To Promote the General Welfare

[fskimospy]

No, it's fact filled with truth, but you are a Creationist. Government said it, you believe out and that settles it. Yours is the tale of an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying stupidity. You oppose good choices as much as the right because to do so shakes your faith.

A clear demonstration of disconnect. Note the OP explicitly mentioned health care, and you mentioned that the public will demanded government control of medicine. No, and you still don't know the difference between the practice of medicine and a government program, apparently because you believe that whatever government desires is it's right. Our Lord and Master. I'm replying to your post not because I still believe understanding is possible, but to demonstrate what a danger mindless faith is. I won't confuse you with truth any further. Keep telling yourself that all rights and wisdom belong to your secular deity. I have not seen such great faith, no, not in all Israel.

I don't even know how to respond to this because there's nothing to respond to. It's just ranting histrionics and baseless insults. You're forced to convince yourself that my position comes from mindless faith because if you can't actually rebut the overwhelming evidence.

The world will continue to move in my direction on health care regardless of what you think and no matter how much you foam and rave. It will continue to do so under an understanding of the Constitution that hews much more closely to my interpretation than to yours as well. C'est la vie, eh?

 

[OutHouse]

Nope, it was to provide a transport system for the military.

and airstrips.

 

[werepossum]

It has no purpose; it only restates what already exists.

So "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" actually means nothing?

And the historic debate among the framers as to whether it went without saying that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government belonged to the states or to the individual, or whether this needed to be explicitly stated, was just the framers being too stupid to know what they had written?

 

[fskimospy]

So "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" actually means nothing?

And the historic debate among the framers as to whether it went without saying that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government belonged to the states or to the individual, or whether this needed to be explicitly stated, was just the framers being too stupid to know what they had written?

It's not that such a phrase means nothing, it's that such meaning is already contained inside the Constitution without it. It's a waste of ink.

You realize that many of the founders at the time viewed the 10th amendment to be useless and unnecessary as well, right? The USSC has also repeatedly ruled that the 10th amendment adds nothing to the Constitution.

 

[Anarchist420]

So "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" actually means nothing? And the historic debate among the framers as to whether it went without saying that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government belonged to the states or to the individual, or whether this needed to be explicitly stated, was just the framers being too stupid to know what they had written?

Madison explicitly rejected putting that "each State retains its sovereignty, independence, and every freedom which is not expressly delegated to the federal govt."... and his reasoning was that the federal govt needed to have implied powers. With the supremacy clause, the federal union decides which powers the States have and that's the only way it can be if the Constitution says that any laws passed under it are supreme (even though forced/coerced union is not natural). In Madison's original proposals, he actually favored further limiting the States from prohibiting free speech, rather than any limitation whatsoever on the Federal govt. The extreme nationalist/pro-centralization proposals were transformed into federalist (very moderate) ones. There were several absolute limitations on the federal govt proposed, but none of them made it.

In order to have a better understanding of the US Federal Constitution, one should study the Constitutional Convention (particularly debates on certain proposals that were struck down or modified) and also look at what the Antifederalists were saying. There was a good reason the Antifederalists just walked out of the convention. In the debates, pretty much every Antifederalist proposal was thrown out, and the few times the Federalists compromised at all, it turned out not even being worthit (like the Presidential absolute veto proposal struck down and changed to 2/3). The Antifederalist papers and arguments have not been heard as much as the Federalist ones because the govt has never wanted them to be heard.

The Antifederalists could not match the shrewdness of the Federalists... and that's because the Federalists wanted to gain for themselves from replacing the Articles of Confederation. The Antifederalists were older, nowhere near as shrewd, and had nothing to personally gain from the federalization.

 

[Fern]

-snip-


To me, putting warning labels on food products is a legitimate function of our government, as described by our Founding Fathers quite explicitly in their detailed explanatory preamble to our Constitution:

But with that example, I don't mean to digress from my basic question, which expressed in one way would be, "How do you interpret "promote the general welfare?"

I don't really view food labels as being a 'common welfare' topic, that's more a regulation of interstate commerce. As far as 'providing for the general welfare', if I'm not mistaken that has more to do with what Congress can spend money on. I believe that the scope for what Congress can spend money on is nearly unlimited. In fact offhand I can't think of something outside of obvious graft or fraud that wouldn't qualify. (ie: the 'give eskimospy $1,000,000 act of 2012') There may be things I haven't thought of though.

Pretty much agree with Eski.

Art. 1 section 8 says Congress can regulate trade. I have no problem with labeling in general, but some requirements have seemed overboard.

Providing for the General Welfare is in the same section. My recollection is that the SCOTUS has ruled this concerns what things Congress may spend the money on. I.e., that clause relates to the power of taxation and is not an enumerated power of Congress but rather a restriction on spending.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

It's not that such a phrase means nothing, it's that such meaning is already contained inside the Constitution without it. It's a waste of ink.

You realize that many of the founders at the time viewed the 10th amendment to be useless and unnecessary as well, right? The USSC has also repeatedly ruled that the 10th amendment adds nothing to the Constitution.

Yes, more specifically, is is already implicit in Article 1. Article 1 grants certain enumerated powers to the federal government. It then states which powers are NOT granted to the states. The necessary implication is that anything NOT expressly disallowed to the states is allowed to the states. That means that state governments have all powers that the Constitution does not specifically bar them from having. The Tenth Amendment is redundant. It adds nothing to this.

