• 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!

Nationalizing the Education System

Nationalize Schools?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 18.9%
  • No

    Votes: 53 71.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 7 9.5%

  • Total voters
    74
The huge majority of them have written their intentions and their explanations.

Please provide verifiable evidence of this claim.

The preamble uses 'general welfare' as a reference to the later enumerated powers.

Article I clearly states that Congress has the power in the area of providing for the General Welfare. Its right there in plain English on the printed page.

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;
 
The power to tax et al to:

1. pay the debt
2. provide for the common Defense
3. provide for the general welfare

Yes, those limits on the power to tax are indeed specified. Congress may collect taxes only for those purposes.

But again, the language under consideration merely gives congress the power to tax for specific purpose. It grants no other powers.
 
It says right in Article I that they do

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;

So is it your position that congress has the power to collect taxes, and congress also has a separate power to provide for the general welfare?

EDIT - I see you have provided the answer in another post:

Article I clearly states that Congress has the power in the area of providing for the General Welfare.

I would suggest that article I, section 8 merely grants congress the power to tax in order to provide for the general welfare. I think that most people can see that this would be the case. If congress had been given a separate power to provide for the general welfare, it would have made it unnecessary to provide the rest of article I, section 8. All the remaining powers would have been superfluous.
 
Last edited:
If you are using this as an excuse to increase the power of Big Brother to indoctrinate our youth, it's awfully lame! :roll:
I think there are certain parameters, like the three R's, certain basics of society (What are contracts? for example), basics of history (Missouri requires grade schools to cover the US Constitution as well as our state's constitution and major laws), basics of science (the scientific method, measurement, critical thought, etc), public and personal health, etc, etc. There's not a damn thing wring with the things I was taught in school and I learned all that and more. Every adult US citizen - and would-be citizen as far as I'm concerned - should be able to pass a basic HS senior's test.
 
The huge majority of them have written their intentions and their explanations. You're twisting the preamble to the constitution to mean that the constitution gives all rights, whatsoever, to the federal government for the purposes of providing for the general welfare. If there were founders who thought the intent of the preamble was to do that, then we'd have seen that and no federalist or anti federalist would have come to an agreement. In fact, the people against the constitution were worried that people would misinterpret that clause, like you're doing right now, and that forces MANY discussions from the federalists to assure them that it isn't made to create an unlimited government.

<snip - continue unrelated post about preamble>
The Preamble?!? I was quoting Article I, Section 8.
 
Yes, those limits on the power to tax are indeed specified. Congress may collect taxes only for those purposes.

But again, the language under consideration merely gives congress the power to tax for specific purpose. It grants no other powers.
In that particular passage it does - and those specific purposes include "provide for the general welfare". I'm sure it could be easily construed to include establishing basic educational requirements for non-adults, especially given modern times.
 
I would suggest that article I, section 8 merely grants congress the power to tax in order to provide for the general welfare. I think that most people can see that this would be the case. If congress had been given a separate power to provide for the general welfare, it would have made it unnecessary to provide the rest of article I, section 8. All the remaining powers would have been superfluous.
You're trying to make a distinction where none exists. Congress can tax et al to provide for the general welfare. That obviously means Congress can "provide for the general welfare", since it is specifically listed as one of the things it can do with the taxes et al it collects.
 
You're trying to make a distinction where none exists. Congress can tax et al to provide for the general welfare. That obviously means Congress can "provide for the general welfare", since it is specifically listed as one of the things it can do with the taxes et al it collects.

Except that provide for the general welfare is meant to convey the powers later mentioned, not any power congress wants. Even later in section 8 it makes it clear that congress has the power to make the laws pursuant of those specific powers. Why would they make that distinction?
 
You're trying to make a distinction where none exists. Congress can tax et al to provide for the general welfare. That obviously means Congress can "provide for the general welfare", since it is specifically listed as one of the things it can do with the taxes et al it collects.

This is the basis of our disagreement. I don't agree that it obviously means that congress was given plenary power to provide for the general welfare. If it were, then there would not have been any need for the remainder of Art I, section 8.

Your interpretation means that the states, in establishing their compact, gave unlimited power to the federal government. I don't accept this notion.

But then again, ultimately, the federal government will do what it chooses to do, until it is unable to get away with it. A piece of paper has never and can never restrain government. Our discussion is purely academic.
 
