The 'General Welfare' thread

[manifold]

You can't blame the founders for the 'vagueness'. I put that in parentheses really because there is no vagueness. When people cite only the first portion of the clause as evidence that government can do pretty much whatever it wants in the name of the general welfare, the fact is they are not quoting the clause in its entirety. They are omitting the list of enumerated powers that follow it in order to make their case which is about as intellectually dishonest as it gets. Madison (one of the founders you say we should blame) said as much in federalist 41. The only thing you can blame him for is possible naivete in assuming future generations would abide by rules of written english that say that which comes after a semi-colon is meant to refer to what came before it.

So what do you make of Steward Machine Co. v Davis?

Do you agree with the site I linked that FDR usurped the Constitution in implementing SS, which was allowed to happen by the SCOTUS in ruling SS constitutional in this decision?

Do you know the history of it? The same court previously found it UNCONSTITUIONAL and only relented due to Emporor Roosevelts threats to neuter them.

The decision still stands until reversed right?

So again, how many justices do you think would rule SS unconstitutional today if given the chance? I'd guess zero. But I guess Scalia and Thomas are possibles.

 

[kaz]

Thank you, the argument I've been making as as well. Things like National Parks, Interstate highways, military defense of the US and things like serve the general interest of the United States and whether you think we should or shouldn't spend on those things, they are reasonably Constitional at least. Clearly redistribution of money in all it's forms is not in the General Welfare of the United States. It's not that hard.

And you have to ignore the 10th amendment as well. Why did people who thought they'd created a limited government and write the 9th and 10th amendments then say government can do anything? It makes no sense.

So let's assume you are right.

What do you think can be done about it? Especially since we now know that there actually exists a precedent (Steward Machine Co. v Davis) where the decision effectively established that: Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare."

How many justices do you think would rule today that Social Security is in fact unconstitutional given the chance?

Probably none would rule social security is unconstitutional. The Supreme court also ruled the government could confiscate land for private use and congress could regulate political speech leading into elections as well. On the flip side they make up rights like the right to an abortion. The supreme court is government. I agree with you and have agreed with you that nothing is going to change. But I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take from that. Am I supposed to just start drinking the kool-aid and stop saying what's right because it's not going to change?

 

[manifold]

That you ignore the deffinition of the "GENERAL welfare of the United States" doesn't mean the word GENERAL means anything other than what it does. Taking money from the public at large (That would be the GENERAL public for idiots) DETRACTS from the GENERAL welfare, giving it to a specific minority of individuals only adds to those individuals SPECIFIC welfare. The congress is NOT empowered to DETRACT from the GENERAL welfare to provide some people with SPECIFIC welfare. Considering this practice providing for the GENERAL welfare is purposefully ignoring the clear deffinition of the actual words and replacing them with the idea of the words you want to be there. If you call an apple an orange... it's not a fucking orange, you're just an idiot.

Thank you, the argument I've been making as as well. Things like National Parks, Interstate highways, military defense of the US and things like serve the general interest of the United States and whether you think we should or shouldn't spend on those things, they are reasonably Constitional at least. Clearly redistribution of money in all it's forms is not in the General Welfare of the United States. It's not that hard.

And you have to ignore the 10th amendment as well. Why did people who thought they'd created a limited government and write the 9th and 10th amendments then say government can do anything? It makes no sense.

To succumb to the progressive deffinition of the clause requires one to suffer from a severe and purposeful reading comprehension defficiency.

Even if the clause stopped at "general welfare" (which it doesn't) you'd have to ignore the definition of "gerneral" to assume the government can take money from the generalpublic to give it to the few lazy ignorant bastards on the dole.

You should leave the trolling to the experts skippy, you're not very good at it.

And if you're not trolling intentionally, that's an even poorer reflection on your contribution since the "If you disagree with me it's because you're a moron" argument is decidedly underwhelming and threadbare.

 

[manifold]

Thank you, the argument I've been making as as well. Things like National Parks, Interstate highways, military defense of the US and things like serve the general interest of the United States and whether you think we should or shouldn't spend on those things, they are reasonably Constitional at least. Clearly redistribution of money in all it's forms is not in the General Welfare of the United States. It's not that hard.

And you have to ignore the 10th amendment as well. Why did people who thought they'd created a limited government and write the 9th and 10th amendments then say government can do anything? It makes no sense.

So let's assume you are right.

What do you think can be done about it? Especially since we now know that there actually exists a precedent (Steward Machine Co. v Davis) where the decision effectively established that: Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare."

How many justices do you think would rule today that Social Security is in fact unconstitutional given the chance?

