• We will be rebooting the server around 4:30 AM ET. We should be back up and running in approximately 15 minutes.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The General Welfare Clause

haymarket said:
The US Supreme Court has spoken on this matter and it is settled law. As I suspected, your main argument is a political one. You would like to repeal much of the political progressive reforms of the 20th century and have attempted to seize on previous interpretations to justify your political agenda.

Your argument is really NOT about the Constitution. Its about progressive government.
Click to expand...

You yourself gave a political comment and avoided my question.

Progressive government is destroying the financial health of the country. It is all nice and good to say that we help the needy, but at what real cost? Can you be honest in your evaluation and appraisal of the real costs of progressive government?
 
reefedjib said:
You yourself gave a political comment and avoided my question.

Progressive government is destroying the financial health of the country. It is all nice and good to say that we help the needy, but at what real cost? Can you be honest in your evaluation and appraisal of the real costs of progressive government?
Click to expand...

I thought it was runaway spending on needless wars and a drastic reduction in taxes that were responsible for the destruction of the financial health of the country.
 
haymarket said:
I thought it was runaway spending on needless wars and a drastic reduction in taxes that were responsible for the destruction of the financial health of the country.
Click to expand...

Nope. As you can see from the chart below, defense spending has been dropping as a percent of GDP since the '50s, '60s, '70s, and '80s, while social spending from the mandatory spending laws from progressive governments has been steadily increasing. Currently ~15% of GDP compared to 0% GDP in 1930. The problem is the growth forecast of social spending, primarily Medicare. You are so cavalier about raising taxes to pay for unchecked, mandatory spending habits of progressives that eat away at other expenditures. The cost of defense overall, including the wars (25% of budget), is minor compared to mandatory spending (64% of budget).

usgs_line.php
 
Last edited:
So if we removed all the money spent on wars in the last few decades, added in corporate welfare and subsidies, and put back the money that was cut out of government revenue from tax cuts going back to Reagan, that would not help our financial situation?
 
haymarket said:
In my copy of the Constitution, the general welfare clause is indeed one of the enumerated powers right there is item #1 of Article I, Section 8 -
Click to expand...

that welfare is far different than income redistribution
 
haymarket said:
I thought it was runaway spending on needless wars and a drastic reduction in taxes that were responsible for the destruction of the financial health of the country.
Click to expand...

why do you call cuts in tax rates the same as cuts in tax revenues? that is patently dishonest
 
I think the author is the best person to ask...............

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

-------------James Madison--Father of the Constitution
.
.
.
.
.
TJ also would be a good source...........

“to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the U.S.” that is to say “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” for the laying of taxes is the power and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. they are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. in like manner they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. to consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct & independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding & subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. it would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased.

-------Thomas Jefferson


The further Left this country ventures......the more brilliant our Founders and Forefathers become.......

It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase,

It did reduce the whole insturment to a single phrase......upon which.....laying a foundation for which the Democrat Party was soley built upon.
.
.
.
.
 
haymarket said:
In my copy of the Constitution, the general welfare clause is indeed one of the enumerated powers right there is item #1 of Article I, Section 8 -
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps you should start trying to find a copy of The Constitution of the United States of America, instead of whatever it is you're reading that's so clearly incorrectly worded.
 
samsmart said:
You're wrong. The Tenth Amendment makes it perfectly clear that non-enumerated powers belong to the states and to the people. Which is why more state and federal laws should be addressed via referendum in order for the people to protect themselves from both the federal government and state governments.
Click to expand...

Right.

The ONLY group that can't enact the non-enumerated powers is...

....let's see if the Mayor can type really sloooowwwllyyyy to make it perfectly plain...

THE CONGRESS. Hence, all laws written by the Congress outside of the SPECIFIC powers enumerated, are unconstitutional and hence illegal.

Since the Congress is the only source of federal law, and since the states and the lower jurisdictions do not have authority to write laws that cross state lines, the PEOPLE are limited in the nonsense they can impose on the entire nation. They're free to wreck what ever state they live in, they're denied the freedom to wreck the whole country with socialism.

