The Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal.

[Dragon]

[
No, that's not what I said.
I said the power to spend does not, itself, include the power to appropriate.

"Appropriate," as in "appropriations bill," is another word for "spend." Thus, you're saying that the power to spend does not, itself, include the power to spend. Which makes no sense at all.

This is a long-settled issue. I refer you to United States v. Butler, the Supreme Court case that struck down the AAA as unconstitutional. It describes very well what is and is not authorized under the first clause of I.8.

Horsepucky. SocSec and Medicare are full of regulations, conditions, administration, enforcement. The power to spend does not include the powers to create these things.

Sure it does, as along as all of the regulations, conditions, administration, and enforcement cover ONLY the payment of benefits, which is the case with the Social Security Administration. (Collection of Social Security taxes, also authorized by the first clause, is handled by the IRS instead.)

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
No, that's not what I said.
I said the power to spend does not, itself, include the power to appropriate.

"Appropriate," as in "appropriations bill," is another word for "spend."

False.
"Approprriate" , in legal terms, measn to set aside and/or allocate to/for a purpose
This differs from "spend".
And thus, ny point remains:
-The power to spend does not, itself, include the power to appropriate.
-The power to create legislation for those appropriations are found in clauses 2-17

Horsepucky. SocSec and Medicare are full of regulations, conditions, administration, enforcement. The power to spend does not include the powers to create these things.

Sure it does...

Thank you for illustrating your unseriousness. I shan't waste any more time on you.

 

[Dragon]

"Approprriate" , in legal terms, measn to set aside and/or allocate to/for a purpose
This differs from "spend".

We are discussing the word in a legislative context, which is subtly different from a legal one.

As I said, the matter is long since settled.

United States v. Butler

10. Ours is a dual form of government; in every State there are two Governments -- the State and the United States; each State has all governmental powers save such as the people, by the Constitution, have conferred upon the United States, denied to the States, or reserved to themselves. P. 63.

11. The Government of the United States is a Government of delegated powers; it has only such powers as are expressly conferred upon it by the Constitution and such as are reasonably to be implied from those expressly granted. P. 63

12. The Agricultural Adjustment Act does not purport to regulate transactions in interstate or foreign commerce, and the Government in this case does not attempt to sustain it under the commerce clause of the Constitution. P. 63.

13. In Article I, § 8, cl. 1 of the Constitution, which provides that 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,

the phrase "to provide for the general welfare" is not an independent provision empowering Congress generally to provide for the general welfare, but is a qualification defining and limiting the power "to lay and collect taxes," etc. P. 64.

14. The power to appropriate money from the Treasury (Constitution, Art. I, § 9, cl. 7) is as broad as the power to tax, and the power to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States implies the power to appropriate public funds for that purpose. P. 65.

15. The power to tax and spend is a separate and distinct power; its exercise is not confined to the fields committed to Congress by the other enumerated grants of power, but it is limited by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. P. 65. [p3]

The Court went on to state that while the power to tax and spend is a very broad power, it is not without limits. The AAA attempted to impose, in effect, a regulation beyond the authority of Congress, by the back-door method of using taxing and spending to do so. On this basis the Court struck down the law as unconstitutional. However, in doing so, the Court also affirmed that a separate and distinct power to tax and spend exists, not confined to the purposes of the other enumerated powers, but rather for any cause that can reasonably be described as "for the common defense and general welfare."

Regarding Social Security, I remind you of the final clause of Article I, Section 8, in which Congress is authorized "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers." A law or regulation governing when and to whom and in what amounts Social Security benefits are to be dispersed, is a law necessary and proper to the execution of the power to tax and spend for that purpose. As no Social Security regulation does anything BUT govern when, to whom, and in what amounts Social Security benefits are to be dispersed, they are necessary and proper laws for carrying out the first clause of I.8 in accordance with the Social Security Act.

I am not being "unserious" in the least.

 

[Bern80]

Far from it

Our Constitution provides a broad framework for how government is constructed. It was never intended to be an end in itself and gives each branch broad powers to execute it's job

too stupid!!! why not look up enumerated powers?" Madison wrote it. Is that good enough for the libtard?

The government of the United States [federal government] is a definite government confined to specified objects [powers]. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT."
-James madison


"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." -Jefferson

Let me take a page out of your book.......where does it say that in the Constitution?

Madisons opinions are not legally binding. The powers of Congress are enumerated by the courts

It says it in Article 1 Section 8. Anyone who understand basic english and things like punctuation knows exactly what it says.

If the constitution is not binding why exactly does the president take an oath to defend and uphold it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

too stupid!!! why not look up enumerated powers?" Madison wrote it. Is that good enough for the libtard?

The government of the United States [federal government] is a definite government confined to specified objects [powers]. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT."
-James madison


"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." -Jefferson

Let me take a page out of your book.......where does it say that in the Constitution?

Madisons opinions are not legally binding. The powers of Congress are enumerated by the courts

It says it in Article 1 Section 8. Anyone who understand basic english and things like punctuation knows exactly what it says.

Yes - especially in conjunction with Amendment X.
If the power isn't given, it rests with the states or the people.

