Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You don't have to go to the history books to see that the expansive view of the "general welfare" wording in Section 8 was long ago rejected.
If Congress were permitted to do anything it wanted, so long as it promoted the "general welfare,"
The Hamiltonian view of the GW clause - that accepted by the Courts, does NOT allow Congress to "do anything" it wants. It only allows it to SPEND MONEY on anything it wants. There is quite a difference between spending authority - the authority to BUY stuff - and regulatory authority - the authority to force people and businesses to follow a law or regulation.
According to the latest decision, RomneyCare IS completely Constitutional, numb nuts, the court did not throw out a SINGLE provision of it.then the Obamacare act would have been completely consitutional, with no real counter-arguments. There is no question whatsoever that a majority of the Congress (at the time the Act was passed) believed that Obamacare would promote the "general welfare" of the U.S.
The fact that the mandate could only be permitted under the power to "...lay and collect taxes..." should be proof enough that Congress is - at least theoretically - limited to its enumerated powers, and cannot do whatever it pleases under the "general welfare" clause.
No one has ever even argued that Congress can do "whatever it pleases" under the GW clause. Congress can tax people for not having health care - but they can't put people in prison for it. There's a big difference.
Hamilton? Ummmm, no he wasn't.Both Hamilton and Madison were original authors of the Constitution, so you can't choose which view to accept based on which is the original view.
....
but the phrase is 'general welfare of the United States' - 'of' - general welfare of - of who/whom?
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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
United States means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
James Madision Fed. 41
"general welfare," as used in the Constitution, is defined by the enumerated powers listed directly afterward, nothing more and nothing less.
i think part of the problem is treating the federalist papers as if they are law. they aren't. our law is comprised of statute and our caselaw. and our caselaw, going back hundreds of years, does not limit what congress is able to do in accordance with the general welfare clause... EXCEPT as to those things which are the sole province of the states.
but the reality is that the supremacy clause, taken together with the general welfare clause and the way they've been construed by caselaw pretty much end any argument against governmental action
This is a question for the strict constitutionalists who believe we take the constitution literally, exactly as written.
Section 8 of Article 1 in known as the "enumerated powers" section. Here is where the various powers granted the congress are spelled out. The first article in that section is quoted, verbatim, below.
Section 8
1: 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Taking that literally, strictly as written, how does that limit the power of congress to legislate on any social program it chooses so long as it provides for the "general welfare"?
It is quite simple. The founders were educated and very literate. How can you interpret that any other way? Remember though, you are not supposed to interpret, you are to take it literally.
The powers granted to the national government in the Constitution are called the enumerated powers. From early on, it was understood that not every detail of the needed powers of the national government could be listed. The Supreme Court and others understood the enumerated powers to be general grants of authority which included various implied powers. Taken together, the enumerated and implied powers constitute, in theory, all the powers of the national government.
US v Morrison (2000)
This is a question for the strict constitutionalists who believe we take the constitution literally, exactly as written.
Section 8 of Article 1 in known as the "enumerated powers" section. Here is where the various powers granted the congress are spelled out. The first article in that section is quoted, verbatim, below.
Section 8
1: 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[/B]; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Taking that literally, strictly as written, how does that limit the power of congress to legislate on any social program it chooses so long as it provides for the "general welfare"?
It is quite simple. The founders were educated and very literate. How can you interpret that any other way? Remember though, you are not supposed to interpret, you are to take it literally.
without interpeting, i think the entire phrase has to be taken in whole, not picking two words. With no interpetation, it appears the document intended that the general welfare of the entire nation is the meaning, not of individual citizens.
If they could see, they would not be in their graves.If the FF's could see how this GW clause is used today I firmly believe they would turn over in their graves.
see?
These are the same guys that threw a hissy fit when one of them wanted to give the French immigrants 10 grand to help them settle in the USA. This was after the French helped them achiev independence.
Funny how until FDR made a mockery of the Constitution no one even had a glimmer about the taxdollars of this country being handed out to the poor and downtrodden.
Promoting the GW is a long way from Providing the GW.
