General Welfare Clause

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Yes that is exactly what people believe.

Come on people, be serious.

And nick1985 it doesnt matter how many dead intellectuals you quote, the document they came up with is what we have, and we must live with their compromise or use the framework they gave us to change it.

Honestly, how can we even compare opinions about the world from 250 years ago, those folks couldnt even imagine the world we have today.

Oh yes that world you embrace.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20027800-281.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

That's where the government plans to create an "internet ID" which will allow them to more easily follow you. It's for the general welfare.

Then there's extraordinary rendition where you can be deprived of your pesky rights given by those dead intellectuals. The government needs to be able to lock you up without charges or access to lawyers. It's for the general welfare.

Of course the government can seize your home because it can make more taxes by allowing a strip mall to be built on your property. It's for the general welfare.

What would the general welfare come to if the government couldn't make you do whatever it wants or seize your assets in the form of taxation. Hey, they can't make you do anything right? You are free to live on the street if it thinks it's for the general welfare.

You can be made a virtual slave and that's only right. After all those dumb bunnies who wrote the Constitution couldn't see how important that is to the general welfare.
 

ConstipatedVigilante

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2006
7,670
1
0
Because he put the general welfare clause in. And the other founders didn't really have any input, just the people at the Convention. And even then, there influence was limited, because they didn't write it.


He wrote the Bill of Rights, not the 7 articles.


See above.
You really need to stop going on silly rants without even knowing history. James Madison was one of the main proponents of writing the constitution and had a big say over what went into it.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,118
18,646
146
Because he put the general welfare clause in. And the other founders didn't really have any input, just the people at the Convention. And even then, there influence was limited, because they didn't write it.


He wrote the Bill of Rights, not the 7 articles.


See above.

http://thisnation.com/constitution.html

It was Madison.

If you're going to discuss history, at least have some knowledge of it.

And since Madison was the chief architect of the Constitution, I will go along with his narrow construction of the clause.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
http://thisnation.com/constitution.html

It was Madison.

If you're going to discuss history, at least have some knowledge of it.

And since Madison was the chief architect of the Constitution, I will go along with his narrow construction of the clause.
He was the author of the VA Plan and the Bill of Rights, but certainly not the whole Constitution. He also rejected being called the Father of the Constitution.

The Constitution was nothing more than an agreement between northern merchants and southern slave owners. That should tell everyone that there is no correct way to intepret it.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
He was the author of the VA Plan and the Bill of Rights, but certainly not the whole Constitution. He also rejected being called the Father of the Constitution.

The Constitution was nothing more than an agreement between northern merchants and southern slave owners. That should tell everyone that there is no correct way to intepret it.

I honestly can't tell if you are really this willfully ignorant, or if you are just doing a good job trolling us.
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
Who has hired their Lawyer to make their Case?

Good luck, once you introduce the welfare state into society you'll never remove it in an orderly fashion, thats why you never introduce it in the first place. Only economic collapse could end it.
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Who has hired their Lawyer to make their Case?

Who has the money to fight against unlimited legal resources? Oh, not anyone you know. The government has ruined people merely by outspending them in court when they had no factual grounds to persecute people. This isn't considered improper, well by government and their pet authoritarians.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
The States ratified the Constitution, not the Federalist papers.

While it's interesting to see what the founders have to say, and it's certainly a viable position to agree with them, but the desire to codify "original intent" doesn't have any more force than any other political position.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,677
6,250
126
Who has the money to fight against unlimited legal resources? Oh, not anyone you know. The government has ruined people merely by outspending them in court when they had no factual grounds to persecute people. This isn't considered improper, well by government and their pet authoritarians.

Pool your Money, it's a sure Win, no?
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
It's nice that a bunch of people on the Internet are discussing this clause and what it means as to the federal government, but these old people that dress up in funny black robes at the Supreme Court already have settled on this issue.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
It's nice that a bunch of people on the Internet are discussing this clause and what it means as to the federal government, but these old people that dress up in funny black robes at the Supreme Court already have settled on this issue.

haha
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
It's nice that a bunch of people on the Internet are discussing this clause and what it means as to the federal government, but these old people that dress up in funny black robes at the Supreme Court already have settled on this issue.

That certainly doesn't make their decision (if there, indeed, is actually a decision) on this matter correct. Nor does it make it infallable. Nor does it make it settled forever. Nor does it make it law.