What you did was fundamentally intellectually dishonest in addition to being outright false. FDR never had a program to confiscate and destroy all the excess or extra or surplus food in the USA. Never happened.

:lol: you are attempting to create an interpretation which would be narrowly incorrect (a matter of degree) in order to justify your own failure of knowledge (a matter of subject)? Okay, Haymarket. ;) Given the rest of your performance here, I'm sure folks believe you :lol:

In your opinion which is not supported by a reading of the clause itself.

Funny how you say that, and then when we cite the actual writing of the clause and the opinions of the people who wrote it on what it meant you respond with the idea that it's "just their opinion" :). I'd say they would know better than you.
 
I would suggest that article I, section 8 merely grants congress the power to tax in order to provide for the general welfare. I think that most people can see that this would be the case. If congress had been given a separate power to provide for the general welfare, it would have made it unnecessary to provide the rest of article I, section 8. All the remaining powers would have been superfluous.

You can suggest anything you want to suggest. Congress was given the power to provide for the general welfare. It has already been cited and quoted for you.
 
Except that provide for the general welfare is meant to convey the powers later mentioned, not any power congress wants.

It says what it says. And what is says is that Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare. All of the circular arguments, all of the hurdles you want to create from your own vivid imagination, all of the scenarios you want to invent, are irrelevant next to the actual language of the Constitution.
 
:lol: you are attempting to create an interpretation which would be narrowly incorrect (a matter of degree) in order to justify your own failure of knowledge (a matter of subject)? Okay, Haymarket. ;) Given the rest of your performance here, I'm sure folks believe you :lol:



Funny how you say that, and then when we cite the actual writing of the clause and the opinions of the people who wrote it on what it meant you respond with the idea that it's "just their opinion" :). I'd say they would know better than you.

Your opinion is irrelevant next to the actual language of the US Constitution which clearly says that Congress has the power to provide for the 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;



The opinion of individuals is irrelevant next to the actual language of the US Constitution which clearly says that COngress has the power to provide for the 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;



Any attack you make upon me is irrelevant next to the actual language of the US Constitution which clearly says that Congress has the power to provide for the 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;
 
In that particular passage it does - and those specific purposes include "provide for the general welfare". I'm sure it could be easily construed to include establishing basic educational requirements for non-adults, especially given modern times.

Why couldn't it be construed for adults as well? Education originally wasn't included as a power of Congress and then it got added and not yet successfully struck down. Someone could just as easily say that education should be controlled to the age of 30 or more.
 
You can suggest anything you want to suggest. Congress was given the power to provide for the general welfare. It has already been cited and quoted for you.

You're wrong. Congress was given the power to tax. It may tax only in order to pay its debts, provide for the common defense, and provide for the general welfare. It has no plenary power to provide for the general welfare.
 
It says what it says. And what is says is that Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare. All of the circular arguments, all of the hurdles you want to create from your own vivid imagination, all of the scenarios you want to invent, are irrelevant next to the actual language of the Constitution.

Until 1937, it was understood by all branches of government that the first paragraph of article 1 section 8 only applied to taxation. It took the supreme court ruling in favor of social security for that to change.

By the way, the SC was practically blackmailed by FDR into making that ruling. FDR was working to pass legislation that would add 6 new SC justices because 8 out of 10 new deal laws were overruled by the court... pretty telling, don't you think?
 
You're wrong. Congress was given the power to tax. It may tax only in order to pay its debts, provide for the common defense, and provide for the general welfare. It has no plenary power to provide for the general welfare.

let me reword it for you and see if its understandable to others.

the part of article 1 section 8 in question is the taxing clause which grants............ the power to tax to congress, and that all.

the single clause does not grant any other powers to provide for the general welfare/military in the clause itself........in other words....that its only 1 single power granted by this clause...and its to tax.

if the clause granted more than 1 power, then it would be stating congress has power for the military twice .

the general welfare refers to the duties of congress, those 18 enumerated duties only, because those duties.... of coining money, keeping us safe and the others are the .......general welfare.
 
