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.
Wrong. All it means is that the powers specifically granted in the Constitution are to be exercised for the general welfare rather than the particular welfare.
90% of what Congress does isn't authorized by the Constitution.
Libertarians look at the Constitution as some type of cookbook detailing the recipes and ingredients that future generations are allowed to use
The Constitution provides a broad framework of how our government should be structured. It provides a kitchen from which future generations can decide what they want to cook
There's nothing broad about it. What the government has done is usurp it and the Amendment process.
Idiot.
Just to put the historical reference to this that adds clarity. The dispute between these two men was NOT over whether or not Congress should be ABLE to spend money for the more general welfare, but whether or not it was necessary to add language to say that they COULD NOT!General welfare clause
ROFL! Liberals think that justifies whatever Nazi Pelosi would like to do, including putting conservatives in concentration camps.
The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "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." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinction—the limitation of federal power—eventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.
According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years.
Source
Just to put the historical reference to this that adds clarity. The dispute between these two men was NOT over whether or not Congress should be ABLE to spend money for the more general welfare, but whether or not it was necessary to add language to say that they COULD NOT!ROFL! Liberals think that justifies whatever Nazi Pelosi would like to do, including putting conservatives in concentration camps.
The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "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." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinctionthe limitation of federal powereventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.
According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years.
Source
Madison argued that the document was such a self evidently LITERAL document that there was no need and that if they started down that road that they would have to do it for everything else and the Constitution would become so large and over whelming that the average colonist wouldn't understand it OR more importantly...support it.
Hamilton wanted to clarify it because he saw the potential for abuse by crooked politicians. Guess he was right. Especially since crooked politicians used his words out of context to support their desire to usurp individuals right to self determination inherit in the language of the document and steal our government.
Oh...and it was NOT the only significant disagreement. George Mason, the primary author of the first 10 amendments refused to sign on to the Constitution because they (the first 10 amendments) were not included in the original document. HE agreed with Hamilton that the language involving limits on the federal government, the sovereignty of the states (NOT sovereign as in a sovereign country, but sovereign as in the right to self determination in ALL matters not specifically enumerated in the Constitution) and individuals SHOULD be set as indisputable in the original language!
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition!"
Thomas Jefferson-----
Jefferson believed it WAS!
By the way...ALL of this is a matter of historical record if you care to look it up. There are 10s of THOUSANDS of pages of original notes and writings by these men available if you dig for it!
As a matter of course? NO. They are entitled to plunder the treasury off the sweat equity of others because they were merely born here.Just to put the historical reference to this that adds clarity. The dispute between these two men was NOT over whether or not Congress should be ABLE to spend money for the more general welfare, but whether or not it was necessary to add language to say that they COULD NOT!
Madison argued that the document was such a self evidently LITERAL document that there was no need and that if they started down that road that they would have to do it for everything else and the Constitution would become so large and over whelming that the average colonist wouldn't understand it OR more importantly...support it.
Hamilton wanted to clarify it because he saw the potential for abuse by crooked politicians. Guess he was right. Especially since crooked politicians used his words out of context to support their desire to usurp individuals right to self determination inherit in the language of the document and steal our government.
Oh...and it was NOT the only significant disagreement. George Mason, the primary author of the first 10 amendments refused to sign on to the Constitution because they (the first 10 amendments) were not included in the original document. HE agreed with Hamilton that the language involving limits on the federal government, the sovereignty of the states (NOT sovereign as in a sovereign country, but sovereign as in the right to self determination in ALL matters not specifically enumerated in the Constitution) and individuals SHOULD be set as indisputable in the original language!
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition!"
Thomas Jefferson-----
Jefferson believed it WAS!
By the way...ALL of this is a matter of historical record if you care to look it up. There are 10s of THOUSANDS of pages of original notes and writings by these men available if you dig for it!
C'mon, you don't think these mooches would do any research when they know it will just prove them wrong, do you?
Good citizenship doesn't apply to some.
Indeed. One person's sweat equity and the reward is best served of/by/for the person who earned it putting that reward to where his/her conscience guides them.Good citizenship doesn't apply to some.
Which brings us - I hope - back to the topic.
Referring back to the Forbes article I posted, and reinforced by the link G inadvertently posted, prior to the New Deal, life was difficult for many people. In the social transitions of the industrial revolution, life was difficult for people everywhere in the developing world. But here in the USA, contrary to what the left would have us believe, people had numerous social services to draw from including their family, their churches, their friends and neighbors, and a myriad of other private social services. There was not widespread starvation and no more unsheltered homeless then than we have now.
