Do You Have a Right to a Job?

Neomalthusian said:

What makes you think our infrastructure improvement projects are going to be adequately done by the hodge podge bunch of unemployed-and-can't-get-a-job bunch of folks?
.

Click to expand...

A pretty large portion of those unemploymed can't-get-a-job folks were previously working in the construction business and had jobs until the jobs dissapeared.

What kinds of government projects do you see out there that could be satisfactorily staffed by the millions of unemployed folks scattered all across the country? You seem to be sort of shooting blind here. In reality, big infrastructure projects nowadays require expertise. Even something as seemingly simple as digging a hole and dropping a residential septic tank into it requires a team of engineers to design the system, permitting from the state's environmental conservation department, etc. etc. If you think our infrastructure needs can employ millions of our least-employable people, then you must be advocating for projects that embrace a technological regression in terms of how we get things done. To make sweeping infrastructure improvements that will benefit us long-term, you think we can just give millions of people some hand tools and it'll all get done? Hell, in that case let's build some pyramids.

Click to expand...

"Least employable" people is relative. It also includes a lot of folks that were in the construction industry.

One of the biggest things needed to modernize our medical records? simple data entry.

Let me be clear, I would of course rather people be productive than idle. I do wish for that. But even more specifically, I wish for self-sufficiency. People who work hard to produce value (for themselves even) such as by growing more of their own food, re-learning homesteading and food storage and preservation and other crucial life skills, rather than having and expecting things be provided to them by the external. Having "a right to a job" is inherently a dependent set-up. You depend on the government to provide you with something to do, or to force someone else to provide something for you to do. Your sense of choice and self-reliance and pursuit of happiness is constrained by that sort of notion. Real productivity and lifestyle independence requires strategy and voluntary trade, not coercion and administrative management.

"Right to a job" notions are an ideological misfire. They are not about pursuit of happiness. They are about receipt of happiness.

Click to expand...

So you think it's better for people to learn skills like food preservation? That may add to self sufficiciency in the sense of living on the prarie 100 years ago but it's grossly inefficient.

Gaius46 said:

I'm asking WHERE in the Constitution it says that?

Click to expand...

the enumerated duties of congress

article 1 Section. 8.

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 Offences 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.


13th amendment

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.



Are there any duties of congress that are social duties, that are involved in the personal life's of the people.......no.

“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

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

congress has no authority to take money from one citizen and give it to another citizen.

government was created to serve the interest of the people equally, it is not here to favor one class over another class.

iliveonramen said:

The job gaurantee is about society promising a job for people that can't find work. That job benefits society so it would be public in nature. TVA and other New Deal style work programs. Put people to work doing things that provide long term benefits for society during times of mass unemployment.

Honestly I'm not sure about a 100% employment program. If anything it should be a gauranteed work program when you pass some unemployment threshold.

Click to expand...

the federal government was not created to guarantee a job to people, it is not an enumerated duty of congress.

some people may want to work ,however they do not have good work performance, meaning they dont show up to work on time, they cannot get along with other employees, they dont comply with company polices.

their are no guarantee's in life.

ernst barkmann said:

the federal government was not created to guarantee a job to people, it is not an enumerated duty of congress.

some people may want to work ,however they do not have good work performance, meaning they dont show up to work on time, they cannot get along with other employees, they dont comply with company polices.

their are no guarantee's in life.

Click to expand...

So we have 10 million unemployed because in 2007 they decided to stop showing up to work in time?

There are no gaurantees in life but sometimes what happens is more arbitrary and less based on something specific someone did.

iliveonramen said:

So we have 10 million unemployed because in 2007 they decided to stop showing up to work in time?

There are no gaurantees in life but sometimes what happens is more arbitrary and less based on something specific someone did.

Click to expand...

i would make the point, government cannot create a guarantee to a job., because they have no auditory to do such.

but what government can do is make the economy more robust, and institute polities, which spur economic activity, to cause job creation.

"the ends, justify the means" .......does not work when violating the constitution.

Absolutely not....I am a full free market man...I do not believe anyone has a right to any job at all.

X Factor said:

Hmmmm, I'm a bit of a constitutional purist and I don't believe anyone has a right right to a job, but I'm not sure how trying to guarantee one as a right would violate the Constitution.

Click to expand...

What kind of draconian, rights-killing laws would have to be passed to make this happen? That's where it gets unconstitutional.

ernst barkmann said:

the enumerated duties of congress

article 1 Section. 8.

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 Offences 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.


13th amendment

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.



Are there any duties of congress that are social duties, that are involved in the personal life's of the people.......no.

“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

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

congress has no authority to take money from one citizen and give it to another citizen.

government was created to serve the interest of the people equally, it is not here to favor one class over another class.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the words of the Constitution itself do not specifically limit the clause "general welfare." And we should care only about what the document says, not what Jefferson says it should say, or even what the actual drafters say is should say.

Now how does guaranteeing someone a job violate the 13th amendment.


And btw, I agree with you insofar as we should not be guaranteeing people jobs. I simply disagree that the Constitution prohibits it.

Only under communism...

oh wait, there you are also forced to have a job.

Gaius46 said:

Unfortunately the words of the Constitution itself do not specifically limit the clause "general welfare." And we should care only about what the document says, not what Jefferson says it should say, or even what the actual drafters say is should say.

Click to expand...

OK, let’s see what they had to say and put this question to rest. Let’s ask James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Could they possibly shed any light on this?

“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.

From the proverbial horses mouths to your own eyes — the all-encompassing General Welfare Clause is not as all encompassing as our current “leaders” would have us believe. In no way does that one phrase grant unlimited power to the Federal government rather it pertains only to those enumerated powers that can and ought to be applied universally and in general to the several states.

Gaius46 said:

Now how does guaranteeing someone a job violate the 13th amendment.

Click to expand...

this comes into play if the government used force to make business create jobs for people, or force business to hire people.

government has no authority to force you to do things, if you have not violated the law.

Gaius46 said:

And btw, I agree with you insofar as we should not be guaranteeing people jobs. I simply disagree that the Constitution prohibits it.

Click to expand...

the constitution is written to limit governments only, they are not written for business or people.

limiting government is why we have a constitution to to prevent their over reach of power, ....their powers are few and defined.

as state by the founders:"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.

“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

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

as i've stated in other threads, i do feel that we are entering into an era in which technology will do more and more of the work. i think of this as a post-labor economy, and i'm genuinely curious about how the resource distribution model will have to be modified as actual labor is needed less and less. perhaps at this time, the responsibility of the citizen will become achieving his or her intellectual potential and contributing in that way to the goal of societal stability and sustainability.

right now, a job is a necessity for most. is it a right? that's a bit more nuanced. i would say that the first world has pretty much decided that people have a right not to starve to death and a right to not die of treatable diseases due to lack of funds. could we make the system infinitely more efficient, though? yes.

at some point, we as a society need to look at our labor pool as a resource. what needs done, and who is available to do it? once that question is answered, we train people to do the jobs that need to be done. and yes, we do it publicly, because the public is the primary beneficiary. i think that this would be a vast improvement over the current system.

soot said:

I agree completely.

Part of the "job" of being self employed is atttracting and keeping customers.

Everyone certainly has the right to at least that much.

If I have the right to gain skills, the right to hang out a shingle and go to work for myself, and the right to attract customers and provide them with whatever service my skills qualify me to provide, then by logical necessity I have the right to a job.

Again, I'm not arguing that anyone else has an obligation to provide me with a job, and neither do prospective customers have an obligation to employ me.

I don't have a right to be successful at my job.

But I have a right to one.

Click to expand...

The problem I have with this stance on a right to a job is people have already taken it to imply that some should be forced to employ others even if they're ****ty employees. There seems to be debate as to whether it should be the private or public sector forced to employ these people but, either way, I think we all lose when this happens.

ernst barkmann said:

i would make the point, government cannot create a guarantee to a job., because they have no auditory to do such.

but what government can do is make the economy more robust, and institute polities, which spur economic activity, to cause job creation.

"the ends, justify the means" .......does not work when violating the constitution.

Click to expand...

I'm using the job guarantee loosely. I know some have stated a steadfast hard gaurantee that no-one ever should want for a job but like the Fed Reserve tries to maintain some sort of inflation target the government should have some sort of employment rate target.

This country is getting ridiculous...you'd think from the bills passsed, the debates that happen that everything was hunky dory. There's a very wide disconnect between the people in Washington and everyone els.e

Dapper Andy said:

The problem I have with this stance on a right to a job is people have already taken it to imply that some should be forced to employ others even if they're ****ty employees.

Click to expand...

If that's the way its being taken then I have a problem with it too.

That's why I've tried to be clear all along that that is not how I take it for the purpose of this discussion.

There seems to be debate as to whether it should be the private or public sector forced to employ these people but, either way, I think we all lose when this happens.

Click to expand...

I think that when it comes to people who aren't employable (either by themselves or by others) we lose no matter what we do.

We either have to:

a.) Give them jobs

b.) Maintain them on welfare

c.) Fight them like an invading ****ing army because if they have no means to provide for themslves and we don't provide for them they're going to turn to crime on a massive scale in the simple interest of self-preservation

And we're talking about millions of people here.

