? 

Maybe you should take them to court and get all those pesky Gubmint programs thrown out

You will be famous


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 16, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> They don’t?
> 
> Maybe you should take them to court and get all those pesky Gubmint programs thrown out
> 
> You will be famous


your surrender is accepted,,


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 16, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> your surrender is accepted,,


What happened with your lawsuit ?


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 16, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> What happened with your lawsuit ?


I just quit giving the feds money,,

and depending I might just go ahead and get on welfare so you can pay for my lifestyle,,


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 16, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> I just quit giving the feds money,,
> 
> and depending I might just go ahead and get on welfare so you can pay for my lifestyle,,



Go for it!

Just quit paying your taxes
That will show em

You think the poor have it so good, try walking a mile in their shoes


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 16, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Go for it!
> 
> Just quit paying your taxes
> That will show em
> ...


walked a lot more than a mile in a poor persons shoes,, and quit paying fed income taxs a long time ago,,


----------