Last edited:
let me reword it for you and see if its understandable to others.

the part of article 1 section 8 in question is the taxing clause which grants............ the power to tax to congress, and that all.

the single clause does not grant any other powers to provide for the general welfare/military in the clause itself........in other words....that its only 1 single power granted by this clause...and its to tax.

if the clause granted more than 1 power, then it would be stating congress has power for the military twice .

the general welfare refers to the duties of congress, those 18 enumerated duties only, because those duties.... of coining money, keeping us safe and the others are the .......general welfare.

Very well put. Better than I have done so far. :)

Of course, as I said earlier, all of this is essentially academic. The Frankenstein monster that the states created will do what it wishes, as long as it is powerful enough to do so without opposition. However, there is value in understanding how things went awry, which may be useful to future generations seeking to devise systems of governance.
 
You're wrong. Congress was given the power to tax. It may tax only in order to pay its debts, provide for the common defense, and provide for the general welfare. It has no plenary power to provide for the general welfare.

That is beyond silly. Taking you at your argument, Congress can tax and raise money for defense and the general welfare but the simply cannot spend it on those things. That is beyond ridiculous.
 
Until 1937, it was understood by all branches of government that the first paragraph of article 1 section 8 only applied to taxation. It took the supreme court ruling in favor of social security for that to change.

By the way, the SC was practically blackmailed by FDR into making that ruling. FDR was working to pass legislation that would add 6 new SC justices because 8 out of 10 new deal laws were overruled by the court... pretty telling, don't you think?

What I think is that you are trying really really hard to deny reality.
 
That is beyond silly. Taking you at your argument, Congress can tax and raise money for defense and the general welfare but the simply cannot spend it on those things. That is beyond ridiculous.

Not really. It has the power to tax, and it has the power to spend money exercising its other legitimate powers. For example, it may spend tax revenues on the exercise of the following powers:

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.
 
That is beyond silly. Taking you at your argument, Congress can tax and raise money for defense and the general welfare but the simply cannot spend it on those things. That is beyond ridiculous.

not correct.

the tax clause grants congress power to tax only.

that tax money can be used to promote the general welfare, which are the 18 enumerated duties listed for congress, and part of those duties is the military.

the general welfare is not a open ended clause to give congress the power to create or do anything, if that were so government would be unlimited, ...however we know from the men would created the Constitution , government is supposed to be limited.

you have seen what the founders have stated on this issue many times, and the evidence is clear,....a limited government.



“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

“[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined – unlike most modern interpretations!

Admittedly, Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders. These two were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. So let’s look at another Founder’s opinion—Alexander Hamilton who historically saw it in a somewhat looser vain.

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore — unconstitutional.
 
Not really. It has the power to tax, and it has the power to spend money exercising its other legitimate powers. For example, it may spend tax revenues on the exercise of the following powers:

Thank you for that list.

And that last one covers the ability to enact programs or spending on behalf of providing for the general welfare.

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.

Put the start of the Article together with the end of that list and its very clear that Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare and may pass any laws they feel are necessary and proper to achieve that.

I get that right wing ideologues who hate government don't like that reality. tough. That is the way the Constitution reads.
 
not correct.

the tax clause grants congress power to tax only.

that tax money can be used to promote the general welfare, which are the 18 enumerated duties listed for congress, and part of those duties is the military.

the general welfare is not a open ended clause to give congress the power to create or do anything, if that were so government would be unlimited, ...however we know from the men would created the Constitution , government is supposed to be limited.

you have seen what the founders have stated on this issue many times, and the evidence is clear,....a limited government.



“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

“[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined – unlike most modern interpretations!

Admittedly, Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders. These two were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. So let’s look at another Founder’s opinion—Alexander Hamilton who historically saw it in a somewhat looser vain.

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore — unconstitutional.

I agree that the states did not ratify with the understanding that they were granting plenary legislative power to the government of the union. The union was sold and ratified as having specific, limited, and enumerated powers. It's preposterous to imagine that the sovereign states would submit to a treaty that gave their agent unlimited powers, including the power to exit their treaty. Such a ratification would be tantamount to a suicide pact.
 
Thank you for that list.

And that last one covers the ability to enact programs or spending on behalf of providing for the general welfare.

Wrong.

Congress has no power to provide for the general welfare. It has the power to tax, and it has several other enumerated powers. It has no power to provide for the general welfare.
 
Back
Top Bottom