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.
And you have the power to supervise their actions and veto their legislation?To whom? Themselves?Yep...again, the size would matter, though...and the actions of said military. They still need to demonstrate the need and the benefit.
Where do you get this idiocy?No, stupid...to the American people.
federalist 41 is one mans opinion of his intent, which would be why the federalist papers (and the opposing anti-federalist papers) have no force of law, they are nothing more than what we are doing right here. Madison may have known what he meant when he wrote it, but niether he nor anyone else knows what the people who voted to adopt it interpretted it to mean; and it wasn't his writing it that enacted it, it was their voting.Ravi and Ben, you guys are arguing about NOTHING. the introduction to the enumerated powes is not intended to have any sort of legal binding, the author himself has said this in federalist 41.
If the power is plenary, as you argue, there's no need for clarity as the power is necessarily all-encompassing.Clarity?You agree that the 'provide for the common defense' clause gived Congress power to provide for the common defense, limited only in that it may not violate the rights of the people. These powers include raising armies, creating a navy, and prividing for the arming of the militia.Please rephrase this, I'm not totally understanding what you are asking.
Why then, if that clause was intended, as you argue, to provide those powers, was it necessary to specifically include those powers later in Article I section 8?
Would it have helped if I typed [SARC/] after the statement?Must have just wanted to give some helpfull examples!I have just one simple question.
If you believe the general welfare statement is a blank check for the federal government to do anything, then WHY did Madison outline enumerated powers exactly?
....hahaha. if thats the case then explain how Madison said in federalist 41 that it is a simple introduction and nothing more? He wrote it himself, did he have split personality disorder? Please cite.
Under the 'plenary power to provide for the common defense' argument, Congress need not declare war in order to authorize the CinC to send troops into combat - Congress may find it necessary and proper to authorize a simple, more limited, "use of force" instead.He's the guy who gives the orders and decides for himself whether or not they provide for the common deffence. What undeclared wars are you talking about?Who would that one person be? The president? He is not authorized to declare war...he does seem to have some questionable powers to declare undeclared war, however.Thats the silliest argument I've ever heard as there is only one person in the government empowered to determine if actions provide for the common defense and he's the one who orders the actions.
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.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?
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.
Under Bas v Tingy those authorizations are declarations of war... with the limits the congress decides within the confines of international law. As opposed to a general declaration which would be limitted only by international law.Under the 'plenary power to provide for the common defense' argument, Congress need not declare war in order to authorize the CinC to send troops into combat - Congress may find it necessary and proper to authorize a simple, more limited, "use of force" instead.He's the guy who gives the orders and decides for himself whether or not they provide for the common deffence. What undeclared wars are you talking about?Who would that one person be? The president? He is not authorized to declare war...he does seem to have some questionable powers to declare undeclared war, however.
Like I said - its not -my- argument.Under Bas v Tingy those authorizations are declarations of war... with the limits the congress decides within the confines of international law. As opposed to a general declaration which would be limitted only by international law.Under the 'plenary power to provide for the common defense' argument, Congress need not declare war in order to authorize the CinC to send troops into combat - Congress may find it necessary and proper to authorize a simple, more limited, "use of force" instead.He's the guy who gives the orders and decides for himself whether or not they provide for the common deffence. What undeclared wars are you talking about?
Which semi-colon do you mean?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.
After the first one, taxes are not mentioned again...only duties, imposts, and excises are.
No mention there of taxes.BUT all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Then the subsequent statements would seem to refer to only duties, imposts and excises.
taxes are covered in AR9Which semi-colon do you mean?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.
After the first one, taxes are not mentioned again...only duties, imposts, and excises are.
No mention there of taxes.BUT all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Then the subsequent statements would seem to refer to only duties, imposts and excises.
Interesting point. But given the enumerated powers I have to believe it included taxes. After all one of the enumerated powers is the establishment of a navy for example. How can that be funded using only a duty, impost or excise? The creation of a navy would have to be funded through a tax I think.
I see where you are going and without researching it further I don't know the answer. It perhaps has something to do with the fact that they wanted or needed to be very clear on what could be done regarding military operations.If the power is plenary, as you argue, there's no need for clarity as the power is necessarily all-encompassing.Clarity?You agree that the 'provide for the common defense' clause gived Congress power to provide for the common defense, limited only in that it may not violate the rights of the people. These powers include raising armies, creating a navy, and prividing for the arming of the militia.
Why then, if that clause was intended, as you argue, to provide those powers, was it necessary to specifically include those powers later in Article I section 8?
In fact, the people who wrote the constitution stated numerous times that if these powers - raising armiues, creating a navy, providing for the arming of the militia - were not specifically granted, Congress would not have them.
If you are right, and the 'common defense clause' provides that plenary power, why the need, why the necessity, to specifically grant those powers?
I'm a little fuzzy on this...but wasn't the military funded without using income tax in the beginning?Which semi-colon do you mean?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.
After the first one, taxes are not mentioned again...only duties, imposts, and excises are.
No mention there of taxes.BUT all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Then the subsequent statements would seem to refer to only duties, imposts and excises.
Interesting point. But given the enumerated powers I have to believe it included taxes. After all one of the enumerated powers is the establishment of a navy for example. How can that be funded using only a duty, impost or excise? The creation of a navy would have to be funded through a tax I think.
You fail to consider the correct answer:I see where you are going and without researching it further I don't know the answer. It perhaps has something to do with the fact that they wanted or needed to be very clear on what could be done regarding military operations.If the power is plenary, as you argue, there's no need for clarity as the power is necessarily all-encompassing.Clarity?
In fact, the people who wrote the constitution stated numerous times that if these powers - raising armiues, creating a navy, providing for the arming of the militia - were not specifically granted, Congress would not have them.
If you are right, and the 'common defense clause' provides that plenary power, why the need, why the necessity, to specifically grant those powers?
Then why is it in the constitution?You fail to consider the correct answer:I see where you are going and without researching it further I don't know the answer. It perhaps has something to do with the fact that they wanted or needed to be very clear on what could be done regarding military operations.If the power is plenary, as you argue, there's no need for clarity as the power is necessarily all-encompassing.
In fact, the people who wrote the constitution stated numerous times that if these powers - raising armiues, creating a navy, providing for the arming of the militia - were not specifically granted, Congress would not have them.
If you are right, and the 'common defense clause' provides that plenary power, why the need, why the necessity, to specifically grant those powers?
That neither the 'common defense' nor the 'general welfare' clauses, in and of themselves, grant any power to Congress.
You fail to consider the correct answer:I see where you are going and without researching it further I don't know the answer. It perhaps has something to do with the fact that they wanted or needed to be very clear on what could be done regarding military operations.If the power is plenary, as you argue, there's no need for clarity as the power is necessarily all-encompassing.
In fact, the people who wrote the constitution stated numerous times that if these powers - raising armiues, creating a navy, providing for the arming of the militia - were not specifically granted, Congress would not have them.
If you are right, and the 'common defense clause' provides that plenary power, why the need, why the necessity, to specifically grant those powers?
That neither the 'common defense' nor the 'general welfare' clauses, in and of themselves, grant any power to Congress.
So that Congress has the power to tax in order to generate revenue, and the power to spend the revenue it collects.Then why is it in the constitution?You fail to consider the correct answer:I see where you are going and without researching it further I don't know the answer. It perhaps has something to do with the fact that they wanted or needed to be very clear on what could be done regarding military operations.
That neither the 'common defense' nor the 'general welfare' clauses, in and of themselves, grant any power to Congress.
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?