I think that giving them jobs is the lesser of all possible evils.

At least we (society) get something back on our investment in them, even if it's only the simple satisfaction of not giving them something for nothing while we have to work for everything we have (or most of us do anyhow, some are just born rich but I don't think there's any crime in that and I would certainly take the job if I could get it).

iliveonramen said:

A pretty large portion of those unemploymed can't-get-a-job folks were previously working in the construction business and had jobs until the jobs dissapeared.

"Least employable" people is relative. It also includes a lot of folks that were in the construction industry.

Click to expand...

You may have a point here. Could you cite the numbers?

One of the biggest things needed to modernize our medical records? simple data entry.

Click to expand...

Maybe that's worth doing, but the fact that it's worth doing is what has to drive the decision. This does not translate to people generally having a right to being provided with a job to do.

So you think it's better for people to learn skills like food preservation? That may add to self sufficiciency in the sense of living on the prarie 100 years ago but it's grossly inefficient.

Click to expand...

It's self-sufficiency in the sense that it's self-sufficiency. Almost any time I bring up healthy, fulfilling endeavors related to self-sufficiency, Big Government advocates badmouth it and mock it. For people who claim to care so much about the poorer folks in our society, this makes no sense. Food independence is an integral component to having a sense of empowerment despite limited means. No one needs this more than our middle and lower classes.

Having a job that was created by government for the sake of your welfare is hardly different from any other type of welfare because it keeps those people inherently dependent on the external to produce something for them, rather than reliance on the self to produce something for the self. So I would expect the same type of self-victimizing, whining, helplessness and resentment under a workfare system that we see under the welfare system. It's futile to think we can legislate prosperity among the meager classes. We need to foster independence despite limited means, not foster greater dependence continuously. You don't have to be wealthy to be fulfilled, productive and healthy. But you do have to feel like you can provide for yourself, know how to, and work hard toward it. Workfare is not an act of providing for oneself. It's still being a dependent passive recipient. And for that, I do not like it.

soot said:

I think that when it comes to people who aren't employable (either by themselves or by others) we lose no matter what we do.

We either have to:

a.) Give them jobs

b.) Maintain them on welfare

c.) Fight them like an invading ****ing army because if they have no means to provide for themslves and we don't provide for them they're going to turn to crime on a massive scale in the simple interest of self-preservation

Click to expand...

Systems that end up with masses being dependent on and exploited by the oligarchically wealthy/powerful always descend into unrest eventually. Always. Welfare doesn't change that outcome, it just prolongs the agonizing, grinding march toward that outcome. Because in a welfare state, everyone remains dependent on that parental power-figure (Big Government/Big Business/Big Bank). And this just doesn't work long-term.

I think that giving them jobs is the lesser of all possible evils.

Click to expand...

I think the least of all evils is to organically change our culture/attitude to actively pursue independence and self-sufficiency. All we've been doing is constantly looking up to some government or big powerful system to provide for our needs like we're children. This has been chronically dissatisfying to all involved.

soot said:

If that's the way its being taken then I have a problem with it too.

That's why I've tried to be clear all along that that is not how I take it for the purpose of this discussion.



I think that when it comes to people who aren't employable (either by themselves or by others) we lose no matter what we do.

We either have to:

a.) Give them jobs

b.) Maintain them on welfare

c.) Fight them like an invading ****ing army because if they have no means to provide for themslves and we don't provide for them they're going to turn to crime on a massive scale in the simple interest of self-preservation

And we're talking about millions of people here.

I think that giving them jobs is the lesser of all possible evils.

At least we (society) get something back on our investment in them, even if it's only the simple satisfaction of not giving them something for nothing while we have to work for everything we have (or most of us do anyhow, some are just born rich but I don't think there's any crime in that and I would certainly take the job if I could get it).

Click to expand...

Isn't there a fourth option of encouraging them to obtain the skills necessary to become employable?

It shouldn't be all stick but there is no reason to make it all carrot either. I'm not opposed to giving people the tools to improving their lives but, after that, it's all on them to make use of those tools. We already provide the unemployable a substantial amount of opportunities to improve their skill set. I don't think allowing them to coast does them any real favors.

Dapper Andy said:

Isn't there a fourth option of encouraging them to obtain the skills necessary to become employable?

It shouldn't be all stick but there is no reason to make it all carrot either. I'm not opposed to giving people the tools to improving their lives but, after that, it's all on them to make use of those tools. We already provide the unemployable a substantial amount of opportunities to improve their skill set. I don't think allowing them to coast does them any real favors.

Click to expand...

