General Welfare Clause

[LibertyLemming]

From my uderstanding, progressives, both Democrat and Republican alike, use the General Welfare Clause of the Contitution to give the nanny state legitimacy. They interpret it to say that Congress has the power to tend to the general welfare of the public at large, so any taxpayer money spent to that end is legitimate.

However, have they ever read the writings of the Father of the Constitution who is James Madison? He wrote about the General Welfare Clause because he wrote it himself, and this was what he said about it.

"If Congress can supply money indefinately to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the welfare, they may appoint teachers in every state, country, and parish and pay them out of their public treasury, they may take into their own hands the education of the children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union; they may assume the provision of the poor, they ma undertake the regulations of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything from the highest objects of state legislation down to the minute objects of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress......were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundation, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."

After reading what the author had to say about the General Welfare Clause, how can progressives falsely interpret it to defend the nanny state? I would have more respect for them had they just disagreed with the Constitution and tried to amed it.

This country and every other modern industrial country with high literacy rates and low mortality rates has provided for the general welfare through taxation. How would schools, roads, education, police and fire protection etc. be paid for otherwise?
So maybe this was Madison's thinking at that time. He also didn't object to slavery and to having only propertied white males allowed to vote.

I'll post this one again:

I would also contend that the founders would never approve taxation on labor because it is a violation of a persons liberty and theft of their property, which is obviously protected in numerous places in the Constitution.

 

[OKTexas]

From my uderstanding, progressives, both Democrat and Republican alike, use the General Welfare Clause of the Contitution to give the nanny state legitimacy. They interpret it to say that Congress has the power to tend to the general welfare of the public at large, so any taxpayer money spent to that end is legitimate.

Most people in this day and age believe the feds can pledge funds for internal improvements like roads. Does that radical interpretation of the Constitution make them all progressives?

Nope, just simply uninformed. You can't do better if you don't know better.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From my uderstanding, progressives, both Democrat and Republican alike, use the General Welfare Clause of the Contitution to give the nanny state legitimacy. They interpret it to say that Congress has the power to tend to the general welfare of the public at large, so any taxpayer money spent to that end is legitimate.

Most people in this day and age believe the feds can pledge funds for internal improvements like roads. Does that radical interpretation of the Constitution make them all progressives?

Does entirely missing the point of the OP make you think you are intelligent?

 

[Oddball]

From my uderstanding, progressives, both Democrat and Republican alike, use the General Welfare Clause of the Contitution to give the nanny state legitimacy. They interpret it to say that Congress has the power to tend to the general welfare of the public at large, so any taxpayer money spent to that end is legitimate.

Most people in this day and age believe the feds can pledge funds for internal improvements like roads. Does that radical interpretation of the Constitution make them all progressives?

Ah, the old roads and bridges chestnut.

Roads and bridges are paid for primarily via fuel taxes, which are universally paid, by hook or by crook, by everyone who utilizes those roads and bridges....Moreover, those roads and bridges are universally accessible to everyone, practically anytime they want to use them.

What they are not is a massive scam to try and take resources from those who have earned them, for the purpose of feathering the nests of those who haven't earned them, which is what Marxist central planners like you are all about when you bastardize the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses.

 

[Greenbeard]

From my uderstanding, progressives, both Democrat and Republican alike, use the General Welfare Clause of the Contitution to give the nanny state legitimacy. They interpret it to say that Congress has the power to tend to the general welfare of the public at large, so any taxpayer money spent to that end is legitimate.

Most people in this day and age believe the feds can pledge funds for internal improvements like roads. Does that radical interpretation of the Constitution make them all progressives?

But it does not end there, does it? Many also believe that the feds can provide them a retirement, health care, food stamps, a new house once on Staten Island, a "decent wage", etc, etc, etc.

In short, once you go down that road where do you draw the line? I realize this way of thinking seems radical and subversive to many, but do realize this his how the country started out. Perhaps what is radical and subversive is what is going on today.

That viewpoint was becoming antiquated, even as Madison continued to espouse it in his own day. Such a narrow reading of the Constitution that the feds aren't even allowed to finance roads wasn't tenable in the 19th century and it certainly isn't something that would work in the modern United States. We're a world power at the forefront of a global economy.

 

[Mr. H.]

Congress should intoduce an addendum, calling for a rational perspetive on factual debate. A semblence of sanity.

