article 1 section 8

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

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.

And you YET AGAIN do not include the whole phrase..

OF THE UNITED STATES.. you see, CONTEXT means everything... and as WRITTEN, it means for the UNION.... not for individuals....

And you said "whatever Congress reasonably defines it as".. this is NOT a power granted to the legislature by the constitution AT ALL

Words were chosen for reason, winger... limits were put in place for a reason.. and the 10th amendment was put in place for a reason.. if the power is not SPECIFICALLY granted, the federal government does not have it... it is reserved for the states and the people... congress does not have to power to hand out for individual personal needs, and it does not have the power to define it in whatever fashion they want to make article 1 section 8 a 'catch all clause' that makes the rest of the constitution powerless

You continue to insist that the Court's interpretation of the GW clause of the Constitution renders the rest powerless and meaningless. It does not. The GW clause only grants Congress the authority to tax spend and borrow for the general welfare - it does not grant Congress any regulatory authority whatsoever. It can not regulate however it wants for the general welfare - it may only tax and spend however it wants for the general welfare. Its an important distinction and you clearly still don't understand it. I would recommend you actually read the relevant portions of U.S. v Butler rather than continuing to rely on your erroneous understanding of the decision.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

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

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.

Describe general welfare? I could make the argument that forcing everyone to shop at Wal-Mart would promote the general welfare, since Wal-Mart's prices are lower than other stores. Slap on a tax if you don't shop there and it's a done deal.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

And you YET AGAIN do not include the whole phrase..

OF THE UNITED STATES.. you see, CONTEXT means everything... and as WRITTEN, it means for the UNION.... not for individuals....

And you said "whatever Congress reasonably defines it as".. this is NOT a power granted to the legislature by the constitution AT ALL

Words were chosen for reason, winger... limits were put in place for a reason.. and the 10th amendment was put in place for a reason.. if the power is not SPECIFICALLY granted, the federal government does not have it... it is reserved for the states and the people... congress does not have to power to hand out for individual personal needs, and it does not have the power to define it in whatever fashion they want to make article 1 section 8 a 'catch all clause' that makes the rest of the constitution powerless

You continue to insist that the Court's interpretation of the GW clause of the Constitution renders the rest powerless and meaningless. It does not. The GW clause only grants Congress the authority to tax spend and borrow for the general welfare - it does not grant Congress any regulatory authority whatsoever. It can not regulate however it wants for the general welfare - it may only tax and spend however it wants for the general welfare. Its an important distinction and you clearly still don't understand it. I would recommend you actually read the relevant portions of U.S. v Butler rather than continuing to rely on your erroneous understanding of the decision.

OF THE UNION.. not of individuals.. it is CLEARLY written... not hard to understand, unless you failed basic English

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

General Welfare does not mean take from the rich and give to the poor.

It means whatever Congress reasonably defines it as.

Actually it means the areas described within Article 1, Section 8 specifically and nothing else.

If that were the case it would be an utterly pointless clause that may as well have not even been included.

 

[DiamondDave]

It means whatever Congress reasonably defines it as.

Actually it means the areas described within Article 1, Section 8 specifically and nothing else.

If that were the case it would be an utterly pointless clause that may as well have not even been included.

No.. it has a very distinct point.. just not an unlimited one like you would have it be, and as it has been bastardized to be

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And you YET AGAIN do not include the whole phrase..

OF THE UNITED STATES.. you see, CONTEXT means everything... and as WRITTEN, it means for the UNION.... not for individuals....

And you said "whatever Congress reasonably defines it as".. this is NOT a power granted to the legislature by the constitution AT ALL

Words were chosen for reason, winger... limits were put in place for a reason.. and the 10th amendment was put in place for a reason.. if the power is not SPECIFICALLY granted, the federal government does not have it... it is reserved for the states and the people... congress does not have to power to hand out for individual personal needs, and it does not have the power to define it in whatever fashion they want to make article 1 section 8 a 'catch all clause' that makes the rest of the constitution powerless

You continue to insist that the Court's interpretation of the GW clause of the Constitution renders the rest powerless and meaningless. It does not. The GW clause only grants Congress the authority to tax spend and borrow for the general welfare - it does not grant Congress any regulatory authority whatsoever. It can not regulate however it wants for the general welfare - it may only tax and spend however it wants for the general welfare. Its an important distinction and you clearly still don't understand it. I would recommend you actually read the relevant portions of U.S. v Butler rather than continuing to rely on your erroneous understanding of the decision.

OF THE UNION.. not of individuals.. it is CLEARLY written... not hard to understand, unless you failed basic English

The Constitution leaves "general welfare" open to interpretation by reasonable men, subject to a check by the President and courts. (It does just the same with "necessary and proper" - obviously "proper" is a pretty vague term) Congress has determined the social safety net to be in the best interest of the nation as a whole - that you disagree does not make it unconstitutional.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

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.

Describe general welfare? I could make the argument that forcing everyone to shop at Wal-Mart would promote the general welfare, since Wal-Mart's prices are lower than other stores. Slap on a tax if you don't shop there and it's a done deal.

Forcing someone to shop at Wal Mart under penalty of law is not taxing, spending, or borrowing, so it would not be allowed under the general welfare clause. Giving someone a tax incentive to shop at a particular store - Wal Mart - is not "general".

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Actually it means the areas described within Article 1, Section 8 specifically and nothing else.

If that were the case it would be an utterly pointless clause that may as well have not even been included.

No.. it has a very distinct point.. just not an unlimited one like you would have it be, and as it has been bastardized to be

You clearly still do not get it. I'm not saying the GW clause is unlimited in scope. I'm saying it only gives Congress the authority tax, spend, and borrow for the general welfare and common defence. That's not an "unlimited" authority. It doesn't allow Congress to regulate however it wishes for the general welfare - ONLY to tax, spend, and borrow. Do you seriously not get that?

Under your ridiculous interpretation, where GW is restricted by the following enumerated powers - the entire clause may as well have not been written. under your ridiculous interpretation, what additional power does it grant Congress that isn't found in the following powers?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

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.

Describe general welfare? I could make the argument that forcing everyone to shop at Wal-Mart would promote the general welfare, since Wal-Mart's prices are lower than other stores. Slap on a tax if you don't shop there and it's a done deal.

Forcing someone to shop at Wal Mart under penalty of law is not taxing, spending, or borrowing, so it would not be allowed under the general welfare clause. Giving someone a tax incentive to shop at a particular store - Wal Mart - is not "general".

But it's not a penalty, it's a tax.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Actually it means the areas described within Article 1, Section 8 specifically and nothing else.

If that were the case it would be an utterly pointless clause that may as well have not even been included.

No.. it has a very distinct point.. just not an unlimited one like you would have it be, and as it has been bastardized to be

Which I explained in my earlier post by showing the quotes of the founders in regards to article 1, section 8 both from the federalist papers and other sources.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Describe general welfare? I could make the argument that forcing everyone to shop at Wal-Mart would promote the general welfare, since Wal-Mart's prices are lower than other stores. Slap on a tax if you don't shop there and it's a done deal.

Forcing someone to shop at Wal Mart under penalty of law is not taxing, spending, or borrowing, so it would not be allowed under the general welfare clause. Giving someone a tax incentive to shop at a particular store - Wal Mart - is not "general".

But it's not a penalty, it's a tax.

ok

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If that were the case it would be an utterly pointless clause that may as well have not even been included.

No.. it has a very distinct point.. just not an unlimited one like you would have it be, and as it has been bastardized to be

Which I explained in my earlier post by showing the quotes of the founders in regards to article 1, section 8 both from the federalist papers and other sources.

Hamilton and Madison disagree on the meaning of the GW clause. The Court has adopted Hamilton's view.

 

[Listening]

No.. it has a very distinct point.. just not an unlimited one like you would have it be, and as it has been bastardized to be

Which I explained in my earlier post by showing the quotes of the founders in regards to article 1, section 8 both from the federalist papers and other sources.

Hamilton and Madison disagree on the meaning of the GW clause. The Court has adopted Hamilton's view.

