The 'General Welfare' thread

[mal]

Hey mani... What's your take on your OP at this point?...



peace...

 

[Ravi]

So that Congress has the power to tax in order to generate revenue, and the power to spend the revenue it collects.

The powers that 'provide for the common defense' are found in the remainder of the section.
The powers that 'provide for the general welfare' are found in the remainder of the section.

If your argument were sound, the only clauses in the entire section would be the first and last.

I have to admit that you've made some good points and I will have to rethink my position.

I came across this:

Finally, in United States v. Butler, 543 the Court gave its unqualified endorsement to Hamilton's views on the taxing power. Wrote Justice Roberts for the Court: ''Since the foundation of the Nation sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the numerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court had noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of Sec. 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.''

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article I: Annotations pg. 26 of 58

This seems to me a rather definitive ruling, and Hamilton's take on the clause is not to be sneezed at or disregarded simply because Madison had a different viewpoint.

I think, one, they made a big mistake (or not) when they left the word Tax out of

; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

and, two, that the founders forgot to include the fine print on the constitution, which should have stated: Opinions may vary.

 

[manifold]

Hey mani... What's your take on your OP at this point?...



peace...

Considering the discussion that has followed...



...Epic Win.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

One thing I just noticed and missed earlier. Going to your second paragraph you imply that the Constitution intends to PROVIDE for the general welfare of the United States. Specifically the Preamble says, however:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note that the Constitution intends to assign the responsibility to provide for the common defense, but it intends to PROMOTE, not provide, the general Welfare.

This is critical to the concept and was discussed exhaustively in the documents supporting the concepts included in the Constitution.

 

[Liberty]

Hey mani... What's your take on your OP at this point?...



peace...

Considering the discussion that has followed...



...Epic Win.

really? You have never even addressed or commented on federalist 41 whatsoever. Glad to see you cherry pick your fantasy, dumbshit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Finally, in United States v. Butler, 543 the Court gave its unqualified endorsement to Hamilton's views on the taxing power.

Wrote Justice Roberts for the Court: ''Since the foundation of the Nation sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the numerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court had noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of Sec. 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.''
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article I: Annotations pg. 26 of 58

This seems to me a rather definitive ruling, and Hamilton's take on the clause is not to be sneezed at or disregarded simply because Madison had a different viewpoint.

Then, we're back to my questions:
If the common defense/general welfare clause grants plenary power over providing for the common defense and the general welfare, why the necessity of granting the following powers related to same?
Recall that Hamilton himself argued this necessity.
Indeed, why include any power in article 8 other than the first and last?

If you cannot definitively answer those questions, then you -must- question the soundness of the decision you quoted.
You must also note that the decision never explains why the Hamiltonian view is suprtion to the Madisonian. Why do you think that is?

 

[Ravi]

Finally, in United States v. Butler, 543 the Court gave its unqualified endorsement to Hamilton's views on the taxing power.

Wrote Justice Roberts for the Court: ''Since the foundation of the Nation sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the numerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court had noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of Sec. 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.''
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article I: Annotations pg. 26 of 58

This seems to me a rather definitive ruling, and Hamilton's take on the clause is not to be sneezed at or disregarded simply because Madison had a different viewpoint.

Then, we're back to my questions:
If the common defense/general welfare clause grants plenary power over providing for the common defense and the general welfare, why the necessity of granting the following powers related to same?
Recall that Hamilton himself argued this necessity.
Indeed, why include any power in article 8 other than the first and last?

If you cannot definitively answer those questions, then you -must- question the soundness of the decision you quoted.
You must also note that the decision never explains why the Hamiltonian view is suprtion to the Madisonian. Why do you think that is?

The Hamilton view isn't supporting the Madison view.

What do you think Justice Roberts meant by this:

While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of Sec. 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress

 

[Ravi]

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?

One thing I just noticed and missed earlier. Going to your second paragraph you imply that the Constitution intends to PROVIDE for the general welfare of the United States. Specifically the Preamble says, however:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note that the Constitution intends to assign the responsibility to provide for the common defense, but it intends to PROMOTE, not provide, the general Welfare.