But alas, as us adults know, there really is no sannity clause.

 

[Votto]

Most people in this day and age believe the feds can pledge funds for internal improvements like roads. Does that radical interpretation of the Constitution make them all progressives?

But it does not end there, does it? Many also believe that the feds can provide them a retirement, health care, food stamps, a new house once on Staten Island, a "decent wage", etc, etc, etc.

In short, once you go down that road where do you draw the line? I realize this way of thinking seems radical and subversive to many, but do realize this his how the country started out. Perhaps what is radical and subversive is what is going on today.

That viewpoint was becoming antiquated, even as Madison continued to espouse it in his own day. Such a narrow reading of the Constitution that the feds aren't even allowed to finance roads wasn't tenable in the 19th century and it certainly isn't something that would work in the modern United States. We're a world power at the forefront of a global economy.

Antiquated? The progressive movement is over a century old and you call us antiquated?

Look, the country is on borrowed time. Even Obama stated that the current fiscal path is not sustainable yet he does not flinch. All I wonder is what alternatives will there be when it all hits the fan? My guess is that statists will seek to further consolidate power and give a body like the IMF full power over the citizens of the US. At that point sovereignty will no doubt be deemed antiquated. Then again, perhaps freedom is also antiquated as well.

 

[Oddball]

Most people in this day and age believe the feds can pledge funds for internal improvements like roads. Does that radical interpretation of the Constitution make them all progressives?

But it does not end there, does it? Many also believe that the feds can provide them a retirement, health care, food stamps, a new house once on Staten Island, a "decent wage", etc, etc, etc.

In short, once you go down that road where do you draw the line? I realize this way of thinking seems radical and subversive to many, but do realize this his how the country started out. Perhaps what is radical and subversive is what is going on today.

That viewpoint was becoming antiquated, even as Madison continued to espouse it in his own day. Such a narrow reading of the Constitution that the feds aren't even allowed to finance roads wasn't tenable in the 19th century and it certainly isn't something that would work in the modern United States. We're a world power at the forefront of a global economy.

Roads were and still are largely financed by constitutionally provided (Article 1, Section 8) excises on fuel sales.

The rest of that dreck is just a big elitist red herring, under the pretense that authoritarian central planners like you are soooooo much smarter than the architects of the original republic, which you aren't.

 

[Greenbeard]

Antiquated? The progressive movement is over a century old and you call us antiquated?

Assuming that your purpose here is to espouse a Madisonian understanding of the federal government's authority to tax and spend, yes, that's antiquated. It doesn't allow the feds to pledge funds to internal improvements like roads. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many folks in the modern United States who don't believe the feds can pay to build or repair infrastructure.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Guess nobody saw my hilarious meme

 

[Listening]

Antiquated? The progressive movement is over a century old and you call us antiquated?

Assuming that your purpose here is to espouse a Madisonian understanding of the federal government's authority to tax and spend, yes, that's antiquated. It doesn't allow the feds to pledge funds to internal improvements like roads. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many folks in the modern United States who don't believe the feds can pay to build or repair infrastructure.

What is weak is trying to define the Madisonian understanding in terms of one issue.

Such a view does not preclude anything. In this instance, if they hadn't done it already....there would be resistance to do it.

Just because it happens here does not justify moving onto things like health care which is clearly unconstitutional (and please don't hold up Roberts vomit laced decision).

 

[Votto]

Antiquated? The progressive movement is over a century old and you call us antiquated?

Assuming that your purpose here is to espouse a Madisonian understanding of the federal government's authority to tax and spend, yes, that's antiquated. It doesn't allow the feds to pledge funds to internal improvements like roads. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many folks in the modern United States who don't believe the feds can pay to build or repair infrastructure.

My point here is that both systems are antiquated. It just so happens that the progressive system subverted the original system. Also, I see no reason why states cannot take care of themselves.

In fact, with such a low approval rating for Congress, I would think that democracy demands an end to the progressive system and a return to Federalism. The only quesiton is how to get the power back to the people since the establishment has the system held hostage through various schemes?

 

[Greenbeard]

Antiquated? The progressive movement is over a century old and you call us antiquated?

