Does the US Constitution Say "Provide for the General Welfare""? (1 Viewer)

[teamosil]

To answer the OP, the correct answer is "both". The preamble says promote the general welfare, article 1 section 8 says provide for the general welfare.

 

[Goobieman]

No, that's not right. I would say that without the power to raise armies being specified in the constitution, you could still make a case that it was allowed.

And so, if you are right, and that the CD/GWC already alloes for the raising of the army, you are back to soundly explaining why there is a specifiic power given to raise an army.
Oh, and a navy, too -- to "support" a navy is clearly a function of spending for the common defense?

However, using that military would definitely be unconstitutional if not specified.

Where is the power to "use" they army/navy specifed in the curtrent constitution? Artilce II. Thus, your argument here is moot.

The power to kill people definitely is not something that is just assumed in the constitution.

Really? Where is the power to kill people specified in the Constitution?

So, you could theoretically argue that the executive, not the legislative is the one ordering the military to actually kill people, so technically they could have gotten away not specifying the power to raise armies in article 1 section 8, but it's not really so clear cut

Actually, it -is- quite xlear cut:
If you are right, then the power to raise am army or navy need not be mentioned at all - and you are still at a loss to soundly explain their inclusion.
I'd ESPECIALLY like to see your argument's explanation for their inclusion, given the Hamiltonian/Madisonian arguments made for their inclusion.

Having a military that wasn't allowed to do anything is kind of a silly fringe case you're basing your argument on...

Sats he who cannot soundly explain why powers that he argues are assumed granted by one power are then specifically granted by another.
I mean, really -- something as -obvious- as raising an army needs specification, "just to be clear"? In 1787, was there -anything- at the national level more basic to the common defense than an army?
Well, maybe a navy -- but hey! That's in there too.

But, regardless, for the fourth time, it doesn't matter.

Oh, indeed it does. If you soundly cannot explain why there is a specific inclusion of these powers when these powers were granted by the CD/GWC clause, your GWC clause argument fails.
As I said,m I;d be especially interested to see your argument's explanation for their inclusion, given the Hamiltonian/Madisonian arguments made for their inclusion

 

[teamosil]

If you soundly cannot explain why there is a specific inclusion of these powers when these powers were granted by the CD/GWC clause, your GWC clause argument fails

Even if you just ignore all the arguments I keep making, as you are, and even if I were to grant you that there is nothing more to having an army than spending, and even if you ignore my arguments about why they might have included it, it still doesn't matter.. You're making a shakey argument claiming that they could have saved some ink by leaving out stuff that in your opinion could be considered to have already been granted elsewhere. That isn't an argument against the powers granted elsewhere, it's just a critique of the efficiency with which they wrote the constitution, not an excuse to disregard the constitution... You're applying a standard that they never would have included both a broad power and a narrow power which could arguably have fallen within the broad power, but that's just an arbitrary assumption you are making. And, as I demonstrated, if you applied that standard to the whole document you'd run into a ton of that sort of situation like the example you skipped replying to in my last post. This standard you created isn't sensible. Besides, if it were sensible, don't you think somebody could have convinced a court of that at some point?

 

[TurtleDude]

So you have no evidence supporting your view? Why would you defend a point of view in a debate that you have no evidence for?

prove I am wrong. Its an observation I have made over 25 years of dealing with all forms of government as an attorney.

 

[TurtleDude]

Just because they wanted some things to be crystal clear in specific cases doesn't mean that we can disregard whatever we want in the constitution. It flat out says "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes ... to ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States". You may not like that, but that's what it says.

you have to take one of two positions

1) the general welfare means income redistribution and that is specifically delegated to the federal government or

2) the general welfare means anything congress decrees meaning the supreme court would never strike down a law as being a violation of the tenth amendment.

so which is it?

 

[teamosil]

prove I am wrong. Its an observation I have made over 25 years of dealing with all forms of government as an attorney.

Well, it's your assertion. You need to prove that it is true.

Regardless though, I already gave you evidence supporting my claim. Intergenerational income mobility is higher in coutries with thicker safety nets and the number of people on welfare has been radically dropping for 2 decades, so the notion that we're spiraling into increasing dependency is clearly false.

By the way, since you're an attorney, let me ask you a question. Imagine that a judge is in a position to make new precedent in a case where a bank robber took a hostage and the bank clerk refused to give him the money in the vault. The robber killed the hostage and the hostage's family sued the bank claiming that they should have just given over the money because it is of less value than the life of the hostage. Say it was only $10k in the vault. Who would be more likely to find for the plaintiff? A judge analysing the question from an ex-post perspective or a judge analysing the question from an ex-ante perspective?