Probably none would rule social security is unconstitutional. The Supreme court also ruled the government could confiscate land for private use and congress could regulate political speech leading into elections as well. On the flip side they make up rights like the right to an abortion. The supreme court is government. I agree with you and have agreed with you that nothing is going to change. But I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take from that. Am I supposed to just start drinking the kool-aid and stop saying what's right because it's not going to change?

 

[kaz]

So again, how many justices do you think would rule SS unconstitutional today if given the chance? I'd guess zero. But I guess Scalia and Thomas are possibles.

Maybe. But O'Connor, a supposed conservative found in the Constitution that specifically 25 years of discrimination was in the Constitution. The conservatives have refused to overturn the Constitutional abomination that is Roe v. Wade. They might vote for it if they would not win, I doubt they would vote for it if they would. Republicans like to stand on principle then back down to win elections. People overwhelmingly support SS/Medicare not realizing it is one of the greatest evils ever perpetrated on them by government along with ObamaCare . Any program that provides everyone a government check gives politicians power over them.

 

[Liberty]

Interpret? I "interpret" it the way that the author of the cosntitution HIMSELF, James Madison outlines in federalist 41.

In a more remote stage, the imports may consist in a considerable part of raw materials, which will be wrought into articles for exportation, and will, therefore, require rather the encouragement of bounties, than to be loaded with discouraging duties. A system of government, meant for duration, ought to contemplate these revolutions, and be able to accommodate itself to them. Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.

''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? 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? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.

But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.

But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

Think about it, if providing the general welfare meant that the federal government could do ANYTHING in the name of helping the people...then WHY HAVE ENUMERATED POWERS AT ALL? James Madison explains this fallacy perfectly. Wilson and FDR WERE WRONG. get over it.

Madison says "But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity"

The phrase is not PART of the constitution it is SIMPLY AN INTRODUCTION to the enumerated powers. In lamens terms it means "In order to provide general welfare, we are enumerating the powers of the government"

NOT: "To provide the general welfare we are giving the federal government every power to do whatever it wants but writing in article 1 section 8 for craps and giggles." THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS WOULD NOT HAVE APPROVED IF THIS WERE THE CASE.

MADISON said it himself. THERE IS NO INTERPRETATION! It is either you are right, or you are twisting the words and thus giving the federal government more power than what the PEOPLE have allowed it. THIS IS WRONG and it quite possible will destroy us.

 

[manifold]

So again, how many justices do you think would rule SS unconstitutional today if given the chance? I'd guess zero. But I guess Scalia and Thomas are possibles.

Maybe. But O'Connor, a supposed conservative found in the Constitution that specifically 25 years of discrimination was in the Constitution. The conservatives have refused to overturn the Constitutional abomination that is Roe v. Wade. They might vote for it if they would not win, I doubt they would vote for it if they would. Republicans like to stand on principle then back down to win elections. People overwhelmingly support SS/Medicare not realizing it is one of the greatest evils ever perpetrated on them by government along with ObamaCare . Any program that provides everyone a government check gives politicians power over them.

But as long as SS stands, it's hard to argue that other wealth redistribution programs are unconstitutional.

 

[BenNatuf]

I'd say he is correct, but it is silly to blame
FDR. The clause is in the constitution and basically amounts to a fail safe.

Blame the founders.

You can't blame the founders for the 'vagueness'. I put that in parentheses really because there is no vagueness. When people cite only the first portion of the clause as evidence that government can do pretty much whatever it wants in the name of the general welfare, the fact is they are not quoting the clause in its entirety. They are omitting the list of enumerated powers that follow it in order to make their case which is about as intellectually dishonest as it gets. Madison (one of the founders you say we should blame) said as much in federalist 41. The only thing you can blame him for is possible naivete in assuming future generations would abide by rules of written english that say that which comes after a semi-colon is meant to refer to what came before it.

Which semi-colon do you mean?

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;

After the first one, taxes are not mentioned again...only duties, imposts, and excises are.

BUT all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

No mention there of taxes.

Then the subsequent statements would seem to refer to only duties, imposts and excises.

sometimes you have to keep reading

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Taxes were to be apportioned.

 

[manifold]

Wilson and FDR WERE WRONG. get over it.

Who exactly needs to 'get over it'?

America?

You do realize they pretty much got their way right?

 

[BenNatuf]

So what do you make of Steward Machine Co. v Davis?

Do you agree with the site I linked that FDR usurped the Constitution in implementing SS, which was allowed to happen by the SCOTUS in ruling SS constitutional in this decision?

Do you know the history of it? The same court previously found it UNCONSTITUIONAL and only relented due to Emporor Roosevelts threats to neuter them.

The decision still stands until reversed right?

So again, how many justices do you think would rule SS unconstitutional today if given the chance? I'd guess zero. But I guess Scalia and Thomas are possibles.