Assuming that your purpose here is to espouse a Madisonian understanding of the federal government's authority to tax and spend, yes, that's antiquated. It doesn't allow the feds to pledge funds to internal improvements like roads. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many folks in the modern United States who don't believe the feds can pay to build or repair infrastructure.

What is weak is trying to define the Madisonian understanding in terms of one issue.

I choose this one because it's a reductio ad absurdum of Madison's position. His understanding of the Constitution preluded federal investments in public works or infrastructure. If you don't share that view, then you don't share Madison's understanding of the Constitution. And so you can stop using him to point fingers and cast aspersions on others who also don't share his view (as many didn't even during his own time).

And if you happen to be in the extreme minority that thinks the feds can't pay for infrastructure, kudos on your consistency.

 

[OKTexas]

Most people in this day and age believe the feds can pledge funds for internal improvements like roads. Does that radical interpretation of the Constitution make them all progressives?

But it does not end there, does it? Many also believe that the feds can provide them a retirement, health care, food stamps, a new house once on Staten Island, a "decent wage", etc, etc, etc.

In short, once you go down that road where do you draw the line? I realize this way of thinking seems radical and subversive to many, but do realize this his how the country started out. Perhaps what is radical and subversive is what is going on today.

That viewpoint was becoming antiquated, even as Madison continued to espouse it in his own day. Such a narrow reading of the Constitution that the feds aren't even allowed to finance roads wasn't tenable in the 19th century and it certainly isn't something that would work in the modern United States. We're a world power at the forefront of a global economy.

If that portion was antiquated then there would have been a reason for an amendment, not just ignoring the law. So simple even you should understand.

 

[OKTexas]

But it does not end there, does it? Many also believe that the feds can provide them a retirement, health care, food stamps, a new house once on Staten Island, a "decent wage", etc, etc, etc.

In short, once you go down that road where do you draw the line? I realize this way of thinking seems radical and subversive to many, but do realize this his how the country started out. Perhaps what is radical and subversive is what is going on today.

That viewpoint was becoming antiquated, even as Madison continued to espouse it in his own day. Such a narrow reading of the Constitution that the feds aren't even allowed to finance roads wasn't tenable in the 19th century and it certainly isn't something that would work in the modern United States. We're a world power at the forefront of a global economy.

Roads were and still are largely financed by constitutionally provided (Article 1, Section 8) excises on fuel sales.

The rest of that dreck is just a big elitist red herring, under the pretense that authoritarian central planners like you are soooooo much smarter than the architects of the original republic, which you aren't.

Actually the only roads authorized are postal roads, at the time it was written that would have been between post offices only.

 

[LibertyLemming]

I'm confused.... is someone trying to claim without taxation by force and government there would be no roads?

 

[Greenbeard]

If that portion was antiquated then there would have been a reason for an amendment, not just ignoring the law. So simple even you should understand.

There's isn't any need to amend it for that. The actual text, "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," works just fine.

 

[Oddball]

That viewpoint was becoming antiquated, even as Madison continued to espouse it in his own day. Such a narrow reading of the Constitution that the feds aren't even allowed to finance roads wasn't tenable in the 19th century and it certainly isn't something that would work in the modern United States. We're a world power at the forefront of a global economy.

Roads were and still are largely financed by constitutionally provided (Article 1, Section 8) excises on fuel sales.

The rest of that dreck is just a big elitist red herring, under the pretense that authoritarian central planners like you are soooooo much smarter than the architects of the original republic, which you aren't.

Actually the only roads authorized are postal roads, at the time it was written that would have been between post offices only.

I understand that.

Fact remains that the mechanism to pay for such roads was via constitutionally valid imposts, duties and excises, not via massive central direct taxation and redistribution scams, which Marxist central planner windbags like Pinkbeard claim fall under the rubric of "general welfare".

 

[LibertyLemming]

What say you about taxing labor?

Do you agree wtih my signature:

"Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor. Seizing the results of someone's labor is equivalent to seizing hours from him and directing him to carry on various activities. " ?

If so, the 13th amendment provides against involuntary servitude. Also, the Bill of Rights protects my right to not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

 

[Oddball]

I'm confused.... is someone trying to claim without taxation by force and government there would be no roads?

No, a progressive/socialist authoritarian central planner type is trying to use roads and bridges, as a vehicle to stretch his notion of "general welfare" around just about every other aspect of the modern socialistic welfare state.

It's a horribly old and pedantic ploy.