• 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!

Do you support single-payer health care?

Do you support single-payer health care?

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 43.7%
  • No

    Votes: 36 50.7%
  • Maybe, if

    Votes: 4 5.6%

  • Total voters
    71
Then why include that explanation if it creates ambiguity in the document (and it does)?
It does not. Your assumption that it does has already been addressed -- you're looking for a way to let the government do something it has not been given the power to do.

If it was truly intended that the listed powers are the only ones that congress has then shouldn't clarity of that point have been more important than a meaningless explanation?
I dont find the clairification at all meaningless. W/o the clause, the argument could be made that there is a power to tax, and to spend, but as there is no specification on which said revenue could be spent, there is no argument that revenue could be spent on (x). This illustrates the intended specificity of the granted powers, as if a power to spend on (x) is not there, then revenue cannot be spent on (x). Thus, the clause.

Note that this is very similar to Hamilton's defense of the elastic clause, in Fed#33

No, they didn't. It can be argued that the way that section is presented implies that those are the only powers held by congress, but that is not explicitly stated.
How can it be argued otherwise?
This gets back to the question as to if you're right, why did they include the other 16 clauses?

It is no more unsupportable than the argument that the drafters of the constitution would have intended those 16 powers to be the only ones held by congress and not stated so explicitly.
The statement is explicit. If your powers are listed, then a power not listed is a power that you do not have.

Who knows Perhaps he did argue against it during the constitutional convention and was overruled. Perhaps that's the reason for the ambiguity; the members of the constitutional convention couldn't agree on how it should be, so they left it open to the interpretation of future generations.
So, you admit you have no verifiable answer for the question and therefore you cannot explain the clear contradiction in his position. Thus, the question remains a valid criticism of the 'unlimited power thru the general welfare clause' argument.

FURTHER, Hamilton himself states, in the discussion regarding the bill of rights, that:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

This very much illustrates an ackowledgement that the enumerated powers do create a firm limit to the powers of the federal government in that there are no powers given to the government by the Constitution that might abridge the rights of the people. CLEARLY, the power to do "anything that might fall under 'general welfare'" has the potential to abridge any number of rights, and so, if his position is genuine, he holds that said power is not there.

Your assumption that there is no ambiguity in the constitution is either hopelessly naive or simply ignorant.
I've made no assumption to that effect; my position is that there is no ambiguity in -this- regard.
 
Last edited:
You have repeatedly ignored my pointing out that the Articles of Confederation included a clause that made the enumerated powers all the powers given. This clause was removed for some reason from the Constitution.
I addressed this when you first mentioned it.

No, there are more than one way to interpret it. It is ambiguous. One SCOTUS may decide one way and a different SCOTUS may decide a different way. You are trying to have previous decisions overturned.
No, I am arguing that a court saying so does not make an argument sound. Appeal to authority. You agreed.

Not that you have been able to show.

But they do. It is the whole strict constructionist vs loose constructionist litmus test. It is personal opinion.
If that's the case, you should disagree with the entire system.
Justices are supposed to decide cases based on the mertis of the case and the low, not their personal opinons and political goals.
 
I addressed this when you first mentioned it.

You are right...I forgot. Wow, long thread! I wound my way back to it and herer is what you said:

The articles of Confederation are irrelevant, especially any given clause taken in space. They did not work for a miltitude of reasons; citing the deletion of one clause from the AoC to the Constitution doesnt mean anything regarding the intent of the Constitution.

I didn't answer this the first time, but you see it does matter in this case as it is an example of having these powers restricted explicitly in the AoC, but not in the Constitution. This would remove the ambiguity that makes our arguments an appeal to authority.

No, I am arguing that a court saying so does not make an argument sound. Appeal to authority. You agreed.


Not that you have been able to show.

You have not shown that it is not an appeal to authority.


If that's the case, you should disagree with the entire system.
Justices are supposed to decide cases based on the mertis of the case and the low, not their personal opinons and political goals.

Not at all. They do base it on the merits of the case but different justices see different merits. This is why there are a supporting opinion and one or more dissenting opinions. Hell, they call them opinions.
 
I didn't answer this the first time, but you see it does matter in this case as it is an example of having these powers restricted explicitly in the AoC, but not in the Constitution. This would remove the ambiguity that makes our arguments an appeal to authority.
So? The AoC was junked, for any mumner of reasons. One cannot take anything from any part of the AoC being retained or eliminated in the Constitution.

You have not shown that it is not an appeal to authority.
Given that you responsed to two of my quotes, I am not sure what this refers to.

Not at all. They do base it on the merits of the case but different justices see different merits.
That's fine -- but the merits are not to be judged based on personal agenda. That's supposed to be left at the door.

That is, unless you;re Ok with racial discrimination cases being decided according to the justice's views on race.
 
You have not shown that your argument is not an appeal to authority.

That's fine -- but the merits are not to be judged based on personal agenda. That's supposed to be left at the door.

Then why the conservative litmus test of strict constructionist?
 
It does not. Your assumption that it does has already been addressed -- you're looking for a way to let the government do something it has not been given the power to do.

And your assumption that it does not has been addressed as well, it's either naive, ignorant, or dishonest.


I dont find the clairification at all meaningless. W/o the clause, the argument could be made that there is a power to tax, and to spend, but as there is no specification on which said revenue could be spent, there is no argument that revenue could be spent on (x). This illustrates the intended specificity of the granted powers, as if a power to spend on (x) is not there, then revenue cannot be spent on (x). Thus, the clause.

Note that this is very similar to Hamilton's defense of the elastic clause, in Fed#33


How can it be argued otherwise?
This gets back to the question as to if you're right, why did they include the other 16 clauses?


The statement is explicit. If your powers are listed, then a power not listed is a power that you do not have.

I don't think you know what the word explicit means. Had it been explicit, there would have been a clearly worded statement that the 16 powers expressed are the only powers congress can spend revenue on. Since there is no such statement, it is not explicit. A lack of a statement to the contrary is not explicit.

So, you admit you have no verifiable answer for the question and therefore you cannot explain the clear contradiction in his position. Thus, the question remains a valid criticism of the 'unlimited power thru the general welfare clause' argument.

FURTHER, Hamilton himself states, in the discussion regarding the bill of rights, that:



This very much illustrates an ackowledgement that the enumerated powers do create a firm limit to the powers of the federal government in that there are no powers given to the government by the Constitution that might abridge the rights of the people. CLEARLY, the power to do "anything that might fall under 'general welfare'" has the potential to abridge any number of rights, and so, if his position is genuine, he holds that said power is not there.

You're right. I'm not exactly sure why the different stances from him. Where did you pull the quote from him from? I'd be interested in seeing whether reading more of it would explain the differences of opinion.

Hamilton's inconsistencies aside (assuming they exist, and the quote was not taken out of context), the ambiguity is very much there, and that in and of itself provides enough reason for the SCOTUS to rule on the matter.

I've made no assumption to that effect; my position is that there is no ambiguity in -this- regard.

Then I should have been more clear. Your position that there is no ambiguity in -this- regard is either hopelessly naive, simply ignorant, or willfully dishonest.
 
reefedjib said:
I didn't answer this the first time, but you see it does matter in this case as it is an example of having these powers restricted explicitly in the AoC, but not in the Constitution. This would remove the ambiguity that makes our arguments an appeal to authority.

So? The AoC was junked, for any mumner of reasons. One cannot take anything from any part of the AoC being retained or eliminated in the Constitution.

I am saying is that it's removal added ambiguity that forces both of our arguments to be appeals to authority or rather that it is up to SCOTUS to interpret. Thus we get the strict vs loose constructionist views and a fight for supremacy in the Court ensues.

Furthermore, it is perfectly legitimate to say that an explicit list of powers was seen as undesired as evidenced by the removal of the phrase "expressly delegated" powers phrase from the AoC. Otherwise they would have restricted it as they were very careful to do this in other places.
 
They did.
When something says you "shall have the power to..." and lists a number of powers, anything not found in that list is not a power you shall have.

No, that doesn't follow logically.

That's why the Tenth Amendment was written, to exclude the argument that the enumerated list was merely the top of the list and that other powers could be created as the future saw fit to allow it.

No, Congress, by the Tenth Amendment, has no other power outside of those very specific powers listed in Article 1, Section 8.

And that's why the Constitution has an Amendment process.

I don't recall any Amendment giving Congress the power to fund public education, operate a national retirement ponzi scheme, or steal the nation's health care industry. Can someone point to it?
 
I am saying is that it's removal added ambiguity that forces both of our arguments to be appeals to authority or rather that it is up to SCOTUS to interpret. Thus we get the strict vs loose constructionist views and a fight for supremacy in the Court ensues.

Furthermore, it is perfectly legitimate to say that an explicit list of powers was seen as undesired as evidenced by the removal of the phrase "expressly delegated" powers phrase from the AoC. Otherwise they would have restricted it as they were very careful to do this in other places.

If an explicit list of powers was not desired, the Founders would not have included both a specific list of powers AND added the Tenth Amendment.

Since Congress is not specifically granted the power to steal the nation's health care industry, it doesn't have the lawful power to do so, and all attempts for such are by definition unlawful.
 
I don't think you know what the word explicit means. Had it been explicit, there would have been a clearly worded statement that the 16 powers expressed are the only powers congress can spend revenue on. Since there is no such statement, it is not explicit. A lack of a statement to the contrary is not explicit.

Great argument.

Too bad the Constitution is only one sentence and semi-colons to divide the clauses in Art1Sect8, isn't it? It wrecks your whole argument.

Those semi-colons link the beginning of the sentence to the ending, which is

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.

The phrase "foregoing powers" gives you people no weasel room, nor does "all other Powers vested by this Constitution".

It says, quite plainly, that those listed powers are not only THE powers Congress has, but ONLY the powers Congress has.

And, to ice the cake, the Tenth Amendment makes that perfectly plain that if it's not specifically listed as a power reserved to the federal government, the federal government DOES NOT have that power.

Period.

Fini.

End of Play.

Listen to the fat lady singing.


Then I should have been more clear. Your position that there is no ambiguity in -this- regard is either hopelessly naive, simply ignorant, or willfully dishonest.

Then I'll make it perfectly clear.

Your desire to invent ambiguity where none exists is merely an expression of your desire to impose illegal social programs on a formerly free people.
 
Last edited:
Great argument.

Too bad the Constitution is only one sentence and semi-colons to divide the clauses in Art1Sect8, isn't it? It wrecks your whole argument.

Those semi-colons link the beginning of the sentence to the ending, which is

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.

The phrase "foregoing powers" gives you people no weasel room, nor does "all other Powers vested by this Constitution".

It says, quite plainly, that those listed powers are not only THE powers Congress has, but ONLY the powers Congress has.

And, to ice the cake, the Tenth Amendment makes that perfectly plain that if it's not specifically listed as a power reserved to the federal government, the federal government DOES NOT have that power.

Period.

Fini.

End of Play.

Listen to the fat lady singing.

Obviously, you don't know what explicit means either.

It's pretty sad when the best argument you can come up with for your position is to argue punctuation marks.

Then I'll make it perfectly clear.

Your desire to invent ambiguity where none exists is merely an expression of your desire to impose illegal social programs on a formerly free people.

I'm inventing nothing. I'm simply not blinding myself to what's there because it doesn't agree with my personal ideology.
 
If an explicit list of powers was not desired, the Founders would not have included both a specific list of powers AND added the Tenth Amendment.

Since Congress is not specifically granted the power to steal the nation's health care industry, it doesn't have the lawful power to do so, and all attempts for such are by definition unlawful.

Does the Constitution grant Congress authority to establish a bank?
 
If an explicit list of powers was not desired, the Founders would not have included both a specific list of powers AND added the Tenth Amendment.

The Tenth Amendment would not stop the exercise of the implicit power in the General Welfare Clause.

Since Congress is not specifically granted the power to steal the nation's health care industry, it doesn't have the lawful power to do so, and all attempts for such are by definition unlawful.

You are basing that statement on an interpretation of the ambiguous General Welfare Clause and case law is against you.
 
Last edited:
You have not shown that your argument is not an appeal to authority.
Show that it is. What 'authority' am I basing my argument on?

Then why the conservative litmus test of strict constructionist?
Same reasons the liberals have one of the opposite.
But, that's irrelevant -- regardless of any such tests, the fact remains that judges are not supposed to rule based on their political and personal desires.
 
And your assumption that it does not has been addressed as well, it's either naive, ignorant, or dishonest.
No more so than your adherece to the idea that there -is- ambiguity.