When SS was implimented it was VOLUNTARY and the "taxes" were "contributions". However since EVERY working American does contribute, AND EVERY retired American does recieve a benefit it could be reasonably argued that SS does provide for the GENERAL welfare. Just not all at the same time. I still think the Ponzi sceme sucks and should be either privatized or tuerned over to the states, but there is an argument for SS's constitutionality. Admittedly, to accept the argument you have to view things in a certain way and ignore the fact that not every American works but every one alive at retirement age will recieve a benefit... but it is arguable.

 

[BenNatuf]

Thank you, the argument I've been making as as well. Things like National Parks, Interstate highways, military defense of the US and things like serve the general interest of the United States and whether you think we should or shouldn't spend on those things, they are reasonably Constitional at least. Clearly redistribution of money in all it's forms is not in the General Welfare of the United States. It's not that hard.

And you have to ignore the 10th amendment as well. Why did people who thought they'd created a limited government and write the 9th and 10th amendments then say government can do anything? It makes no sense.

To succumb to the progressive deffinition of the clause requires one to suffer from a severe and purposeful reading comprehension defficiency.

Even if the clause stopped at "general welfare" (which it doesn't) you'd have to ignore the definition of "gerneral" to assume the government can take money from the generalpublic to give it to the few lazy ignorant bastards on the dole.

You should leave the trolling to the experts skippy, you're not very good at it.

And if you're not trolling intentionally, that's an even poorer reflection on your contribution since the "If you disagree with me it's because you're a moron" argument is decidedly underwhelming and threadbare.

The fact that you ignore the deffinition of words to find meaning you want to be there does not change their deffinitions. Pointing out that to define "general welfare" the way you want to requires one to ignore or redefine "general" is not trolling and if you do choose meaning for words by which they are not defined you are a moron. It is not me you disagree with... it's the fucking words. You should leave the logical reasonning to those who are capable of it, spiff,... you are not. Your disagreeing with me does not make you a moron, your inability to comprehend written words does.

 

[manifold]

Do you know the history of it? The same court previously found it UNCONSTITUIONAL and only relented due to Emporor Roosevelts threats to neuter them.

The decision still stands until reversed right?

So again, how many justices do you think would rule SS unconstitutional today if given the chance? I'd guess zero. But I guess Scalia and Thomas are possibles.

When SS was implimented it was VOLUNTARY and the "taxes" were "contributions". However since EVERY working American does contribute, AND EVERY retired American does recieve a benefit it could be reasonably argued that SS does provide for the GENERAL welfare. Just not all at the same time. I still think the Ponzi sceme sucks and should be either privatized or tuerned over to the states, but there is an argument for SS's constitutionality. Admittedly, to accept the argument you have to view things in a certain way and ignore the fact that not every American works but every one alive at retirement age will recieve a benefit... but it is arguable.

My understanding is that there are income qualifications (i.e. you can't be too rich) that must be met in order to collect SS benefits. If this is true, wouldn't it undermine that argument, at least partially?

 

[Ravi]

You can't blame the founders for the 'vagueness'. I put that in parentheses really because there is no vagueness. When people cite only the first portion of the clause as evidence that government can do pretty much whatever it wants in the name of the general welfare, the fact is they are not quoting the clause in its entirety. They are omitting the list of enumerated powers that follow it in order to make their case which is about as intellectually dishonest as it gets. Madison (one of the founders you say we should blame) said as much in federalist 41. The only thing you can blame him for is possible naivete in assuming future generations would abide by rules of written english that say that which comes after a semi-colon is meant to refer to what came before it.

Which semi-colon do you mean?

After the first one, taxes are not mentioned again...only duties, imposts, and excises are.

No mention there of taxes.

Then the subsequent statements would seem to refer to only duties, imposts and excises.

sometimes you have to keep reading

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Taxes were to be apportioned.

That in no way, shape, or form relates to what we are discussing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The General Welfare Clause

According to this guy..

The limits on federal power to legislate for the "general welfare" remains, to this date, undefined and presumably, boundless

And he blames it specifically on FDR's usurpation of the Constitution via the implementation of Social Security. Says that the case Steward Machine Co. v Davis effectively set the precedent that...

Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare."

Interesting stuff...

I'd say he is correct, but it is silly to blame
FDR. The clause is in the constitution and basically amounts to a fail safe.

Blame the founders.

So you agree that Congress has similarly unlimited powers when it comes to providing for the common defense. Right?

 

[kaz]

Wilson and FDR WERE WRONG. get over it.

Who exactly needs to 'get over it'?

America?

You do realize they pretty much got their way right?

My thought exactly. Wilson and FDR won, it's over. Why would anyone who likes it need to get over it? You won, get over it. Actually, that's a pretty easy request to honor. OK, they were wrong, they won, I got what I want. I'm over it. Whew, that was hard...

