Healthcare debate: "to provide for the general welfare"

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
LOL
Kudos especially to you and to Matt. If our society adopts Senseamp's (and the progressives') view of the "general commerce" clause, then there are absolutely no limits to the federal government's powers, the rest of the Constitution becomes worthless, and we all are property, slaves in all but name.

Our society adopted it already when the Constitution was ratified. What will make the Constitution worthless is if people like you who can't read plain English are trying to twist the literal meaning of the Constitution to mean what you want it to mean.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Another genius weighing in. :D
Um, his point is quite valid. "Promote the general welfare"/"provide for the . . . general welfare" appears ONLY in the preamble and in Section 8. Yet by your "reading", the entirety of the Constitution is unnecessary and in fact counter-productive, since this one phrase is all that is needed for Congress to assume any power it desires.

Note also the specific wording of Section 8 regarding this general welfare:
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;
Most intelligent and honest people would read this as empowering Congress to lay and collect taxes to fund functions specifically spelled out and limited in other sections, particularly so considering that this lack of empowerment was the prime cause of the failure of the USA under the Articles of Confederacy, rather than carte blanche for Congress to seize any power it desires. Were your interpretation correct this part of Section 8 would clearly be unnecessary, for if Congress can do whatever it considers necessary to promote/provide for the general welfare then the right to lay and collect taxes is already subsumed and need not be spelled out.
 

Herr Kutz

Platinum Member
Jun 14, 2009
2,545
242
106
Another genius weighing in. :D

I'm being serious.

Do you agree with changing words in the Constitution to fit your agenda? If that is the case, what is the point of having a Constitution in the first place if it means nothing?

Edit: If you weren't being facetious (which I highly doubt) and really think I am a genius, well...thanks?
 
Last edited:

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Um, his point is quite valid. "Promote the general welfare"/"provide for the . . . general welfare" appears ONLY in the preamble and in Section 8. Yet by your "reading", the entirety of the Constitution is unnecessary and in fact counter-productive, since this one phrase is all that is needed for Congress to assume any power it desires.

Note also the specific wording of Section 8 regarding this general welfare:

Most intelligent and honest people would read this as empowering Congress to lay and collect taxes to fund functions specifically spelled out and limited in other sections, particularly so considering that this lack of empowerment was the prime cause of the failure of the USA under the Articles of Confederacy, rather than carte blanche for Congress to seize any power it desires. Were your interpretation correct this part of Section 8 would clearly be unnecessary, for if Congress can do whatever it considers necessary to promote/provide for the general welfare then the right to lay and collect taxes is already subsumed and need not be spelled out.

Interpretation? It says in plain English "provide for the common defense and general welfare." Yeah, it gives Congress a lot of power. You don't have to like it, but you don't get to change the English language to make the Constitution more to your liking.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
I'm being serious.

Do you agree with changing words in the Constitution to fit your agenda? If that is the case, what is the point of having a Constitution in the first place if it means nothing?

Edit: If you weren't being facetious (which I highly doubt) and really think I am a genius, well...thanks?

No I don't agree with changing the words in the Constitution. I am fine with "provide for the common defense and general welfare."
If you right wingers have a problem with it, the burden is on you to change it through amendment process.
 

Herr Kutz

Platinum Member
Jun 14, 2009
2,545
242
106
No I don't agree with changing the words in the Constitution. I am fine with "provide for the common defense and general welfare."
If you right wingers have a problem with it, the burden is on you to change it through amendment process.

From which left wing site did you get that quote from, because that sure is not a direct quote of the Constitution which reads "...provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare...".

Of course you probably do not believe me since you have most likely never read the document yourself and prefer to get your information from whatever the latest left wing fad website is, so here is my source:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
You can even download a high resolution image.
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
From which left wing site did you get that quote from, because that sure is not a direct quote of the Constitution which reads "...provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare...".