And what happened to the part of the constitution that says everyone should be treated the same??
Kinda leaves those providing the largesse out in the cold wouldn't you say?? Those paying Fed taxes are now obliged to provide for every freeloader in the US. Don't think thats what the GW clause was put in there for.
your idiocy knows no bounds
Congress possesses both enumerated and implied powers stemming from the Necessary and Proper Clause. See: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).
The powers granted to the national government in the Constitution are called the enumerated powers. From early on, it was understood that not every detail of the needed powers of the national government could be listed. The Supreme Court and others understood the enumerated powers to be general grants of authority which included various implied powers. Taken together, the enumerated and implied powers constitute, in theory, all the powers of the national government.
US v Morrison (2000)
Indeed, every perception of the Constitution is an interpretation, including literalism, strict constructionism, and originalism.
You don't have to go to the history books to see that the expansive view of the "general welfare" wording in Section 8 was long ago rejected.
If Congress were permitted to do anything it wanted, so long as it promoted the "general welfare,"
The Hamiltonian view of the GW clause - that accepted by the Courts, does NOT allow Congress to "do anything" it wants. It only allows it to SPEND MONEY on anything it wants. There is quite a difference between spending authority - the authority to BUY stuff - and regulatory authority - the authority to force people and businesses to follow a law or regulation.
According to the latest decision, RomneyCare IS completely Constitutional, numb nuts, the court did not throw out a SINGLE provision of it.
The fact that the mandate could only be permitted under the power to "...lay and collect taxes..." should be proof enough that Congress is - at least theoretically - limited to its enumerated powers, and cannot do whatever it pleases under the "general welfare" clause.
No one has ever even argued that Congress can do "whatever it pleases" under the GW clause. Congress can tax people for not having health care - but they can't put people in prison for it. There's a big difference.
I've argued that they can whatever they want.
Sorry, that's not how it works.All they have to do is come up with some bullshit argument of why it's in your best interest for them to do it, call it a tax, and it becomes legal under "general welfare".
In the case of the health care mandate - NO CRIMINAL PENALTIES - per Chapter 48 of the law itself. The IRS can garnish your wages or seize your financial assets to get the tax paid - but you cannot be charged with a criminal offense.And what happens when they don't pay that tax?
Hamilton? Ummmm, no he wasn't.Both Hamilton and Madison were original authors of the Constitution, so you can't choose which view to accept based on which is the original view.
....
"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
"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45
"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
“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798
There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined. This differs from most modern interpretations including your own!
Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders and they were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. However another founder, Alexander Hamilton, saw it in a little differently.
"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83
Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?
"No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78
In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore nconstitutional.
So, to use the founder's own opinions to answer your original question, the congress does not have the power to tax and spend for any social program they see fit according to the founders and the original intent of the constitution.
Also look into what the rest of section 8 goes on to say, it is obvious that those are the only areas which the language in question refers to. The specific areas this power was enumerated to and not whatever a politican wants.
your opinions aside, one can take dueling quotes from Madison himself. there exists dueling positions with Madison and Hamilton disagreeing on what the correct interpretation of specific parts of the Constitution mean. They disagree with each other over what was intended.
what is your point?
General Welfare does not mean take from the rich and give to the poor.This is a question for the strict constitutionalists who believe we take the constitution literally, exactly as written.
Section 8 of Article 1 in known as the "enumerated powers" section. Here is where the various powers granted the congress are spelled out. The first article in that section is quoted, verbatim, below.
Section 8
1: 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Taking that literally, strictly as written, how does that limit the power of congress to legislate on any social program it chooses so long as it provides for the "general welfare"?
It is quite simple. The founders were educated and very literate. How can you interpret that any other way? Remember though, you are not supposed to interpret, you are to take it literally.