This is critical to the concept and was discussed exhaustively in the documents supporting the concepts included in the Constitution.

Promoting...keep in mind, this was pre-billboard.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Finally, in United States v. Butler, 543 the Court gave its unqualified endorsement to Hamilton's views on the taxing power.

This seems to me a rather definitive ruling, and Hamilton's take on the clause is not to be sneezed at or disregarded simply because Madison had a different viewpoint.

Then, we're back to my questions:
If the common defense/general welfare clause grants plenary power over providing for the common defense and the general welfare, why the necessity of granting the following powers related to same?
Recall that Hamilton himself argued this necessity.
Indeed, why include any power in article 8 other than the first and last?

If you cannot definitively answer those questions, then you -must- question the soundness of the decision you quoted.
You must also note that the decision never explains why the Hamiltonian view is suprtion to the Madisonian. Why do you think that is?

The Hamilton view isn't supporting the Madison view.

Yes.... and?
They mention both arguments. They go with the Hamiltonian. Why? How is it superior?
Hint: You cannot answer because they do not tell you.

Again, we're back to my questions:
-If the common defense/general welfare clause grants plenary power over providing for the common defense and the general welfare, why the necessity of granting the following powers related to same?
Recall that Hamilton himself argued this necessity.
-Indeed, why include any power in article 8 other than the first and last?

 

[Ravi]

Then, we're back to my questions:
If the common defense/general welfare clause grants plenary power over providing for the common defense and the general welfare, why the necessity of granting the following powers related to same?
Recall that Hamilton himself argued this necessity.
Indeed, why include any power in article 8 other than the first and last?

If you cannot definitively answer those questions, then you -must- question the soundness of the decision you quoted.
You must also note that the decision never explains why the Hamiltonian view is suprtion to the Madisonian. Why do you think that is?

The Hamilton view isn't supporting the Madison view.

Yes.... and?
They mention both arguments. They go with the Hamiltonian. Why? How is it superior?
Hint: You cannot answer because they do not tell you.

Again, we're back to my questions:
-If the common defense/general welfare clause grants plenary power over providing for the common defense and the general welfare, why the necessity of granting the following powers related to same?
Recall that Hamilton himself argued this necessity.
-Indeed, why include any power in article 8 other than the first and last?

Listen, doofus, I'm making a sincere effort to see your point of view...telling me I can't answer because they tell me not to is retarded.

I asked you a question, you haven't answered it.

What did Justice Roberts mean?

And while we are on the subject, why did they not include the word Tax in the second clause?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Hamilton view isn't supporting the Madison view.

Yes.... and?
They mention both arguments. They go with the Hamiltonian. Why? How is it superior?
Hint: You cannot answer because they do not tell you.

Again, we're back to my questions:
-If the common defense/general welfare clause grants plenary power over providing for the common defense and the general welfare, why the necessity of granting the following powers related to same?
Recall that Hamilton himself argued this necessity.
-Indeed, why include any power in article 8 other than the first and last?

Listen, doofus, I'm making a sincere effort to see your point of view...telling me I can't answer because they tell me not to is retarded.

No.. I said you could not answer the question as to why the court chose the Hamiltonian view over Madison's because the court did not provide the explanation as to why they chose the Hamiltonian view over Madison's - you cannot tell me why the court found Hamilton's argument superior because they do not tell you why it is superior.

I asked you a question, you haven't answered it.

Before that, I asked -three- that you haven't answered.
You may respond to them when ready:

-Why is the Hamiltonian view superior to Madison's?
-If the common defense/general welfare clause grants plenary power over providing for the common defense and the general welfare, why the necessity of granting the following powers related to same?
-Indeed, why then include any powers in article 8 other than the first and last?

 

[Liberty]

I vote Ravi to be the real doofus. No one gives a shit what the court says in this matter because it is not open to interpretation since it is written in plain fucking english. If PLAIN ENGLISH needs to be interpreted maybe this whole country needs to open a fucking book.