 

[BoberFett]

So under that interpretation, perhaps a better question would be "Do you believe there is anything prohibited to the federal government under its powers to "promote the general welfare"? If so, what?

And if not, explain why a large number of very smart men would write such a lengthy Constitution when they only meant the federal government can do anything it wishes.

When the federal government can tell you how much wheat you can grow on your property using your seed to feed your livestock because it interferes with interstate commerce, then the federal government has no limits. Wickard v Fillburn is one of the most evil cases to ever come out of the USSC.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, more specifically, is is already implicit in Article 1. Article 1 grants certain enumerated powers to the federal government. It then states which powers are NOT granted to the states. The necessary implication is that anything NOT expressly disallowed to the states is allowed to the states. That means that state governments have all powers that the Constitution does not specifically bar them from having. The Tenth Amendment is redundant. It adds nothing to this.

So the founders weren't bright enough to realize the Tenth Amendment was redundant? Because honestly, I don't agree with you. I think the Tenth Amendment was absolutely needed.

When the federal government can tell you how much wheat you can grow on your property using your seed to feed your livestock because it interferes with interstate commerce, then the federal government has no limits. Wickard v Fillburn is one of the most evil cases to ever come out of the USSC.

Agreed, absolutely. Off the top of my head, I can't think of many others which are as bad, although Dred Scott v. Sanford and more recently, Kilo v. New London come to mind as equally horrendous and destructive of freedom and liberty.

 

[Tom]

Promote, not provide. That is the crux of my problem with government interfering with people's lives.

The Constitution gives the power to Congress, the best way to let unscrupulous people kill your children is to elect people to Congress who think like you.

Good luck with that.

btw, what I said isn't hypothetical, there are bad people running businesses that have led to the suffering and death of children, and according to people like you the government should play no role in that, other than providing a court where you can try to get your dead child back or receive monetary compensation for your loss.

Lots of people do not find that sufficient.

 

[BoberFett]

The Constitution gives the power to Congress, the best way to let unscrupulous people kill your children is to elect people to Congress who think like you.

Good luck with that.

btw, what I said isn't hypothetical, there are bad people running businesses that have led to the suffering and death of children, and according to people like you the government should play no role in that, other than providing a court where you can try to get your dead child back or receive monetary compensation for your loss.

Lots of people do not find that sufficient.

Our elected government was responsible, indirectly if not directly, for the death of how many Iraqi and Afghani children? Compared to death at the hands of private enterprise, which entity is more dangerous? Government or corporations?

 

[werepossum]

Madison explicitly rejected putting that "each State retains its sovereignty, independence, and every freedom which is not expressly delegated to the federal govt."... and his reasoning was that the federal govt needed to have implied powers. With the supremacy clause, the federal union decides which powers the States have and that's the only way it can be if the Constitution says that any laws passed under it are supreme (even though forced/coerced union is not natural). In Madison's original proposals, he actually favored further limiting the States from prohibiting free speech, rather than any limitation whatsoever on the Federal govt. The extreme nationalist/pro-centralization proposals were transformed into federalist (very moderate) ones. There were several absolute limitations on the federal govt proposed, but none of them made it.

In order to have a better understanding of the US Federal Constitution, one should study the Constitutional Convention (particularly debates on certain proposals that were struck down or modified) and also look at what the Antifederalists were saying. There was a good reason the Antifederalists just walked out of the convention. In the debates, pretty much every Antifederalist proposal was thrown out, and the few times the Federalists compromised at all, it turned out not even being worthit (like the Presidential absolute veto proposal struck down and changed to 2/3). The Antifederalist papers and arguments have not been heard as much as the Federalist ones because the govt has never wanted them to be heard.

The Antifederalists could not match the shrewdness of the Federalists... and that's because the Federalists wanted to gain for themselves from replacing the Articles of Confederation. The Antifederalists were older, nowhere near as shrewd, and had nothing to personally gain from the federalization.

Good post. I'll have to admit that the last time I seriously studied the Constitutional Convention was before you were born so I'm not as up to date as I really should be, but I'll make two points. First, the Federalists were more successful largely due to the failure of the Articles of Confederation to form a practical union. And second, the main reason we are so much more familiar with the federalist papers and arguments than with the anti-federalist papers and arguments is because, as you say, the federalists largely carried the day. It's more important to be familiar with the concepts that framed our current form of government than with those ideas that lost out. Have to admit though that I generally like the compromises (such as subjecting the Presidential veto to overturning with a 2/3 vote of both chambers) better than the anti-federalist proposals.

 

[Tom]

Our elected government was responsible, indirectly if not directly, for the death of how many Iraqi and Afghani children? Compared to death at the hands of private enterprise, which entity is more dangerous? Government or corporations?

Those deaths are on the hands of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban.

You need to understand the difference between action, and reaction.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

which entity is more dangerous? Government or corporations?

Both are every bit as dangerous as the third entity in the Trinity of Terror, religion. Those 3 institutions are responsible for almost all of the death, suffering, and isolation in the modern world.

Money, flag, and church have all proven to care more about money and resources than mankind.