 

[rightwinger]

too stupid!!! why not look up enumerated powers?" Madison wrote it. Is that good enough for the libtard?

The government of the United States [federal government] is a definite government confined to specified objects [powers]. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT."
-James madison


"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." -Jefferson

Let me take a page out of your book.......where does it say that in the Constitution?

Madisons opinions are not legally binding. The powers of Congress are enumerated by the courts

It says it in Article 1 Section 8. Anyone who understand basic english and things like punctuation knows exactly what it says.

If the constitution is not binding why exactly does the president take an oath to defend and uphold it?

Rather than reading like a libertarian. You need to read it like the other 98% of Americans and like the courts have interpreted it for 200 years

 

[Bern80]

Let me take a page out of your book.......where does it say that in the Constitution?

Madisons opinions are not legally binding. The powers of Congress are enumerated by the courts

It says it in Article 1 Section 8. Anyone who understand basic english and things like punctuation knows exactly what it says.

If the constitution is not binding why exactly does the president take an oath to defend and uphold it?

Rather than reading like a libertarian. You need to read it like the other 98% of Americans and like the courts have interpreted it for 200 years

Why exactly do I need to do that? I would also venture that probably fewer than 70% of Americans are even mildly familiar with what's actually in the constitution. And more broadly why is you libs have such a problem with limited government? Have you really become that dependent on them?

The point is you asked where it says that. You were told where it says that. Now you're changing your tune andy saying you didn't really want to know where it says that you just want us all to conform with what the courts have said the constitution says rather than what it actually says.

 

[Dragon]

It's worth noting that Bern80 made reference to "punctuation." I've seen that argument made before. It's asserted that the semicolon at the end of the first clause actually means something, as if it were a colon rather than a semicolon. To cut that off before someone brings it up, let's take a look at that section of the Constitution in whole:

"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;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Note that there is no special punctuation setting the first clause off from the other clauses. Every one of the enumerated powers is ended by a semicolon except for the last one, which, being the last, is ended by a period instead.

The clear and obvious meaning of this clause is exactly what the Court said it was in Butler: an independent enumerated power, not subordinate to any of the other enumerated powers.

 

[rightwinger]

It says it in Article 1 Section 8. Anyone who understand basic english and things like punctuation knows exactly what it says.

If the constitution is not binding why exactly does the president take an oath to defend and uphold it?

Rather than reading like a libertarian. You need to read it like the other 98% of Americans and like the courts have interpreted it for 200 years

Why exactly do I need to do that? I would also venture that probably fewer than 70% of Americans are even mildly familiar with what's actually in the constitution. And more broadly why is you libs have such a problem with limited government? Have you really become that dependent on them?

Why don't you do us a favor?

Go to some of your libertarian sites and explain to us all about Article 1 Section 8

We can post it in the humor section

 

[M14 Shooter]

It says it in Article 1 Section 8. Anyone who understand basic english and things like punctuation knows exactly what it says.

If the constitution is not binding why exactly does the president take an oath to defend and uphold it?

Rather than reading like a libertarian. You need to read it like the other 98% of Americans and like the courts have interpreted it for 200 years

And more broadly why is you libs have such a problem with limited government? Have you really become that dependent on them?

Liberals use the power of the welfare state to buy votes.
Reduce/eliminate this and their voter base will shrink.
Thus, their incessant desire to expand the power of government.

 

[Dragon]

Liberals use the power of the welfare state to buy votes.
Reduce/eliminate this and their voter base will shrink.
Thus, their incessant desire to expand the power of government.

Pshaw. Instead of playing psychoanalysis games for which you obviously lack the necessary skill and training, why don't you try once more to explain why what you are arguing makes any sense? There's a good kid.

 

[Bern80]

It's worth noting that Bern80 made reference to "punctuation." I've seen that argument made before. It's asserted that the semicolon at the end of the first clause actually means something, as if it were a colon rather than a semicolon. To cut that off before someone brings it up, let's take a look at that section of the Constitution in whole:

"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;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Note that there is no special punctuation setting the first clause off from the other clauses. Every one of the enumerated powers is ended by a semicolon except for the last one, which, being the last, is ended by a period instead.

The clear and obvious meaning of this clause is exactly what the Court said it was in Butler: an independent enumerated power, not subordinate to any of the other enumerated powers.

And the guy who origianlly wrote it disagreed with him in Federalist 41.

 

[rightwinger]

It says it in Article 1 Section 8. Anyone who understand basic english and things like punctuation knows exactly what it says.

If the constitution is not binding why exactly does the president take an oath to defend and uphold it?

Rather than reading like a libertarian. You need to read it like the other 98% of Americans and like the courts have interpreted it for 200 years

Why exactly do I need to do that? I would also venture that probably fewer than 70% of Americans are even mildly familiar with what's actually in the constitution. And more broadly why is you libs have such a problem with limited government? Have you really become that dependent on them?

The point is you asked where it says that. You were told where it says that. Now you're changing your tune andy saying you didn't really want to know where it says that you just want us all to conform with what the courts have said the constitution says rather than what it actually says.