And, just in case you missed it, there is no mechanism for national referenda, nor will there ever be, until the Left poisons all the water with Kool-Aid.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
I understand your opinion. I think you are wrong and based on its rulings now in effect, the Supreme Court thinks you are wrong.

Can you cite a modern Supreme Court ruling where they agree with your interpretation that the general welfare listing is not an enumerated power?

To be very frank here, your argument seems 100% political and not at all legalistic. You do not like progressive government and are trying to find a way to overturn it. Your rant at the end of your post seems to emphasize your strong feelings about this subject.
Click to expand...

So, the Supreme Court is wrong. If you're depending on the Supreme Court decisions to act as a support for your false position regarding general welfare clause, then you're employing the Logical Fallacy of Agrument from Authority.

Given that the USSC has reversed itself on a number of cases, you cannot argue that the USSC is infallible, and hence, even if Argument From Authority wasn't logically false in the first place, you have no grounds for your assumption, anyway.
 
haymarket said:
I thought it was runaway spending on needless wars and a drastic reduction in taxes that were responsible for the destruction of the financial health of the country.
Click to expand...

No.

It's socialism and the Constitutional violations necessary to implement them. After all, the military only takes up a quarter of the budget in 2010, and that's a typical year. One cannot argue rationally that the one quarter of the budget that's actually allowed by the Constitution is the cause of the economic disaster facing us. For no other reason it's simply not big enough.
 
haymarket said:
So if we removed all the money spent on wars in the last few decades, added in corporate welfare and subsidies, and put back the money that was cut out of government revenue from tax cuts going back to Reagan, that would not help our financial situation?
Click to expand...

Not nothing like cutting out the unconstitutional corporate welfare, the unconstitutional education spending, the unconstitutional social security ponzi scheme, the unconstitutional welfare spending, the unconstitutional medicaid spending, the unconstitutional medicare spending, and the unconstitutional pork spending.

you can't claim the Constitution allows "welfare" and then whine about so-called "corporate welfare", as if it's something different. All "corporate welfare" is is the re-distribution of unearned wealth to people you don't like.
 
Troubadour said:
You seem to be treating the 10th Amendment only from the direction of the government itself, and not from the direction of the citizens' rights. According to the 10th, rights are not limited by their enumeration, but only by express powers granted to the government. So, for instance, the federal system choose to do X because X is not in its enumerated powers. But wait a second...the rights of the citizen or state are not limited by their constitutional enumeration, so doesn't a citizen or a state have a right to use the federal government in a capacity (such as welfare funds) they find useful, even if the federal government itself is prevented from initiating such a relationship? Doesn't it mean that as long as the relationship is voluntary and initiated by the citizen or state user, the federal government is fully allowed to operate as whatever level of services the unbounded-rights-having citizen wishes it to offer, and expresses that wish through electing leaders who agree? Or is the individual citizen's rights limited by the limitation of governmental powers? That would seem to be the exact opposite of what the 10th Amendment says.
Click to expand...

NO, to everything you said.
 
drz-400 said:
So you interpret the general welfare clause as, we list them and thats all there are, but the bill of rights you interpret as open ended?
Click to expand...

Not interpret (bill of rights) - Amendment 9 :The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
Badmutha said:
I think the author is the best person to ask...............

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

-------------James Madison--Father of the Constitution
.
.
.
.
.
TJ also would be a good source...........

“to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the U.S.” that is to say “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” for the laying of taxes is the power and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. they are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. in like manner they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. to consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct & independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding & subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. it would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased.

-------Thomas Jefferson


The further Left this country ventures......the more brilliant our Founders and Forefathers become.......

It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase,

It did reduce the whole insturment to a single phrase......upon which.....laying a foundation for which the Democrat Party was soley built upon.
.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

It's too bad this sort of information BLOW MOST LEFTIES WIDE ****ING OPEN!!
 
American said:
It's too bad this sort of information BLOW MOST LEFTIES WIDE ****ING OPEN!!
Click to expand...

Indeed it does...........

......tis amazing........watching Jim and Tom destroy the entire Democrat Party......and everything it stands for.........with but one paragraph.
.
.
.
.
 