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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
United States means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
James Madision Fed. 41
"general welfare," as used in the Constitution, is defined by the enumerated powers listed directly afterward, nothing more and nothing less.
i think part of the problem is treating the federalist papers as if they are law. they aren't. our law is comprised of statute and our caselaw. and our caselaw, going back hundreds of years, does not limit what congress is able to do in accordance with the general welfare clause... EXCEPT as to those things which are the sole province of the states.
but the reality is that the supremacy clause, taken together with the general welfare clause and the way they've been construed by caselaw pretty much end any argument against governmental action
I'd say the recent rulings on Obamacare pretty much counter that argument.
Caselaw worked against FDR with his New Deal Program. It was during this time that it became clear that low life bastard had no respect for the separation of powers.
His following appointments were scumbag asskissers. Who did just what you guys hate so much in order to get FDR's Screw Deal on track...the reversed earlier, established decisions.
The decision by Roberts has two seperate dissents (one was going to be a dissent). One says the commerce clause allows it, the other does not. Roberts, in the end, said you can't (you see the federal government can't....as in it would not be grounds for governmental action...whatever the hell that means) use that as a basis.
That he rewrote the statute to fit his ruling is another stain on the court....but that is for a different day.
General Welfare does not mean take from the rich and give to the poor.This is a question for the strict constitutionalists who believe we take the constitution literally, exactly as written.
Section 8 of Article 1 in known as the "enumerated powers" section. Here is where the various powers granted the congress are spelled out. The first article in that section is quoted, verbatim, below.
Section 8
1: 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Taking that literally, strictly as written, how does that limit the power of congress to legislate on any social program it chooses so long as it provides for the "general welfare"?
It is quite simple. The founders were educated and very literate. How can you interpret that any other way? Remember though, you are not supposed to interpret, you are to take it literally.
General Welfare does not mean take from the rich and give to the poor.This is a question for the strict constitutionalists who believe we take the constitution literally, exactly as written.
Section 8 of Article 1 in known as the "enumerated powers" section. Here is where the various powers granted the congress are spelled out. The first article in that section is quoted, verbatim, below.
Section 8
1: 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Taking that literally, strictly as written, how does that limit the power of congress to legislate on any social program it chooses so long as it provides for the "general welfare"?
It is quite simple. The founders were educated and very literate. How can you interpret that any other way? Remember though, you are not supposed to interpret, you are to take it literally.
It means whatever Congress reasonably defines it as.
No one ever said its "wide open to do whatever the fuck it wants". Article I Section 8 Clause 1 only allows Congress to tax, spend, and borrow for the general welfare.General Welfare does not mean take from the rich and give to the poor.
It means whatever Congress reasonably defines it as.
No.. it does not.. or it would have been specifically written that way... The constitution strictly defines government scope and specifically lays out the powers.. it does not and was not intended to leave it wide open to do whatever the fuck it wants
Nice link. Still, Hamilton was not an original author of the Constitution.Hamilton? Ummmm, no he wasn't.Both Hamilton and Madison were original authors of the Constitution, so you can't choose which view to accept based on which is the original view.
....
America's Founding Fathers - Delegates to the Constitutional Convention
Nice link. Still, Hamilton was not an original author of the Constitution.Hamilton? Ummmm, no he wasn't.
America's Founding Fathers - Delegates to the Constitutional Convention
No one ever said its "wide open to do whatever the fuck it wants". Article I Section 8 Clause 1 only allows Congress to tax, spend, and borrow for the general welfare.It means whatever Congress reasonably defines it as.
No.. it does not.. or it would have been specifically written that way... The constitution strictly defines government scope and specifically lays out the powers.. it does not and was not intended to leave it wide open to do whatever the fuck it wants
General Welfare does not mean take from the rich and give to the poor.This is a question for the strict constitutionalists who believe we take the constitution literally, exactly as written.
Section 8 of Article 1 in known as the "enumerated powers" section. Here is where the various powers granted the congress are spelled out. The first article in that section is quoted, verbatim, below.
Section 8
1: 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Taking that literally, strictly as written, how does that limit the power of congress to legislate on any social program it chooses so long as it provides for the "general welfare"?
It is quite simple. The founders were educated and very literate. How can you interpret that any other way? Remember though, you are not supposed to interpret, you are to take it literally.
It means whatever Congress reasonably defines it as.