Of course you probably do not believe me since you have most likely never read the document yourself and prefer to get your information from whatever the latest left wing fad website is, so here is my source:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
You can even download a high resolution image.

Theres actually two mentions of general welfare in the constitution, that is one, the other is under section 8 which does say to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare "
 
Last edited:

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76
Theres actually two mentions of general welfare in the constitution, that is one, the other is under section 8 which does say to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare "

I bet he feels dumb now!
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Rhetoric..meet reality. Classic ownage of these dolts who talk endlessly about a constitution that they don't know shit about.

With these guys logic the right to bear arms is to protect furry civil rights. Case closed.
 

OS

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
15,581
1
76
this idea is beyond fucking stupid, it's like some retard read the first line of the constitution and went "cha-ching free healthcare!"

with this sort of stupid ass interpretation someone is next going to say "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" means sending people to prison is illegal.
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
266
126
this idea is beyond fucking stupid, it's like some retard read the first line of the constitution and went "cha-ching free healthcare!"

with this sort of stupid ass interpretation someone is next going to say "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" means sending people to prison is illegal.

Oh sweet mercy, what have you done!!
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
266
126
Though I commend those of you who have so patiently debated with senseamp, and presented well-formed arguments, I regret to say that you have treaded dangerously close to the old proverb about not arguing with fools. I admire you for your quixotic efforts, but senseamp is naught but a windmill.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Though I commend those of you who have so patiently debated with senseamp, and presented well-formed arguments, I regret to say that you have treaded dangerously close to the old proverb about not arguing with fools. I admire you for your quixotic efforts, but senseamp is naught but a windmill.
Yes, I strayed because I just finished rereading Don Quixote. Got it out of my system now.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Your windmills are the English language, and you've put up a big but fruitless fight trying to rewrite the dictionary.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Your windmills are the English language, and you've put up a big but fruitless fight trying to rewrite the dictionary.
Hehe. You're very proud of your single-digit IQ, aren't you? No one ever told you that IQ isn't scored the same way as golf, did they?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Hehe. You're very proud of your single-digit IQ, aren't you? No one ever told you that IQ isn't scored the same way as golf, did they?

I don't really care how illiterate people like you rate my IQ. Get through hooked on phonics, then we'll talk.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
I agree that people put way too much stock in what the founding fathers would have done/wanted/whatever. In the end, it doesn't make any difference, as we don't know, nor were they infallible, nor did they all agree (obviously). That said, senseamp's attempt to use the general welfare clause to support a fascist policy is laughable, and is an extreme interpretation by any stretch of the imagination.

I'll admit that I haven't read every post here in this particular thread, but that clause has been interpreted very very very broadly by the Supreme Court. As I said earlier, it gives Congress almost plenary power over spending and taxing powers. So, in the end, arguing something with regard to spending or taxing as being out of the federal government's powers is one hell of a tough argument to make unless you can show it's conflicting with another portion of the Constitution (and of course Supreme Court interpretation).
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
I'll admit that I haven't read every post here in this particular thread, but that clause has been interpreted very very very broadly by the Supreme Court. As I said earlier, it gives Congress almost plenary power over spending and taxing powers. So, in the end, arguing something with regard to spending or taxing as being out of the federal government's powers is one hell of a tough argument to make unless you can show it's conflicting with another portion of the Constitution (and of course Supreme Court interpretation).


I still find taxing people in order to fund a retirement program for others or to provide healthcare is hard to justify because it is not one of the enumerated powers and is not necessary and proper for any of the other powers, so IMO matters of retirement and healthcare are reserved to the states. I understand that the general welfare clause has been interpreted broadly by the courts to uphold SS and the like but I'm still finding it very hard to reconcile these seeming contradictions in the constitution if the general welfare is interpretted in the broad sense because giving the government the power to tax and spend on things of general welfare could mean anything. Government has to tax to do anything and everything it does is for the general welfare AKA common good of the people, thats why it exists in the firstplace after all.

