Anyone here consider themselves socialists?

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Still don't believe me? How about Jefferson on the welfare clause:

...our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.

So again, it has to be specifically enumerated to fall under the general welfare clause - it's not a catch all.

I like how you take Thomas Jefferson's position on the issues (he was a big proponent of limiting federal powers) and completely ignore all of the other people who wrote the Constitution. If you want to play 'quote the framers', lets ask Alexander Hamilton what the 'general welfare' covers.

The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

So no, quoting random people from the time does not make your argument correct. Interestingly enough Alexander Hamilton signed the original Constitution with the 'general welfare' clause, and Thomas Jefferson did not.

That deals more with the how than the what...but that too is likely lost on you.

Also, are you going to completely ignore the definition of the word as it existed back then?

No, it specifically states that the 'general welfare' was purposefully made incredibly broad so that Congress could deal with what it had to. You stupidly decided to quote one person on an issue that was very contentious at the time and decide that he spoke for everyone who wrote the Constitution. What makes it even worse is that you decided to quote someone who's position LOST in the Constututional debate.

I know you're never going to admit that you were wrong, because you're CAD. My post is simply to refute your misinformation if other people happen to read it.

:roll: You obviously haven't a clue. I quoted the DEFINITION and the quote was in support of that. You can continually ignore the definition of the time period if you wish but it just shows how willingly ignorant you are. And again, the broadness was about how - not what (but like I figured - that point is lost on the likes of you).

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Bigdh- I'm not sure where banks came in but it really doesn't matter. The point is - the "general welfare" clause is NOT some broad all encompassing clause. It was never intended to be one and still to this day is not thought to be that except by liberals and socialists who want to expand the FEDERAL gov't. The Constitution was quite clear and the original framers were quite clear about their fear of an all encompassing FEDERAL gov't spreading to wide.

You keep saying this but I'm giving you examples as to why what you're saying isn't true. Even people that took your hardline position (including Madison, who's name is on the Constitution) ultimately relenquished when facing the dilemma of welfare vs strict interpretation.

Also, Hamilton was an original framer and if you had read even a portion of the link that I had posted, he recommended that the federal government buy stock in private corporations. Sound familiar?

This is not a new debate, and it is one that has already been decided by the Supreme Court. General Welfare extends beyond the enumerated functions in the Constitution as determined by the Supreme Court, who interprets the these things. I don't know what else to tell you except that while it is uncomfortable to think of a government who can do almost anything, it is not unconstitutional for Congress to create a federal public library.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

No, it specifically states that the 'general welfare' was purposefully made incredibly broad so that Congress could deal with what it had to. You stupidly decided to quote one person on an issue that was very contentious at the time and decide that he spoke for everyone who wrote the Constitution. What makes it even worse is that you decided to quote someone who's position LOST in the Constututional debate.

I know you're never going to admit that you were wrong, because you're CAD. My post is simply to refute your misinformation if other people happen to read it.

:roll: You obviously haven't a clue. I quoted the DEFINITION and the quote was in support of that. You can continually ignore the definition of the time period if you wish but it just shows how willingly ignorant you are. And again, the broadness was about how - not what (but like I figured - that point is lost on the likes of you).

Yes, and the definition of what you quoted most certainly allows for what we're talking about. As for your interpretation of the quote I don't know what to say other than you are unable to read for comprehension. It's not a quote about 'how' in any way, shape, or form. It's not even ambiguous, you just can't read.

You've been owned in this thread by people who know a lot more about it than you do. I know a decent bit about it and it appears that BigDH01 knows more than me. I'm sorry if you don't like what we're telling you, but it doesn't make it any less true.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

No, it specifically states that the 'general welfare' was purposefully made incredibly broad so that Congress could deal with what it had to. You stupidly decided to quote one person on an issue that was very contentious at the time and decide that he spoke for everyone who wrote the Constitution. What makes it even worse is that you decided to quote someone who's position LOST in the Constututional debate.

I know you're never going to admit that you were wrong, because you're CAD. My post is simply to refute your misinformation if other people happen to read it.