So people were rather surprised at FDR's New Deal. The government had never helped them in hard times before. And the help was appreciated but there was a significant difference in that help and what we now have. Those were proud people still conditioned to believe that you give in order to get, that you earn what you receive, and you owe an obligation to those who help you out. The New Deal didn't just hand out free stuff. It provided a means for people to borrow money they were expected to repay, to buy stuff at a lower cost, to work for wages at a government job. Nobody expected to receive anything for free with no obligation or requirement to pay it back. Nobody thought the rich should be obligated by law to provide for the poor.
Contrast that now with one segment of America that now expects to be provided with what they don't have. That expects a lot of free stuff from the government. And who are clamoring for the government to take more from the rich in order to provide more free stuff for everybody else.
Does anybody think that is a healthy thing for the American society?
NOTE: This is NOT about what government programs have been good or bad. This is about a person thinking they are entitled to what somebody else earned.
Capitalism started it all with it's "you deserve" advertising themes.
The pertinent part of your post might reflect on one of the dynamics of how we became two distinct cultures. (Which I am no longer as concerned about how we got here but rather how we best become one cohesive culture again.)
But unless that capitalist ad suggests that you, Citizen A, are obligated to buy the new car or a great vacation or an expensive camera or whatever for Citizen B because he 'deserves' it, your argument won't hold up in the debate.
Libertarians look at the Constitution as some type of cookbook detailing the recipes and ingredients that future generations are allowed to use
The Constitution provides a broad framework of how our government should be structured. It provides a kitchen from which future generations can decide what they want to cook.
Libertarians look at the Constitution as some type of cookbook detailing the recipes and ingredients that future generations are allowed to use
The Constitution provides a broad framework of how our government should be structured. It provides a kitchen from which future generations can decide what they want to cook.
Correct.
It can also be said that libertarians look at the Constitution as some sort of static blueprint for government, rather than what it actually is: a legal document, subject to judicial review. True, an aspect of the Constitution addresses the mechanics of government, but its primary function is to express a legal philosophy.
The error libertarians make with the blueprint metaphor is believing any deviation from the plan is forbidden, when in fact the Framers intended the Founding Document to be subject to interpretation.
As Justice Kennedy correctly observed in Lawrence:
Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
Capitalism started it all with it's "you deserve" advertising themes.
The pertinent part of your post might reflect on one of the dynamics of how we became two distinct cultures. (Which I am no longer as concerned about how we got here but rather how we best become one cohesive culture again.)
But unless that capitalist ad suggests that you, Citizen A, are obligated to buy the new car or a great vacation or an expensive camera or whatever for Citizen B because he 'deserves' it, your argument won't hold up in the debate.
Kinda useless to cure the problem while the cause is still going on.
You want to know what America was like BEFORE progressivism changed the social contract?
Here's a report to CONGRESS that clarifies just how fucked up this nation was and how screwed up it is going to once again become if we continue to allow this myth the LIARS are calling FREE MARKET ECONOMICS to dominate our society.
This is the 1917 WALSH COMMISSION report on industrial relations, kiddies.
It is the information found in this report upon which the progressive movement was largely founded.
Full text of "Industrial relations : final report and testimony submitted to Congress by the Commission on Industrial Relations created by the act of August 23, 1912"
Now I doubt many of you will read it in its entirety.
But some of you might actually learn some real economic and social history by checking it out.
Many people don't get the fact the the middle class are wholly a result of FDR's policies. Prior to FDR..there was no middle class in this country. There were very rich and very poor people.
Many people don't get the fact the the middle class are wholly a result of FDR's policies. Prior to FDR..there was no middle class in this country. There were very rich and very poor people.
They don't "get it" because it isn't true. We've always had a middle class. It has bee growing steadily ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution. That is what created the middle class, not some worthless politician. All sending everyone to college did is cheapen the value of a college degree. Now instead of a high school diploma to get most jobs you needed a college diploma.
That's incorrect.
There was never a middle class in this country until 1950. And the reason people need college degrees isn't because they have been cheapened. It's because the world became more complex.
Good citizenship doesn't apply to some.
Which brings us - I hope - back to the topic.
Referring back to the Forbes article I posted, and reinforced by the link G inadvertently posted, prior to the New Deal, life was difficult for many people. In the social transitions of the industrial revolution, life was difficult for people everywhere in the developing world. But here in the USA, contrary to what the left would have us believe, people had numerous social services to draw from including their family, their churches, their friends and neighbors, and a myriad of other private social services. There was not widespread starvation and no more unsheltered homeless then than we have now.
So people were rather surprised at FDR's New Deal. The government had never helped them in hard times before. And the help was appreciated but there was a significant difference in that help and what we now have. Those were proud people still conditioned to believe that you give in order to get, that you earn what you receive, and you owe an obligation to those who help you out. The New Deal didn't just hand out free stuff. It provided a means for people to borrow money they were expected to repay, to buy stuff at a lower cost, to work for wages at a government job. Nobody expected to receive anything for free with no obligation or requirement to pay it back. Nobody thought the rich should be obligated by law to provide for the poor.
Contrast that now with one segment of America that now expects to be provided with what they don't have. That expects a lot of free stuff from the government. And who are clamoring for the government to take more from the rich in order to provide more free stuff for everybody else.
Does anybody think that is a healthy thing for the American society?
NOTE: This is NOT about what government programs have been good or bad. This is about a person thinking they are entitled to what somebody else earned.
They don't "get it" because it isn't true. We've always had a middle class. It has bee growing steadily ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution. That is what created the middle class, not some worthless politician. All sending everyone to college did is cheapen the value of a college degree. Now instead of a high school diploma to get most jobs you needed a college diploma.
That's incorrect.
There was never a middle class in this country until 1950. And the reason people need college degrees isn't because they have been cheapened. It's because the world became more complex.
Sayyyyy, wasn't FDR dead in 1950?
You want to know what America was like BEFORE progressivism changed the social contract?
Here's a report to CONGRESS that clarifies just how fucked up this nation was and how screwed up it is going to once again become if we continue to allow this myth the LIARS are calling FREE MARKET ECONOMICS to dominate our society.
This is the 1917 WALSH COMMISSION report on industrial relations, kiddies.
It is the information found in this report upon which the progressive movement was largely founded.
Full text of "Industrial relations : final report and testimony submitted to Congress by the Commission on Industrial Relations created by the act of August 23, 1912"
Now I doubt many of you will read it in its entirety.
But some of you might actually learn some real economic and social history by checking it out.
Many people don't get the fact the the middle class are wholly a result of FDR's policies. Prior to FDR..there was no middle class in this country. There were very rich and very poor people.
Not a history student, huh? You would have gotten an F in class for that.
Libertarians look at the Constitution as some type of cookbook detailing the recipes and ingredients that future generations are allowed to use
The Constitution provides a broad framework of how our government should be structured. It provides a kitchen from which future generations can decide what they want to cook.
Correct.
It can also be said that libertarians look at the Constitution as some sort of static blueprint for government, rather than what it actually is: a legal document, subject to judicial review. True, an aspect of the Constitution addresses the mechanics of government, but its primary function is to express a legal philosophy.
The error libertarians make with the blueprint metaphor is believing any deviation from the plan is forbidden, when in fact the Framers intended the Founding Document to be subject to interpretation.
As Justice Kennedy correctly observed in Lawrence:
Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
Many people don't get the fact the the middle class are wholly a result of FDR's policies. Prior to FDR..there was no middle class in this country. There were very rich and very poor people.
Not a history student, huh? You would have gotten an F in class for that.
In Texas..maybe. But then again they scrub their history books.
As an adult American, you have a fundamental right to be provided:
1. Food
2. Clothing
3. Shelter/housing
4. Furniture/appliances
5. Water, heat, air conditioning
6. An education
7. Health care/medical care
8. A living wage
9. Transportation
10. None of the above
Fifty or sixty years ago, the nation still had rich people and much less affluent people, but both groups shared essentially the same traditional values of honor, personal integrity, accountablility and responsibility and appreciation for time honored institutions of marriage, church, and local education. There were as many different circumstances, personalities and differences of opinion as ever, but essentially America was one culture of individual initiative and unlimited opportunity. This was a people that valued personal freedoms, integrity, responsibility, fiscal accountability, and American exceptionalism.
But over the decades we seem to be dividing into two distinct cultures. One is still firmly implanted in that culture of fifty/sixty years ago. The other is one that increasingly looks to society to fulfill their expectations and their basic needs. It is a culture of assumed victimization, excuses, sense of entitlement, blame, and resentment of those who seem to have already achieved the American dream. Concern for deficits, the national debt, the cost, results, or effect is not as important as meeting the needs and wants of the group.
And while of course there will be degrees of dynamics between these two extremes, the theory is that we have become two tribes. One are the hunters and gatherers as a matter of personal honor. The other are those who want the free stuff and honestly believe that the best society provides it.
Agree or disagree. I do think it is time that America has this debate.
(Can we keep this reasonably civil please?)