American said:
NO, to everything you said.
Click to expand...

So, according to you, the 10th Amendment - contrary to its own explicit words - limits the rights of the citizenry to those directly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. That's some nice Orwell logic.
 
Troubadour said:
So, according to you, the 10th Amendment - contrary to its own explicit words - limits the rights of the citizenry to those directly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. That's some nice Orwell logic.
Click to expand...

If you think you've got good debate technique, you're going to be disappointed in future encounters. Pathetic.
 
Goobieman said:
On the contrary - the idea that they left things open for interpretation flew out the window when they included the 10th amendment, leaving any powers not specified to the states.
Click to expand...

That's not true. The constitution reserves to the states any of their "original" powers that were not redirected by the constitution to the federal government. The 10th amendment is not a carte blanche for the state's to have every and any power not specifically addressed by the constitution. This is why the states cannot add their own qualifications to their own Congresspeople and Senators.
 
pzycho said:
"Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant". The 10th Amendment requires enumeration of powers. If it is not enumerated, it is not a federal power.
Click to expand...

So then, I guess the federal government has no power to raise or maintain an Air Force, eh? While the constitution does talk about common defense, it also specifically grants Congress the power to raise Armies, and to maintain a Navy. If we accept a hyper restrictive interpretation of the constitution, the enumerated powers regarding Armies and a Navy make it clear that any branch of the military must also be enumerated by the constitution in order to pass muster. Therefore, I am sure that you will agree that the Air Force is an unconstitutional construct.

Also unconstitutional is the practice of Army personnel signing contracts for more than two years. The constitution explicitly forbids any expenditure by the Congress to maintain an Army from extending longer than two years.
 
Badmutha said:
I think the author is the best person to ask...............
Click to expand...

Ah, the oft repeated fallacy; argumentum ad Madison. Many people like to specifically cite Madison and his opinions on certain matters as if it were specially authoritative regarding the constitution and its meaning. This is a blatant failing of logic. Madison was the pen and nothing more. The constitution was drafted by convention, and its contents were decided by a large group of people representing the several states. These people, even as they were settling on their agreements on what to include and what not to include in the constitution, all had differences of opinions regarding how various aspects should be interpreted and applied. Madison had his opinions, others had their opinions. At the end of the day, Madison was little more than a secretary recording the minutes of the meeting. His views hold no special relevance over any other founding father to the content of the constitution.
 
Goobieman said:
This clause gives the power to tax and spend.

If it gave the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare, then the next 16 clauses would have been left out, leaving only the 'general welfare' and the 'elastic' clauses, as only the clauses would be necessary and the inclusion of the others, inexplicable.

That those clauses exist indicate that the 'general welfare clause' interpretation of Article I:8:1 is incorrect.

Oh yes -- Hamilton. (Note: See Madison)
The guy that argued against the bill of rights because he thought the enumeration of certain rights would mean that those were the only rights that existed? Yeah, that's him.

Where was his similar argument agianst the enumeration of the powers of Congress?

Hamilton's internal inconsistency, described above, illustrates the opportunistic nature of his arguments, and therefore negates their credibility. The left embraces his position on the matter because it gives them what they want and ignore Madison because his argument doesnt - but are unable to explain just how Madison is wrong.
Click to expand...

Everything else aside I don't see Hamiltons inconsistency.

Are you trying to say he didn't want congress to be restricted to only those things listed, or that he didn't want citizens to have more rights than those listed.

I've been reading a lot of writings by the Founders recently, and it hasn't all sorted out yet, but mlre than one was concerned by the Bill of Rights because they were concerned that tricky bastards would play games with semantics and legal mumbo jumbo to pretend that the Bill of Rights is ALL the rights.

Real clear to me, so would you explain the disconnect?
 
TurtleDude said:
why do you call cuts in tax rates the same as cuts in tax revenues? that is patently dishonest
Click to expand...

Well, they've been ordered to make those noises at the behest of their political leadership.

It's exactly the same as a business that cuts unit prices and thus selling more units and subsequently showing a greater revenue claiming the price cut as an expense on their taxes.

It's completely bogus in both cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom