• 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!

Constitutional interpretation

Common defence (sic) is found in the same sentence as general welfare, which you have rejected because you're pretending that sentence doesn't count.

“Pretending”?

No, he is adamant the words count, but they are limited by subsequent invisible magical wording that says those words are expressly limited in the be exercised through one of the following powers.
 
Now read all of it, instead of only focusing on the part that agrees with your presumption. "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" Common defense being to defend the entire nation, General Welfare is to benefit ALL Americans equally.

General Welfare is to benefit ALL Americans equally.

Yes, because the above isn’t your spin that “agrees with your presumption” this is the meaning.

The original meaning of “General welfare” did not include an equality component or the notion of “all Americans” are to benefit.
 
There's no part of "general welfare" that requires identical benefit to every American. You made that up.

The reality is that you just don't like universal healthcare and are trying to fit the constitution to that predisposition.

Yes, he did, because such a meaning fits his own “presumption,” the very conduct he alleged you committed and derided.
 
Well that's your opinion, imagine how much value I place on it. Please try learning a bit of history and gain a historical, logical perspective. I'm providing a link to a bit of light reading for your consideration and education.


Yet, the link doesn’t lend any support to the words “General” or “welfare” individually or collectively as General welfare as meaning “benefit all Americans equally.”

Interestingly, the meanings invoke something less.

“Public; common; relating to or comprehending the whole community; as the general interest or safety of a nation.”

Now, the words “public” and “common” do not mean “all” or “equally.” Nether do the words “as the general interest or safety of a nation.”

The phrase I’m almost certain you’ll latch onto for your view is “relating to or comprehending the whole community;”

But doing so doesn’t help your view because the author at the link already provided a meaning of something less than “all” and “equally” which means Congress can just as easily exercise its powers in relation to those meanings.

So, no, you’re nifty meaning as the meaning isn’t necessarily the meaning or the only meaning as the author at the link provided other meanings.

And the evidence from Hamilton, Monroe, and Jackson supports a meaning of less than “all” and “equally” was never a factor in the equation.
 
Nice job of displaying your lack of comprehension, the GW clause is in conjunction with the common defense of the nation due to both inherently being applicable to all. Following that are enumerated powers of Congress and in the 9th amendment those enumerated powers are mentioned again, stating that all other powers are retained by the people. Please learn about the concepts of Constitutionally limited government and individual liberty, these are the most basic concepts the U.S.A. was founded upon. As to your assertion that no government in history has affected their entire nation with "perfect" equality, consider that "perfection" is an almost entirely subjective premise, hence the individual rights and liberties bestowed in the Bill of Rights.

There ya go, beg the question fallacy why don’t ya, as you presume the meaning of “all” to law your comment of, “both inherently being applicable to all.”

Except at no time in U.S. history has the words “common” or “general” only meant “all.” Those two words have meant something less than “all.”

The other meanings of less than “all” is no impediment for you though, as you conveniently elide the long standing other meaning of those words that mean less than “all” treat a particular meaning you find palatable as the only meaning.

Then you follow it up with an inundation of irrelevant prose.
 
So, the answer is actually no. It doesn't. It's obvious that it doesn't, because exact universal equality simply isn't possible. Do you agree with this statement?

Lol.

I was wondering whether he’d realize the qualifiying language of “all” and “equally” is logically impossible for all occasions the government acts.
 
You favor ad hominem reasoning and use of sarcasm to insult.

It is all about you, everyone else is wrong, as you are “critically objective” despite the paucity of it in your replies, you focus upon facts despite your own posts ignoring them for the sake of preserving your ideology, you have the characteristics of speaking “honestly” but not your opponent.

The irony is that irrational reasoning isn’t and doesn’t constitute as being “critically objective.”
I'm not ignoring anything, the phrase "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" is more than sufficiently clear that such things must apply to the nation as a whole, or it should not be financed by Congress due to the rest of the wording. For a more complete explanation of this and James Madison's view on the subject, feel free to refer to this. https://constitutionstudy.com/2018/10/26/general-welfare-clause/

Yes, I can see that you're not obsessing at all, that's why you wrote such a lengthy reply and are likely the one who cried about me "bullying you" or whatever you want to call it.
 
Well, let's start where this all began: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

"The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution."


More clearly:

"The holding of Marbury v. Madison established the United States Supreme Court’s power to determine whether a law passed by Congress was constitutional (Judicial Review). Prior to this case, it was clear that laws conflicting with the Constitution were invalid, but the branch of government who determined validity had not been established."


So, the above established the power of SCOTUS to essentially rule on what is within the power of the Federal Government under the national Constitution.

But the SCOTUS' first ruling establishing an interpretation of the "general welfare clause" occurred in 1936 with United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936).

"SCOTUS held that the U.S Congress has not only the power to lay taxes to the level necessary to carry out its other powers enumerated in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, but also a broad authority to tax and spend for the "general welfare" of the United States." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Butler

This was followed by Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), a decision that held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare and so did not contravene the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis

Notice these decisions were rendered under President Franklyn Roosevelt's Administration, during the period of his New Deal efforts.

Roosevelt was known to "bully" the SCOTUS with threats of "stacking the Court" in order to get his New Deal program supported.
I keep wondering why we call it "stacking the court", "packing the court", or whatever other phrase might get used to mean that?

I mean, there's no requirement for how many justices, it's just tradition.

It's really just saying "I don't want you to do this because it would undermine my/our power."


Now, personally, I think the Democrats should get Biden to nominate, and then confirm, 3 justices with history and positions that will server to balance out the ****ery the current conservative majority is doing.
And they should do it before the midterms.

But they won't, elections and all that.
 
I keep wondering why we call it "stacking the court", "packing the court", or whatever other phrase might get used to mean that?

I mean, there's no requirement for how many justices, it's just tradition.

It's really just saying "I don't want you to do this because it would undermine my/our power."


Now, personally, I think the Democrats should get Biden to nominate, and then confirm, 3 justices with history and positions that will server to balance out the ****ery the current conservative majority is doing.
And they should do it before the midterms.

But they won't, elections and all that.

Oh, and the primary difference between Democrats and Republicans is the flavor of BS they feed their mindless supporters, both are big gov loving Collectivists.
 
I'm not ignoring anything, the phrase "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" is more than sufficiently clear that such things must apply to the nation as a whole, or it should not be financed by Congress due to the rest of the wording. For a more complete explanation of this and James Madison's view on the subject, feel free to refer to this. https://constitutionstudy.com/2018/10/26/general-welfare-clause/

I'm not ignoring anything, the phrase "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" is more than sufficiently clear that such things must apply to the nation as a whole, or it should not be financed by Congress due to the rest of the wording.

And the issue you’ve ignored isn’t with the phrase but your meaning of the word “General and common” to mean “all” and “equally.” The author at the site doesn’t agree with your “all” and “equally” definitions of “general welfare and common” as the author included meanings of something less than “all” and having nothing to do with “equally.”

As I stated previously, spending for the G and W required a national focus or impact, hence, pork barrel spending with no connection/impact/benefit, or tenuous, to the national community is not permitted. Where pork barrel spending is money reserved for a project in a specific state and it’s benefit will largely be for the state/county, city, etcetera.

And I’m intimately familiar with Madison’s views, as I referenced them earlier, have dozens of books about the man on my shelf that I’ve read, and a the collection of his letters and notes from the Constitutional Convention. Madison is my favorite American political thinker.

But Madison is a man, a person, with an opinion. He isn’t a deity speaking to the masses as to what is true, recorded onto two stone tablets, and delivered to the masses from the top of Mount Sinai.

Madison is not right or wrong because he is Madison. Madison is correct or mistaken based on the facts, evidence, and strength of the reasoning. Simply, Madison’s view the G and W isn’t a grant of power is not supported by the plain text and demonstrate to me the plain text meaning isn’t what was intended or meant.

Furthermore, Madison’s view the G and W isn’t a grant of power and that the general welfare and common defence is only achieved by one of the specific, subsequent enumerated powers isn’t supported by the plain text. Demonstrating
the plain text meaning isn’t what was intended or meant.

Of course, this wouldn’t be the first time Madison had a disagreement with the plain text meaning. Madison also disagreed with States’ all or nothing approach to assigning electoral votes, arguing it was envisioned the states would assign electoral votes based upon the number of congressional districts won in the state. Yet, the plain text meaning doesn’t support what Madison said.

And the plain text doesn’t support Madison’s reading of the General welfare clause, hence, he is factually wrong. What he or others intended is irrelevant as the written law is the law.

Yes, I can see that you're not obsessing at all, that's why you wrote such a lengthy reply and are likely the one who cried about me "bullying you" or whatever you want to call it.

Nope. Not me. I have no reservations advising a poster to stop the nonsense of ad hominems or risk being reported. Given your caustic, playground tactics of verbal bullying by calling people names, I would have no reservations telling you I reported you as you deserved it and I’d be proud I did it.

But observering how well you haven’t made intellectual discourse possible with your self-serving declarations you are superior and calling others names, there’s no shortage of people here who’ve had enough of the BS name calling and have very good reasons to report your name calling tactics.

I’ve addressed your argument and focused upon your argument. As a result, you never “bullied me” with your ad hominems, as your name calling to me was well received, a validation you had nothing, nothing substantively to say, that your argument was beaten, you knew it, hence your name calling to me because that’s all you had left.
 
Last edited:
And the issue you’ve ignored isn’t with the phrase but your meaning of the word “General and common” to mean “all” and “equally.” The author at the site doesn’t agree with your “all” and “equally” definitions of “general welfare and common” as the author included meanings of something less than “all” and having nothing to do with “equally.”

As I stated previously, spending for the G and W required a national focus or impact, hence, pork barrel spending with no connection/impact/benefit, or tenuous, to the national community is not permitted. Where pork barrel spending is money reserved for a project in a specific state and it’s benefit will largely be for the state/county, city, etcetera.

And I’m intimately familiar with Madison’s views, as I referenced them earlier, have dozens of books about the man on my shelf that I’ve read, and a the collection of his letters and notes from the Constitutional Convention. Madison is my favorite American political thinker.

But Madison is a man, a person, with an opinion. He isn’t a deity speaking to the masses as to what is true, recorded onto two stone tablets, and delivered to the masses from the top of Mount Sinai.

Madison is not right or wrong because he is Madison. Madison is correct or mistaken based on the facts, evidence, and strength of the reasoning. Simply, Madison’s view the G and W isn’t a grant of power is not supported by the plain text and demonstrate to me the plain text meaning isn’t what was intended or meant.

Furthermore, Madison’s view the G and W isn’t a grant of power and that the general welfare and common defence is only achieved by one of the specific, subsequent enumerated powers isn’t supported by the plain text. Demonstrating
the plain text meaning isn’t what was intended or meant.

Of course, this wouldn’t be the first time Madison had a disagreement with the plain text meaning. Madison also disagreed with States’ all or nothing approach to assigning electoral votes, arguing it was envisioned the states would assign electoral votes based upon the number of congressional districts won in the state. Yet, the plain text meaning doesn’t support what Madison said.

And the plain text doesn’t support Madison’s reading of the General welfare clause, hence, he is factually wrong. What he or others intended is irrelevant as the written law is the law.



Nope. Not me. I have no reservations advising a poster to stop the nonsense of ad hominems or risk being reported. Given your caustic, playground tactics of verbal bullying by calling people names, I would have no reservations telling you I reported you as you deserved it and I’d be proud I did it.

But observering how well you haven’t made intellectual discourse possible with your self-serving declarations you are superior and calling others names, there’s no shortage of people here who’ve had enough of the BS name calling and have very good reasons to report your name calling tactics.

I’ve addressed your argument and focused upon your argument. As a result, you never “bullied me” with your ad hominems, as your name calling to me was well received, a validation you had nothing, nothing substantively to say, that your argument was beaten, you knew it, hence your name calling to me because that’s all you had left.
I vehemently disagree about Madison's assertion that the GW clause is incorrect or invalid, and the definition of the two words from the era agree with my assertion quite well, not surprising you disagree though. Oh, and I found out who did report me, for calling them a "kid", therefore I apologize for the accusation. We will have to agree to disagree it seems, and I will continue to maintain that the fed gov has grown far beyond it's proper Constitutional boundaries in size and scope. You are welcomed to continue focusing on the merely "plain text" all you wish, but I've done more than a bit of reading and study on the subject as well.
 
I vehemently disagree about Madison's assertion that the GW clause is incorrect or invalid, and the definition of the two words from the era agree with my assertion quite well, not surprising you disagree though. Oh, and I found out who did report me, for calling them a "kid", therefore I apologize for the accusation. We will have to agree to disagree it seems, and I will continue to maintain that the fed gov has grown far beyond it's proper Constitutional boundaries in size and scope. You are welcomed to continue focusing on the merely "plain text" all you wish, but I've done more than a bit of reading and study on the subject as well.

So what you’ve “done more than a bit of reading and study on the subject as well.” So have I. So have many other professors, lawyers, historians. This labor doesn’t show which view is the strongest.

You are welcomed to continue focusing on the merely "plain text" all you wish

But why ignore the plain text meaning? Do you ignore the plain text meaning elsewhere?

Notre Dame has a famed sign with the message, “Play Like A Champion Today.” Do you ignore the plain text meaning here?

Would you ignore the plain text of, “The Pythagorean theorem states that the length of the hypotenuse squared is equal to the sum of the squares of each leg”?

Would you ignore the plain text of, “Gravity causes an object to fall toward the ground at a faster and faster velocity the longer the object falls. In fact, its velocity increases by 9.8 m/s2, so by 1 second after an object starts falling, its velocity is 9.8 m/s.”?

What your argument fails to adequately defend is the assumption the plain text is to be ignored and inapplicable. This is not a sound principle for properly reading a text.

Especially within the context of the American experiment where A) Laws are placed into writing and by doing so B.) the written law informs people of what the law says where C) the plain text meaning is followed and D) fixes what the law says, thereby the rights, obligations, privileges, duties, liability, cannot be contracted or expanded without changing the law, thereby adhering to the notion we are a “nation of laws.”

Your approach of ignoring the plain text meaning weakens if not eviscerates the rationale for written law. Indeed, ironically, what you deride as an expansive federal government beyond its enumerated powers is a product of your approach of abandoning the plain text meaning and/or textual meaning of the reasonably understood meaning at or near the time the law was drafted and became law.

Commensurate with the American experience of the written law as supreme is the practice of any errors or defects in the written law is to be corrected by the people or the entity empowered to make laws.

Madison’s view isn’t supported by the plain test meaning. The plain text meaning is the law. What Madison wanted or thought was intended isn’t the written law. Hence, to achieve Madison’s view requires the amendment process.

Your statements elsewhere reflect a conservative inclination generally, nothing wrong here. Which likely means you despise the left and progressives who adhere to the notion of Living Constitutionalism, whereby they advocate for redefining the constitution to update the document to the contemporary times. Such approach requires an abandonment of the plain text meaning.

What’s intriguing is your conservativism brings you into conflict with Living Constitutionalism and its advocates, but your methodology is the same as their own, abandoning the plain test meaning for your/their own meaning they desire, where both trash the meaning of the Constitution.

Plain text meaning is paramount, especially within the American experience. The flaw of your argument is any rational defense to ignore the plan text meaning of the written law.
 
So what you’ve “done more than a bit of reading and study on the subject as well.” So have I. So have many other professors, lawyers, historians. This labor doesn’t show which view is the strongest.



But why ignore the plain text meaning? Do you ignore the plain text meaning elsewhere?

Notre Dame has a famed sign with the message, “Play Like A Champion Today.” Do you ignore the plain text meaning here?

Would you ignore the plain text of, “The Pythagorean theorem states that the length of the hypotenuse squared is equal to the sum of the squares of each leg”?

Would you ignore the plain text of, “Gravity causes an object to fall toward the ground at a faster and faster velocity the longer the object falls. In fact, its velocity increases by 9.8 m/s2, so by 1 second after an object starts falling, its velocity is 9.8 m/s.”?

What your argument fails to adequately defend is the assumption the plain text is to be ignored and inapplicable. This is not a sound principle for properly reading a text.

Especially within the context of the American experiment where A) Laws are placed into writing and by doing so B.) the written law informs people of what the law says where C) the plain text meaning is followed and D) fixes what the law says, thereby the rights, obligations, privileges, duties, liability, cannot be contracted or expanded without changing the law, thereby adhering to the notion we are a “nation of laws.”

Your approach of ignoring the plain text meaning weakens if not eviscerates the rationale for written law. Indeed, ironically, what you deride as an expansive federal government beyond its enumerated powers is a product of your approach of abandoning the plain text meaning and/or textual meaning of the reasonably understood meaning at or near the time the law was drafted and became law.

Commensurate with the American experience of the written law as supreme is the practice of any errors or defects in the written law is to be corrected by the people or the entity empowered to make laws.

Madison’s view isn’t supported by the plain test meaning. The plain text meaning is the law. What Madison wanted or thought was intended isn’t the written law. Hence, to achieve Madison’s view requires the amendment process.

Your statements elsewhere reflect a conservative inclination generally, nothing wrong here. Which likely means you despise the left and progressives who adhere to the notion of Living Constitutionalism, whereby they advocate for redefining the constitution to update the document to the contemporary times. Such approach requires an abandonment of the plain text meaning.

What’s intriguing is your conservativism brings you into conflict with Living Constitutionalism and its advocates, but your methodology is the same as their own, abandoning the plain test meaning for your/their own meaning they desire, where both trash the meaning of the Constitution.

Plain text meaning is paramount, especially within the American experience. The flaw of your argument is any rational defense to ignore the plan text meaning of the written law.
Nope, not ignoring anything, but I am realizing and accepting that Madison, as the primary author of the Constitution had more insight to the subject than you, I or anyone else alive today. Then I consider that it was his interpretation that persisted until 100 years after his death, and only changed during an extremely economic and politically tumultuous time when we had arguably the most Collectivist minded POTUS ever. Therefore I'm considering that "plain text" by it's original meaning, not the one imposed on it less than 100 years ago.

Oh, and I'm not conservative or liberal, but rather consider myself and Objectivist, both major political parties have been failing the nation for far too many decades already. Additionally, the U.S. national debt is over $30 Trillion currently, not to mention the total U.S. debt is approximately equal to the gross world product, if that's not unsustainable debt then no such thing exists. https://www.usdebtclock.org/
 

Oh, and the primary difference between Democrats and Republicans is the flavor of BS they feed their mindless supporters, both are big gov loving Collectivists.

In this context, define "flavor".
 
In this context, define "flavor".
Sure, some people's "tastes" lean toward hearing the gov is going to do certain things for certain people, other's tastes lean more toward the gov is going to do other things. Please accept that career politicians are almost all full of BS, it's what they spew to get elected/re-elected.
 
Oh, and I'm not conservative or liberal, but rather consider myself and Objectivist,

Nope, not ignoring anything, but I am realizing and accepting that Madison, as the primary author of the Constitution had more insight to the subject than you, I or anyone else alive today.

So what? His “insight” is not the written law. The written law is the written law.

You and Madison commit the same error, seek to ignore the written law as the written law doesn’t state what Madison and yourself allege the written law to say. Madison’s “insights” do not change what the plain text written law says. You and Madison just want it to.

Then I consider that it was his interpretation that persisted until 100 years after his death

So what? Longevity of an interpretation doesn’t establish the interpretation is correct. Longevity doesn’t show what a text says.

Hamilton’s contrary view was adopted by the Federalists, inherited by some members of the Whig Party, invoked by Henry Clay to justify a speding bill for canals and roads and Congress passed. Monroe, originally a proponent of the Madisonnian view, later shifted to Hamilton’s view to justify signing into law legislation for internal improvements, and Lincoln similarly held this view as he advocated for spending to allocate subsidies to the railroad system. Hamilton’s view survived and persisted with Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

Joseph Stories famed “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” published in 1833, discussed the G and W clause, arguments, inter alia, and concluded Hamilton’s view was the correct view.

So, Hamilton’s view persisted, for whatever that is worth.

Therefore I'm considering that "plain text" by it's original meaning, not the one imposed on it less than 100 years ago.

Not really. The “plain text” is the text itself and I demonstrated in numerous posts of how exactly the plain text grants power, irrespective of the Butler decision.

Next, I also stated there’s no language in the G and W or elsewhere, supporting Madison’s and your own notion of a limit to G and W power, said limit is the G and W may be exercised through subsequent enumerated powers. Such language doesn’t exist.

So, no, you in fact aren’t considering, looking to, or adhering to the plain text meaning. Rather, you’ve bizarrely invoked original meaning to in fact ignore the plain text meaning.

Original meaning is invoked when the plain text meaning does not provide an answer and original meaning looks to, in part, the meaning of the words used. The plain text tells us there is a grant of power to Congress by G and W and no wording of limiting to the subsequent enumerated powers. Hence, no need to ignore plain text meaning in search of original meaning.

Next, original meaning isn’t helpful for your or Madison’s view.

There’s no “meaning” of the words in the G and W that support Madison’s view of G and W as limited by the subsequent enumerated powers. There’s a conspicuous lack of any words limiting the G and W in such manner. The “meaning”’of the words used are such that there is a grant of power in the G and W to Congress. The lack of any words used in the G and W or elsewhere of having Madison’s and your “limit” as a meaning demonstrates text doesn’t have such a limit.

And Hamilton’s view persisted for a long time, hence, by your logic, it is as “original” a meaning as Madison’s.

Ultimately though, you’re still ignoring the plain text meaning and giving insufficient rationalizations for it, such as “original meaning” when the original meaning itself
 
You are more than welcome to check out the New Deal SCOTUS case I referenced and check out how much the fed gov has increased in size and scope ever since 1936 with the General Welfare clause being cited in doing so. But then, the simple fact that the national debt is more than $30 Trillion is likely irrelevant to you, as a modern day "progressive".
The limit to spending is productive capacity.
 
So what? His “insight” is not the written law. The written law is the written law.

You and Madison commit the same error, seek to ignore the written law as the written law doesn’t state what Madison and yourself allege the written law to say. Madison’s “insights” do not change what the plain text written law says. You and Madison just want it to.



So what? Longevity of an interpretation doesn’t establish the interpretation is correct. Longevity doesn’t show what a text says.

Hamilton’s contrary view was adopted by the Federalists, inherited by some members of the Whig Party, invoked by Henry Clay to justify a speding bill for canals and roads and Congress passed. Monroe, originally a proponent of the Madisonnian view, later shifted to Hamilton’s view to justify signing into law legislation for internal improvements, and Lincoln similarly held this view as he advocated for spending to allocate subsidies to the railroad system. Hamilton’s view survived and persisted with Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

Joseph Stories famed “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” published in 1833, discussed the G and W clause, arguments, inter alia, and concluded Hamilton’s view was the correct view.

So, Hamilton’s view persisted, for whatever that is worth.



Not really. The “plain text” is the text itself and I demonstrated in numerous posts of how exactly the plain text grants power, irrespective of the Butler decision.

Next, I also stated there’s no language in the G and W or elsewhere, supporting Madison’s and your own notion of a limit to G and W power, said limit is the G and W may be exercised through subsequent enumerated powers. Such language doesn’t exist.

So, no, you in fact aren’t considering, looking to, or adhering to the plain text meaning. Rather, you’ve bizarrely invoked original meaning to in fact ignore the plain text meaning.

Original meaning is invoked when the plain text meaning does not provide an answer and original meaning looks to, in part, the meaning of the words used. The plain text tells us there is a grant of power to Congress by G and W and no wording of limiting to the subsequent enumerated powers. Hence, no need to ignore plain text meaning in search of original meaning.

Next, original meaning isn’t helpful for your or Madison’s view.

There’s no “meaning” of the words in the G and W that support Madison’s view of G and W as limited by the subsequent enumerated powers. There’s a conspicuous lack of any words limiting the G and W in such manner. The “meaning”’of the words used are such that there is a grant of power in the G and W to Congress. The lack of any words used in the G and W or elsewhere of having Madison’s and your “limit” as a meaning demonstrates text doesn’t have such a limit.

And Hamilton’s view persisted for a long time, hence, by your logic, it is as “original” a meaning as Madison’s.

Ultimately though, you’re still ignoring the plain text meaning and giving insufficient rationalizations for it, such as “original meaning” when the original meaning itself
I see, so according to you the primary author and the rest of the framers of the Constitution were a bunch of idiots that simply didn't understand the "plain text" of the words they were using, and the enumeration of powers was entirely superfluous. Sure, that makes sense, in Bizarro World maybe, but on this planet, if you're aiming for CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED GOVERNMENT, you might consider those enumerations relevant, instead of ascribing unlimited powers to government from a mere two words. Looks like I'm the Constitutional originalist and YOU are the "living Constitution progressive", but I don't expect you to accept that.
 
Feel free to quantify that assertion by juxtaposing the national GDP with the national debt, and don't forget to check out the total U.S. debt as well. https://www.usdebtclock.org/
The US debt is not what measures productive capacity :p
Capacity Utilization: Total Industry (TCU) is the percentage of resources used by corporations and factories to produce goods in manufacturing, mining, and electric and gas utilities for all facilities located in the United States (excluding those in U.S. territories).(1) We can also think of capacity utilization as how much capacity is being used from the total available capacity to produce demanded finished products.

Capacity utilization indexes are constructed for 71 industries in manufacturing, 16 in mining, and 2 in utilities. (1) Physical data on capacity utilization are primarily compiled from trade sources and government sources, such as the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Energy Information Administration.(1) When physical data are unavailable, capacity utilization data are compiled from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization, which provides data for almost 70 percent of total industry capacity.(1) Additionally, the capacity index is developed on a monthly basis, designed to be consistent with the production index.(1)

Also full employment goes into factoring that as well.

Incurring more debt than what can purchase total output is where we run into problems.
 
Last edited:
The US debt is not what measures productive capacity :p
Capacity Utilization: Total Industry (TCU) is the percentage of resources used by corporations and factories to produce goods in manufacturing, mining, and electric and gas utilities for all facilities located in the United States (excluding those in U.S. territories).(1) We can also think of capacity utilization as how much capacity is being used from the total available capacity to produce demanded finished products.

Capacity utilization indexes are constructed for 71 industries in manufacturing, 16 in mining, and 2 in utilities. (1) Physical data on capacity utilization are primarily compiled from trade sources and government sources, such as the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Energy Information Administration.(1) When physical data are unavailable, capacity utilization data are compiled from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization, which provides data for almost 70 percent of total industry capacity.(1) Additionally, the capacity index is developed on a monthly basis, designed to be consistent with the production index.(1)

Also full employment goes into factoring that as well.

Incurring more debt than what can purchase total output is where we run into problems.
Judging by this response you're either unfamiliar or ignoring the concept of a GDP, since you failed to address it completely and opted for analyzing all the trees and ignored the forest.
 
Back
Top Bottom