:roll: You obviously haven't a clue. I quoted the DEFINITION and the quote was in support of that. You can continually ignore the definition of the time period if you wish but it just shows how willingly ignorant you are. And again, the broadness was about how - not what (but like I figured - that point is lost on the likes of you).

Yes, and the definition of what you quoted most certainly allows for what we're talking about. As for your interpretation of the quote I don't know what to say other than you are unable to read for comprehension. It's not a quote about 'how' in any way, shape, or form. It's not even ambiguous, you just can't read.

You've been owned in this thread by people who know a lot more about it than you do. I know a decent bit about it and it appears that BigDH01 knows more than me. I'm sorry if you don't like what we're telling you, but it doesn't make it any less true.

:roll: think what you wish but just because you can't comprehend doesn't mean someone else is "owned". I know you libs really really want the welfare clause to be all encompassing but it's just not the reality of the statement. Meh, believe what you wish...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

:roll: think what you wish but just because you can't comprehend doesn't mean someone else is "owned". I know you libs really really want the welfare clause to be all encompassing but it's just not the reality of the statement. Meh, believe what you wish...

Never retreat, never surrender!

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

No, it specifically states that the 'general welfare' was purposefully made incredibly broad so that Congress could deal with what it had to. You stupidly decided to quote one person on an issue that was very contentious at the time and decide that he spoke for everyone who wrote the Constitution. What makes it even worse is that you decided to quote someone who's position LOST in the Constututional debate.

I know you're never going to admit that you were wrong, because you're CAD. My post is simply to refute your misinformation if other people happen to read it.

:roll: You obviously haven't a clue. I quoted the DEFINITION and the quote was in support of that. You can continually ignore the definition of the time period if you wish but it just shows how willingly ignorant you are. And again, the broadness was about how - not what (but like I figured - that point is lost on the likes of you).

Yes, and the definition of what you quoted most certainly allows for what we're talking about. As for your interpretation of the quote I don't know what to say other than you are unable to read for comprehension. It's not a quote about 'how' in any way, shape, or form. It's not even ambiguous, you just can't read.

You've been owned in this thread by people who know a lot more about it than you do. I know a decent bit about it and it appears that BigDH01 knows more than me. I'm sorry if you don't like what we're telling you, but it doesn't make it any less true.

:roll: think what you wish but just because you can't comprehend doesn't mean someone else is "owned". I know you libs really really want the welfare clause to be all encompassing but it's just not the reality of the statement. Meh, believe what you wish...

I don't understand this mentality. You keep framing the debate as if all of the founders had this ideal that the first clause in section 8 was very specific to the following enumerations. I've conclusively proven this is incorrect. The Republicans of the time believed that the first clause was very narrow in scope while the Federalists of the time believed it had a much broader scope.

Believe it or not, not everyone agreed back then. Just like now, most major laws, interpretations, what have you, were hotly contested, even to the point that men who signed the Constitution didn't agree to its meaning. It was not all that different then than it is now.

The reason it's important to look at the first federal bank is because it really highlighted this difference of opinion. You basically had the Federalists (led by Hamilton) on one side against the Republicans (led by Jefferson and Madison) on the other. I believe it was this debate that gave you the Jefferson quote you provided earlier. The bill establishing the bank was passed and signed into law by George Washington after Hamilton convinced him that the government had an implied power to do so. Jefferson's and Madison's narrow interpretation of the Constitution was defeated by Hamilton. You are quoting a man who's view was defeated by a man who signed the Constitution.

And despite their ideology, both Jefferson and Madison later repudiated their beliefs in a narrow interpretation by acting outside of enumerated powers while President. Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory after urging Congress to ratify their treaty with France. This was not an enumerated power of Congress and Jefferson knew it. Yet his Republican colleagues in Congress used the General Welfare Clause to argue their point. Madison created the Second Bank of the US despite having strongly opposed the First Bank of the US, after the latter's 20 year charter expired. Point being, the people you are using to argue your point abandoned it when faced with a dilemma between the welfare of the country vs a stricly narrow interpretation of the Constitution.

But none of this really matters, the USSC has already had the final word. Their function is to interpret the law and they have. Their opinion is authoritative, your's is not. Regardless of what "libs want," the General Welfare Clause is a separate power delegated to Congress, the "libs" don't need to "want" anything.