 

[BenNatuf]

The Hamilton view isn't supporting the Madison view.

Yes.... and?
They mention both arguments. They go with the Hamiltonian. Why? How is it superior?
Hint: You cannot answer because they do not tell you.

Again, we're back to my questions:
-If the common defense/general welfare clause grants plenary power over providing for the common defense and the general welfare, why the necessity of granting the following powers related to same?
Recall that Hamilton himself argued this necessity.
-Indeed, why include any power in article 8 other than the first and last?

And while we are on the subject, why did they not include the word Tax in the second clause?

Been answered before, because taxes were covered in AR9. AR8 gives them the power to tax, AR9 says how... by apportionment.

BTW, you still haven't answered the questions either...

How does detracting from the welfare of the vast majority of individuals in the general public to give to a few specifically qualified individuals in the United States provide for the GENERAL welfare of the United States?

Where does the constitution empower the federal government to pay any individual anything that is not a debt for goods or services?

To provide for the "General Welfare of the United States" is to provide for the fiscal health of the NATION as a whole, not to provide welfare to specifically qualified individuals in it which does absolutely nothing for the vast majority of the people (that woulod be the general public for dummies)

 

[manifold]

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?

One thing I just noticed and missed earlier. Going to your second paragraph you imply that the Constitution intends to PROVIDE for the general welfare of the United States. Specifically the Preamble says, however:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note that the Constitution intends to assign the responsibility to provide for the common defense, but it intends to PROMOTE, not provide, the general Welfare.

This is critical to the concept and was discussed exhaustively in the documents supporting the concepts included in the Constitution.

It says 'promote' in the preable, but in the actual enumeration section it says 'provide for'.

Wouldn't that the trump the preamble?

 

[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?

One thing I just noticed and missed earlier. Going to your second paragraph you imply that the Constitution intends to PROVIDE for the general welfare of the United States. Specifically the Preamble says, however:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note that the Constitution intends to assign the responsibility to provide for the common defense, but it intends to PROMOTE, not provide, the general Welfare.

This is critical to the concept and was discussed exhaustively in the documents supporting the concepts included in the Constitution.

It says 'promote' in the preable, but in the actual enumeration section it says 'provide for'.

Wouldn't that the trump the preamble?

Which still doesn't explain how "provide for the general Welfare of the United States" morphs into "provide for the welfare of specifically qualified individuals at the expense of the United States".

 

[manifold]

Which still doesn't explain how "provide for the general Welfare of the United States" morphs into "provide for the welfare of specifically qualified individuals at the expense of the United States".

I'm not convinced any such morphing has necessarily taken place.

 

[BenNatuf]

Which still doesn't explain how "provide for the general Welfare of the United States" morphs into "provide for the welfare of specifically qualified individuals at the expense of the United States".

I'm not convinced any such morphing has necessarily taken place.

Denying the meaning of words does not make them mean whatever you want them to.

Providing a poor person with a check to pay their electric bill does not provide for the general welfare of the United States, it costs the United States money detracting from its welfare. There simply is no way you can interpret that into being what its not.

 

[Jack Fate]

Which still doesn't explain how "provide for the general Welfare of the United States" morphs into "provide for the welfare of specifically qualified individuals at the expense of the United States".

I'm not convinced any such morphing has necessarily taken place.

Then why are all the people who benefit from taxpayers rioting? There is a tax revolt taking place in the USA. This has nothing to do with "worker's rights" that the leftist media wants everyone to swallow.

 

[manifold]

Which still doesn't explain how "provide for the general Welfare of the United States" morphs into "provide for the welfare of specifically qualified individuals at the expense of the United States".

I'm not convinced any such morphing has necessarily taken place.

Denying the meaning of words does not make them mean whatever you want them to.

Not accepting your editorialized paraphrasing is not the same thing as deny the meaning of words bright guy.

 

[manifold]

Then why are all the people who benefit from taxpayers rioting?