In light of that, that is why Madison's view makes the most logical sense to me.

Anyway, its obvious this argument will not be settled here today :)
 
Last edited:

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
I still find taxing people in order to fund a retirement program for others or to provide healthcare is hard to justify because it is not one of the enumerated powers and is not necessary and proper for any of the other powers, so IMO matters of retirement and healthcare are reserved to the states. I understand that the general welfare clause has been interpreted broadly by the courts to uphold SS and the like but I'm still finding it very hard to reconcile these seeming contradictions in the constitution if the general welfare is interpretted in the broad sense because giving the government the power to tax and spend on things of general welfare could mean anything. Government has to tax to do anything and everything it does is for the general welfare AKA common good of the people, thats why it exists in the firstplace after all.

In light of that, that is why Madison's view makes the most logical sense to me.
The ambiguity made more sense when states had a mechanism to control the expansion of federal power. However since all the checks and balances on federal power have been removed, the rhetorical tension in the early Constitution doesn't make sense as there is no parallel tension between states and the feds within Congress any more.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
You still have power to control the federal government. It's called elections. The General welfare clause is there because the Founders wanted you to have that power, instead of cramming some enumerated list down your throat.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
You still have power to control the federal government. It's called elections.
ROFL. No.

There is no person within the federal government who has an incentive to constrain the powers of the federal government at the expense of states etc. The Senate used to, but they no longer do. Every elected official has a very powerful incentive to concentrate ever more power in the federal government. Even elections exacerbate the problem, as they are incredibly expensive to win. You don't get big donations by telling fat cats that your goal is to reduce your power as an elected official to give them a return on their investment.
The General welfare clause is there because the Founders wanted you to have that power, instead of cramming some enumerated list down your throat.
No they didn't. They only gave the people the House to elect, and the states got the President and the Senate. Granted, winning the Presidency could be done quite handily by appealing to the people instead of the states, but the early system of no running mates even gave the executive branch a beautiful schizophrenia at times. The founders set the states against the federal government, and the branches of the federal government against each other in order to deliberately make it incredibly difficult to concentrate power in any one part of the government. A broad and flexible taxation power was palatable to them only because the states had a tight leash on the federal government. That no longer exists. Not surprisingly DC has turned into a black hole of power.

You are committing the very same error you accuse everybody else of doing: imagining that everything "original" was as you wish it to have been. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was out of ignorance rather than a willful lie. Yes, I can be that charitable.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
ROFL. No.

There is no person within the federal government who has an incentive to constrain the powers of the federal government at the expense of states etc. The Senate used to, but they no longer do. Every elected official has a very powerful incentive to concentrate ever more power in the federal government. Even elections exacerbate the problem, as they are incredibly expensive to win. You don't get big donations by telling fat cats that your goal is to reduce your power as an elected official to give them a return on their investment.
No they didn't. They only gave the people the House to elect, and the states got the President and the Senate. Granted, winning the Presidency could be done quite handily by appealing to the people instead of the states, but the early system of no running mates even gave the executive branch a beautiful schizophrenia at times. The founders set the states against the federal government, and the branches of the federal government against each other in order to deliberately make it incredibly difficult to concentrate power in any one part of the government. A broad and flexible taxation power was palatable to them only because the states had a tight leash on the federal government. That no longer exists. Not surprisingly DC has turned into a black hole of power.

You are committing the very same error you accuse everybody else of doing: imagining that everything "original" was as you wish it to have been. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was out of ignorance rather than a willful lie. Yes, I can be that charitable.

Everything in the Constitution has been either put in there by the Founders or amended and ratified by the States, as the Founders intended. If politicians don't have incentive to constrain the growth of the federal government it's because the voters don't give them one. If voters only voted for people who keep the federal government small, it would be small. If Americans decide they want small government, they don't need the Constitution to force it to happen, they can do it themselves at the polls. But they don't really want it, they just like talking about it.