The Supreme Court exists to interpret laws made within the context of the Constitution. They do not pass law. They can determine whether or not a law is Constitutional. That's it.

If a new law passes, it's certainly possible that it may be unconstitutional, even with the prior ruling. Precident is a guide only. It is not law.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Yes that is exactly what people believe.

Come on people, be serious.

And nick1985 it doesnt matter how many dead intellectuals you quote, the document they came up with is what we have, and we must live with their compromise or use the framework they gave us to change it.

Honestly, how can we even compare opinions about the world from 250 years ago, those folks couldnt even imagine the world we have today.

and the words they used to write this document had different meanings(well not all) back then as well. if we read things written from that time, it must be in the voice/eyes of that era. If we do so then a LOT of shit the feds have done doesn't fly.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
That certainly doesn't make their decision (if there, indeed, is actually a decision) on this matter correct. Nor does it make it infallable. Nor does it make it settled forever. Nor does it make it law.

The Supreme Court exists to interpret laws made within the context of the Constitution. They do not pass law. They can determine whether or not a law is Constitutional. That's it.

If a new law passes, it's certainly possible that it may be unconstitutional, even with the prior ruling. Precident is a guide only. It is not law.

Uh, good luck overturning very well established Supreme Court case law. Of course the Supreme Court could change the established case law, but that is one hell of a challenge to make.

The fact is that the Supreme Court has already stated that Congress has almost plenary power for taxing and spending under the General Welfare clause. It's been like this for quite some time. A challenge to such established case law would be very very difficult. It's not impossible, but very difficult, especially for one such as this where it doesn't have as direct of a implication like racial issues, which was one area where the Supreme Court overturned case law.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
"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"

Anyone disagree with this statement?
 

ConstipatedVigilante

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2006
7,670
1
0
"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"

Anyone disagree with this statement?
Not at all. But the proposed health care law forces citizens to buy a private product. That is not among "taxes, duties, imposts and excises."
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Not at all. But the proposed health care law forces citizens to buy a private product. That is not among "taxes, duties, imposts and excises."

As a liberal, my goal is government provided, not government mandated universal health coverage, so I would not be too upset to see the USSC (especially a Republican one) rule that way.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
"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"

Anyone disagree with this statement?
Most of us have no disagreement with that statement as it was originally intended, merely with the way you and others like you wish to use it to make the federal government all-powerful, constrained only by other parts of the Constitution. Take for example the Tenth Amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
By your interpretation, the Tenth Amendment is meaningless. Since the federal government has unlimited power except where specifically limited by other parts of the Constitution, no powers remain to be reserved to the States or to the people, as long as the government claims it is working for the common defense and/or the common welfare. Even a king wouldn't have so much power.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
"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"

Anyone disagree with this statement?

I do not disagree with the original wording. I disagree with the left's interpretation of it.

If the federal government had intended to take care of all of our needs, right down to the personal level, there would have been no reason to have states or the 10th amendment in the first place.

Your interpretation of the function of the FEDERAL government is inconsistent with its design.

If a state wants to offer single-payer to its constituents, that's fine. But that power does not fall within the rights of the Federal government.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
"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"

Anyone disagree with this statement?

Why list enumerated powers and say "to do x" if it means anything? Doesn't even make sense. General welfare explains why these powers are needed not to mean anything they want. If they did all you need is that line Article 1 section 8 period. And Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed this narrow interpretation on the Clause until FDR threatened them with adding his justices to the court. Essentially black mailing the court and changing USA forever illegally IMO since there is a way to get what you want by Amendment process. So yeah I have a problem with it. it's undemocratic and black mail.

Full text

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

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;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Here in the last sentence they drive the limited scope home I feel with "Execution the foregoing Powers"
 
Last edited:

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I do not disagree with the original wording. I disagree with the left's interpretation of it.

If the federal government had intended to take care of all of our needs, right down to the personal level, there would have been no reason to have states or the 10th amendment in the first place.

Your interpretation of the function of the FEDERAL government is inconsistent with its design.

If a state wants to offer single-payer to its constituents, that's fine. But that power does not fall within the rights of the Federal government.

I'm pretty left. I believe we need UHC just good economics paying half and insuring everyone like everyone else. I believe in progressive taxation and higher capital taxes. I believe in freedom of religion and from it and all the bill of rights to include competent public council and freedom from searches and asset forfeiture. But I think ROL is more important and the Constitution is being violated in exchange for expediency and bascially wreaking our individual rights one at a time given to us.