Other than in your twisted libertarian mind.....it doesn't say anything close to that

 

[Bern80]

Rather than reading like a libertarian. You need to read it like the other 98% of Americans and like the courts have interpreted it for 200 years

Why exactly do I need to do that? I would also venture that probably fewer than 70% of Americans are even mildly familiar with what's actually in the constitution. And more broadly why is you libs have such a problem with limited government? Have you really become that dependent on them?

Why don't you do us a favor?

Go to some of your libertarian sites and explain to us all about Article 1 Section 8

We can post it in the humor section

Why don't YOU do the rest of us a favor. Borrow some intellectual integrity from someone and answer the question. Why exactly do we need to interpret the constitution based on court ruling precedent as opposed to what it actually says? And explain to the rest of us your 'informed' opinion as to why a limited government is so darn dangerous for a society.

 

[Bern80]

Rather than reading like a libertarian. You need to read it like the other 98% of Americans and like the courts have interpreted it for 200 years

Why exactly do I need to do that? I would also venture that probably fewer than 70% of Americans are even mildly familiar with what's actually in the constitution. And more broadly why is you libs have such a problem with limited government? Have you really become that dependent on them?

The point is you asked where it says that. You were told where it says that. Now you're changing your tune andy saying you didn't really want to know where it says that you just want us all to conform with what the courts have said the constitution says rather than what it actually says.

Other than in your twisted libertarian mind.....it doesn't say anything close to that

And Madison's and Jefferson's. Don't forget those guys. Not that the authors opinion should carry any weight.

 

[Dragon]

And the guy who origianlly wrote it disagreed with him in Federalist 41.

There was no one "guy who originally wrote it." The Constitution was written by a committee. And it was AT LEAST as much the work of Madison's co-author of the Federalist Papers, whose interpretation conflicted with Madison's sharply.

 

[rightwinger]

Why exactly do I need to do that? I would also venture that probably fewer than 70% of Americans are even mildly familiar with what's actually in the constitution. And more broadly why is you libs have such a problem with limited government? Have you really become that dependent on them?

Why don't you do us a favor?

Go to some of your libertarian sites and explain to us all about Article 1 Section 8

We can post it in the humor section

Why don't YOU do the rest of us a favor. Borrow some intellectual integrity from someone and answer the question. Why exactly do we need to interpret the constitution based on court ruling precedent as opposed to what it actually says? And explain to the rest of us your 'informed' opinion as to why a limited government is so darn dangerous for a society.

Because courts have the constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution and right wing libertarian message board posters do not

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why exactly do I need to do that? I would also venture that probably fewer than 70% of Americans are even mildly familiar with what's actually in the constitution. And more broadly why is you libs have such a problem with limited government? Have you really become that dependent on them?

The point is you asked where it says that. You were told where it says that. Now you're changing your tune andy saying you didn't really want to know where it says that you just want us all to conform with what the courts have said the constitution says rather than what it actually says.

Other than in your twisted libertarian mind.....it doesn't say anything close to that

And Madison's and Jefferson's. Don't forget those guys. Not that the authors opinion should carry any weight.

The left is more than happy to authoritatively cite the people that put the Constitution together when it suits them - such as, oh, Hamilton, in reference to the 'general welfare clause'.

Of course, none of them can explain how the Hamiltonian view is sound and the Madisonian view is not.

 

[Bern80]

And the guy who origianlly wrote it disagreed with him in Federalist 41.

There was no one "guy who originally wrote it." The Constitution was written by a committee. And it was AT LEAST as much the work of Madison's co-author of the Federalist Papers, whose interpretation conflicted with Madison's sharply.

I assume you're referring to Hamilton cause he's kind of the liberal's guy when it comes to this clause. They all jump up 'but Hamilton, see! see! but Hamilton said different.' It's really pretty pathetic and laughable. Did Hamilton have a broader view of the clause? Yes. But even he noted that it not grant unlimited spending power. Taxes collected still had to spent for the general welfare of the citizens. And to him those two words were important; General Welfare as in for the betterment (welfare) of everyone (general). Even he would still consider social programs like social security, unconstitutional. And I would think objective scholars such as yourselves might take note of the fact that of the many authors of the constition, Hamilton seems to be the ONLY one of them any of you are ever able to point to as supporting your view (even though he really didn't).

 

[Bern80]

Why don't you do us a favor?

Go to some of your libertarian sites and explain to us all about Article 1 Section 8

We can post it in the humor section

Why don't YOU do the rest of us a favor. Borrow some intellectual integrity from someone and answer the question. Why exactly do we need to interpret the constitution based on court ruling precedent as opposed to what it actually says? And explain to the rest of us your 'informed' opinion as to why a limited government is so darn dangerous for a society.

Because courts have the constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution and right wing libertarian message board posters do not

Their authority is not in question. The presumption that they are infallible and or only capable of interpreting correctly, is. Since you're so keen and askig us to cite things out of the constitution why don't you do so for us? Where exactly is it stated that however a judge rules, no matter what the ruling, it is always thereafter to be considered to be constitutional?