 

[manifold]

The fact that you ignore the deffinition of words to find meaning you want to be there does not change their deffinitions. Pointing out that to define "general welfare" the way you want to requires one to ignore or redefine "general" is not trolling and if you do choose meaning for words by which they are defined you are a moron. It is not me you disagree with... it's the fucking words. You should leave the logical reasonning to those who are capable of it, spiff,... you are not. Your disagreeing with me does not make you a moron, your inability to comprehend written words does.

I'm just following the lead of the SCOTUS. Apparently the court in 1937 was also incapable of comprehending written words according to you.

Again, if that's not trolling, it sure as shit isn't a compelling argument skippy.

 

[BenNatuf]

from Article I section 8 of the US Constitution:

"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"

I don't see any explicit limit placed on what CAN or CANNOT be considered providing for the general welfare of the United States. However, I've seen several people here lately argue that there is only ONE acceptable definition of 'general welfare' (conveniently their own) and it excludes anything that even slightly constitutes a redistribution of wealth.

I understand philosophical and ideological opposition to wealth redistribution. But I don't understand constitutional opposition.

How do you interpret the General Welfare clause?

That you ignore the deffinition of the "GENERAL welfare of the United States" doesn't mean the word GENERAL means anything other than what it does. Taking money from the public at large (That would be the GENERAL public for idiots) DETRACTS from the GENERAL welfare, giving it to a specific minority of individuals only adds to those individuals SPECIFIC welfare. The congress is NOT empowered to DETRACT from the GENERAL welfare to provide some people with SPECIFIC welfare. Considering this practice providing for the GENERAL welfare is purposefully ignoring the clear deffinition of the actual words and replacing them with the idea of the words you want to be there. If you call an apple an orange... it's not a fucking orange, you're just an idiot.

Thank you, the argument I've been making as as well. Things like National Parks, Interstate highways, military defense of the US and things like serve the general interest of the United States and whether you think we should or shouldn't spend on those things, they are reasonably Constitional at least. Clearly redistribution of money in all it's forms is not in the General Welfare of the United States. It's not that hard.

And you have to ignore the 10th amendment as well. Why did people who thought they'd created a limited government and write the 9th and 10th amendments then say government can do anything? It makes no sense.

Reading comprehension and logical reasonning allow people to go far in life... I don't know what the others rely on.

 

[Ravi]

The General Welfare Clause

According to this guy..

And he blames it specifically on FDR's usurpation of the Constitution via the implementation of Social Security. Says that the case Steward Machine Co. v Davis effectively set the precedent that...


Interesting stuff...

I'd say he is correct, but it is silly to blame
FDR. The clause is in the constitution and basically amounts to a fail safe.

Blame the founders.

So you agree that Congress has similarly unlimited powers when it comes to providing for the common defense. Right?

No. I don't agree that at all. They are not allowed to violate someone's civil rights.

 

[BenNatuf]

So again, how many justices do you think would rule SS unconstitutional today if given the chance? I'd guess zero. But I guess Scalia and Thomas are possibles.

Maybe. But O'Connor, a supposed conservative found in the Constitution that specifically 25 years of discrimination was in the Constitution. The conservatives have refused to overturn the Constitutional abomination that is Roe v. Wade. They might vote for it if they would not win, I doubt they would vote for it if they would. Republicans like to stand on principle then back down to win elections. People overwhelmingly support SS/Medicare not realizing it is one of the greatest evils ever perpetrated on them by government along with ObamaCare . Any program that provides everyone a government check gives politicians power over them.

But as long as SS stands, it's hard to argue that other wealth redistribution programs are unconstitutional.

No it's not.

 

[BenNatuf]

The decision still stands until reversed right?

So again, how many justices do you think would rule SS unconstitutional today if given the chance? I'd guess zero. But I guess Scalia and Thomas are possibles.

When SS was implimented it was VOLUNTARY and the "taxes" were "contributions". However since EVERY working American does contribute, AND EVERY retired American does recieve a benefit it could be reasonably argued that SS does provide for the GENERAL welfare. Just not all at the same time. I still think the Ponzi sceme sucks and should be either privatized or tuerned over to the states, but there is an argument for SS's constitutionality. Admittedly, to accept the argument you have to view things in a certain way and ignore the fact that not every American works but every one alive at retirement age will recieve a benefit... but it is arguable.

My understanding is that there are income qualifications (i.e. you can't be too rich) that must be met in order to collect SS benefits. If this is true, wouldn't it undermine that argument, at least partially?

Your understanding is as refined as your reading comprehension. There is no means test for SS, if there were it would be unconstitutional. Even Bill Gates will get his check.