I don't think you know what the word explicit means. Had it been explicit, there would have been a clearly worded statement that the 16 powers expressed are the only powers congress can spend revenue on. Since there is no such statement, it is not explicit. A lack of a statement to the contrary is not explicit.
I see you did not comment on the purpose of the clarification. Do you agree or disagree?

This has been explained to you. You may choose to ignore the explanation, but the explanation stands. If a contact gives you a list of powers/rights in a contract, and there is a statement in that contract that powers not listed are otherwise held, there's no way to argue that you have powers/rights not listed in the contract.

You're right. I'm not exactly sure why the different stances from him. Where did you pull the quote from him from? I'd be interested in seeing whether reading more of it would explain the differences of opinion
Thank you.
I believe it wa federalist 33. One of them in that area. I hav since closed the link. I apologize for not including it as a cite.

Hamilton's inconsistencies aside (assuming they exist, and the quote was not taken out of context), the ambiguity is very much there...
The 'ambiguity' is based on Hamilton's comments.
If his comments are inconsistent -- he argues one way and then the other -- then Hamilton's comments are useless; any argument based on them is unsound -- including the interpertation of the 'general welfare' clause.
 
Last edited:
Furthermore, it is perfectly legitimate to say that an explicit list of powers was seen as undesired as evidenced by the removal of the phrase "expressly delegated" powers phrase from the AoC. Otherwise they would have restricted it as they were very careful to do this in other places.
Again:

If a contract gives you a list of powers/rights in a contract, and there is a statement in that contract that powers not listed are otherwise held, there's no way to argue that you have powers/rights not listed in the contract.
 
Anti-Federalist Papers: Brutus #5

...the legislature under this constitution may pass any law which they may think proper


In the 1st article, 8th section, it is declared, "that 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." In the preamble, the intent of the constitution, among other things, is declared to be to provide for the common defence, and promote the general welfare, and in this clause the power is in express words given to Congress "to provide for the common defence, and general welfare." -- And in the last paragraph of the same section there is an express authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution this power. It is therefore evident, that the legislature under this constitution may pass any law which they may think proper.
 
Debates in New York Convention on Ratification of the Constitution

The Hon. Mr. WILLIAMS spoke as follows: In the preamble, the intent of the Constitution, among other things, is declared to be, "to provide for the common defence, and promote the general welfare;" and in the clause under consideration, the power is in express words given to Congress "to provide for the common defence and general welfare." And in the last paragraph of the same section, there is an express authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for the carrying into execution this power. It is therefore evident that the legislature, under this Constitution, may pass any law which they may think proper.
 
Anti-Federalist Papers: Brutus #5

...the legislature under this constitution may pass any law which they may think proper


In the 1st article, 8th section, it is declared, "that 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." .... It is therefore evident, that the legislature under this constitution may pass any law which they may think proper.
Interesting that you did not keep going.

...It is therefore evident, that the legislature under this constitution may pass any law which they may think proper. It is true the 9th section restrains their power with respect to certain objects. But these restrictions are very limited, some of them improper, some unimportant, and others not easily understood, as I shall hereafter shew. It has been urged [by the federalist proponents of the Constititon] that the meaning I give to this part of the constitution is not the true one....

To wit, on 19 JAN 1788, just one month later...
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter
The Federalist #41

So much for all that.
 
Last edited:
It is as absurd to say, that the power of Congress is limited by these general expressions, "to provide for the common safety, and general welfare," as it would be to say, that it would be limited, had the constitution said they should have power to lay taxes, &c. at will and pleasure. Were this authority given, it might be said, that under it the legislature could not do injustice, or pursue any measures, but such as were calculated to promote the public good, and happiness. For every man, rulers as well as others, are bound by the immutable laws of God and reason, always to will what is right. It is certainly right and fit, that the governors of every people should provide for the common defence and general welfare; every government, therefore, in the world, even the greatest despot, is limited in the exercise of his power. But however just this reasoning may be, it would be found, in practice, a most pitiful restriction. The government would always say, their measures were designed and calculated to promote the public good; and there being no judge between them and the people, the rulers themselves must, and would always, judge for themselves.

Anti-Federalist Papers: Brutus #6
 
Back
Top Bottom