Please show us where they said that ?

 

[The T]

No.. it has a very distinct point.. just not an unlimited one like you would have it be, and as it has been bastardized to be

Which I explained in my earlier post by showing the quotes of the founders in regards to article 1, section 8 both from the federalist papers and other sources.

Hamilton and Madison disagree on the meaning of the GW clause. The Court has adopted Hamilton's view.

Quote it.

 

[Listening]

If that were the case it would be an utterly pointless clause that may as well have not even been included.

No.. it has a very distinct point.. just not an unlimited one like you would have it be, and as it has been bastardized to be

Which I explained in my earlier post by showing the quotes of the founders in regards to article 1, section 8 both from the federalist papers and other sources.

You are wasting your breath.

The GW clause will always be the rabbit hole the left jumps down when they need to figure out how to get their friends on the government dole.

 

[DiamondDave]

If that were the case it would be an utterly pointless clause that may as well have not even been included.

No.. it has a very distinct point.. just not an unlimited one like you would have it be, and as it has been bastardized to be

You clearly still do not get it. I'm not saying the GW clause is unlimited in scope. I'm saying it only gives Congress the authority tax, spend, and borrow for the general welfare and common defence. That's not an "unlimited" authority. It doesn't allow Congress to regulate however it wishes for the general welfare - ONLY to tax, spend, and borrow. Do you seriously not get that?

Under your ridiculous interpretation, where GW is restricted by the following enumerated powers - the entire clause may as well have not been written. under your ridiculous interpretation, what additional power does it grant Congress that isn't found in the following powers?

As soon as you admit that with the COMPLETE PHRASE, it means of the UNION, not of individuals..

Until you get this thru your thick skull, you have zero point and zero credibility

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

 

[Listening]

No.. it has a very distinct point.. just not an unlimited one like you would have it be, and as it has been bastardized to be

You clearly still do not get it. I'm not saying the GW clause is unlimited in scope. I'm saying it only gives Congress the authority tax, spend, and borrow for the general welfare and common defence. That's not an "unlimited" authority. It doesn't allow Congress to regulate however it wishes for the general welfare - ONLY to tax, spend, and borrow. Do you seriously not get that?

Under your ridiculous interpretation, where GW is restricted by the following enumerated powers - the entire clause may as well have not been written. under your ridiculous interpretation, what additional power does it grant Congress that isn't found in the following powers?

As soon as you admit that with the COMPLETE PHRASE, it means of the UNION, not of individuals..

Until you get this thru your thick skull, you have zero point and zero credibility

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

All one need do is look at:

The Articles of Confederaton:

The Federalist Papers:

Historical relationship between the states and the country:

To realize that these arguments are simply crap.

All that was needed was for FDR to fudgepack the court with his liberal stooges and everything changed. But that is all the history that the left wants (outside of Madison v. Marburry which is another treatment altogether...there is nothing sacrosanct about what Marshall said...but Bork believes he saved the country). Anything else pretty much blows their universe apart.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

No.. it has a very distinct point.. just not an unlimited one like you would have it be, and as it has been bastardized to be

Which I explained in my earlier post by showing the quotes of the founders in regards to article 1, section 8 both from the federalist papers and other sources.

You are wasting your breath.

The GW clause will always be the rabbit hole the left jumps down when they need to figure out how to get their friends on the government dole.

There is a reason I didn't respond to his earlier comment.......because I already know he can't produce what he claims in regards to article 1, section 8.

But I'm always willing to say I'm wrong if he does do so.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Which I explained in my earlier post by showing the quotes of the founders in regards to article 1, section 8 both from the federalist papers and other sources.

Hamilton and Madison disagree on the meaning of the GW clause. The Court has adopted Hamilton's view.

Please show us where they said that ?

Here's Hamilton's view:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Which I explained in my earlier post by showing the quotes of the founders in regards to article 1, section 8 both from the federalist papers and other sources.

Hamilton and Madison disagree on the meaning of the GW clause. The Court has adopted Hamilton's view.

Please show us where they said that ?

Here's Hamilton's view:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

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.