The fourth option might be to enact policies that encourage employers to move and or return to the country that could utilize their skills in a productive endeavor...

That's not really a right to employment though, like most socialist nonsense its a gross distortion. That's a right to force other people to pay you for something, distorting the market, disincentivizing self-direction, etc.

Americans do have a right to employment already, a freedom that was not enjoyed in centuries past, one of the things that makes our nation and nations like it, so incredibley ****ing awesome.
What they do not have is the right to force someone else to pay them (well unions have that legal right, mother****ers, but its corrupt and unethical).

Again, Americans are free to employ themselves. They can call it a job, give themselves a fancy title, and pay themselves a salary, etc.
They do NOT have the right to force someone else to hire them...which is what the OP is about.

So yes, we have a right to employment, and the OP not really asking for just that is it.

so where is the liberitarianist spirit ?





from the link
"Without a steady, good-paying job, it is impossible to satisfy all other needs."

X Factor said:

Surfing the net, I came across this.



The Right to a job | Socialist Equality Party

Interesting point of view. What do you think? Is having a job a right?

Adding the poll right now. Answers will be yes, no and I don't know.

Click to expand...

No. There is no right to a job.

ernst barkmann said:

OK, let’s see what they had to say and put this question to rest. Let’s ask James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Could they possibly shed any light on this?

“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.

From the proverbial horses mouths to your own eyes — the all-encompassing General Welfare Clause is not as all encompassing as our current “leaders” would have us believe. In no way does that one phrase grant unlimited power to the Federal government rather it pertains only to those enumerated powers that can and ought to be applied universally and in general to the several states.






this comes into play if the government used force to make business create jobs for people, or force business to hire people.

government has no authority to force you to do things, if you have not violated the law.






the constitution is written to limit governments only, they are not written for business or people.

limiting government is why we have a constitution to to prevent their over reach of power, ....their powers are few and defined.

as state by the founders:"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.

“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

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

Click to expand...

As I said before at the end of the day what Madison and Jefferson wrote in their personal correspondence and what appeared in the Federalist Papers is almost completely irrelevant as far as the framers intent is concerned. What matters - the ONLY thing that matters - is what's in the document that states the ratified. The stated ratified the Constitution and only the Constitution. They did not ratify the Federalist or Jefferson and Madison's letters. The Constitution means what it says.

And btw, Hamilton changed his mind after the Constitution was ratified and lobbied for an expansive view of the general welfare clause that both Washington and Adams agreed with.

Joseph Story, perhaps the most influential early interpreter of the Constitution, advocated an expansive view of the general welfare clause.

Personally I'm on the fence. I'd like to think that the general welfare isn't expansive but I'm not sure that it isn't

Gaius46 said:

As I said before at the end of the day what Madison and Jefferson wrote in their personal correspondence and what appeared in the Federalist Papers is almost completely irrelevant as far as the framers intent is concerned. What matters - the ONLY thing that matters - is what's in the document that states the ratified. The stated ratified the Constitution and only the Constitution. They did not ratify the Federalist or Jefferson and Madison's letters. The Constitution means what it says.

And btw, Hamilton changed his mind after the Constitution was ratified and lobbied for an expansive view of the general welfare clause that both Washington and Adams agreed with.

Joseph Story, perhaps the most influential early interpreter of the Constitution, advocated an expansive view of the general welfare clause.

Personally I'm on the fence. I'd like to think that the general welfare isn't expansive but I'm not sure that it isn't

Click to expand...

i think your forgetting something, the federalist papers, were written before the constitution was ratified, explaining the constitution to the people, and they were used by the state legislators, to make their decisions on passing the constitution.

to say government is not limited and has the power to do anything under the general welfare , is incorrect, and i know of no libertarian, who believes government is unlimited.

ernst barkmann said:

i think your forgetting something, the federalist papers, were written before the constitution was ratified, explaining the constitution to the people, and they were used by the state legislators, to make their decisions on passing the constitution.

to say government is not limited and has the power to do anything under the general welfare , is incorrect, and i know of no libertarian, who believes government is unlimited.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that the Federalist was important in NY but not really anywhere else. It was published in NY, not widely available outside of NY, and before the series was even completed the Constitution was well on the way to being ratified - 5 of the 9 states required for ratification had ratified by the end of January and the Federalist was started at the end of the previous October so perhaps half the series was done by then. So to say that the states took the Federalist arguments into account when they ratified is a debatable point.

I don't believe in unlimited government. I believe in a very limited government at both the Federal and State levels. But my belief isn't what we're discussing. We're discussing what the Constitution means and it means what it
means regardless of our individual belief systems.

Being a socialist i believe one has the right to a job and many more things as well.