 

[teamosil]

you have to take one of two positions

1) the general welfare means income redistribution and that is specifically delegated to the federal government or

2) the general welfare means anything congress decrees meaning the supreme court would never strike down a law as being a violation of the tenth amendment.

so which is it?

Neither... For obvious reasons which I have already patiently explained many times now... Reasons that you, being an attorney, would already have known...

 

[TurtleDude]

Well, it's your assertion. You need to prove that it is true.

Regardless though, I already gave you evidence supporting my claim. Intergenerational income mobility is higher in coutries with thicker safety nets and the number of people on welfare has been radically dropping for 2 decades, so the notion that we're spiraling into increasing dependency is clearly false.

By the way, since you're an attorney, let me ask you a question. Imagine that a judge is in a position to make new precedent in a case where a bank robber took a hostage and the bank clerk refused to give him the money in the vault. The robber killed the hostage and the hostage's family sued the bank claiming that they should have just given over the money because it is of less value than the life of the hostage. Say it was only $10k in the vault. Who would be more likely to find for the plaintiff? A judge analysing the question from an ex-post perspective or a judge analysing the question from an ex-ante perspective?

The USA's millionaires are 70% first generation ones. that is evidence of substantial generational mobility of wealth

as to the question-I have never heard of a judge being termed either. I confer with other attorneys daily about judges and not one of them-in 25 years has called a judge using those terms. Rather, the discussions involve their propensity to grant Rule 56 motions or 5K reductions depending on civil or criminal matters. And I have had dozens of federal jury trials. as to hostage's estate, I cannot see a verdict in its favor. You see the bank teller has no duty to give into the robber's demands. Furthermore, he has no way of knowing that the robber would not kill the hostage or him. Edify me as to your legal training so I can determine if further discussion on this point is worthwhile

 

[LiberalAvenger]

The USA's millionaires are 70% first generation ones. that is evidence of substantial generational mobility of wealth

as to the question-I have never heard of a judge being termed either. I confer with other attorneys daily about judges and not one of them-in 25 years has called a judge using those terms. Rather, the discussions involve their propensity to grant Rule 56 motions or 5K reductions depending on civil or criminal matters. And I have had dozens of federal jury trials. as to hostage's estate, I cannot see a verdict in its favor. You see the bank teller has no duty to give into the robber's demands. Furthermore, he has no way of knowing that the robber would not kill the hostage or him. Edify me as to your legal training so I can determine if further discussion on this point is worthwhile

So, you are saying that because teamosil doesn't have legal training like you that he is unqualified to debate you.

Most of the people on a jury have absolutely no legal training but they sometimes determine whether a defendant lives or dies.

It seems to be working fairly well for the past few hundred years.

 

[teamosil]

The USA's millionaires are 70% first generation ones. that is evidence of substantial generational mobility of wealth

No it isn't. The number of millionaires has presumably increased by somewhere around 70% in the past generation... A million buck in today's dollars is pretty much what a couple needs to have by retirement including home equity... Besides, we're talking about welfare dependency. How hard it is to get out of poverty, not how hard it is to become a millionaire.

But, we don't need to sit here and guesstimate how strong our intergenerational income mobility is. It's a standard statistical measure. It's very low in the US and fairly high in European countries for example.

as to the question-I have never heard of a judge being termed either. I confer with other attorneys daily about judges and not one of them-in 25 years has called a judge using those terms. Rather, the discussions involve their propensity to grant Rule 56 motions or 5K reductions depending on civil or criminal matters. And I have had dozens of federal jury trials. as to hostage's estate, I cannot see a verdict in its favor. You see the bank teller has no duty to give into the robber's demands. Furthermore, he has no way of knowing that the robber would not kill the hostage or him. Edify me as to your legal training so I can determine if further discussion on this point is worthwhile

Hmm... I gues it is plausible that you're far enough out of law school to have forgotten the theory stuff... Maybe... The legal theory stuff is all I know well enough to test you, so if you've forgotten that I can't really test you.

 

[TurtleDude]

So, you are saying that because teamosil doesn't have legal training like you that he is unqualified to debate you.

Most of the people on a jury have absolutely no legal training but they sometimes determine whether a defendant lives or dies.

It seems to be working fairly well for the past few hundred years.

I never said that-I merely asked if he did since he used a term that normally is used in commercial business transactions for a tort question. Being a civil rights, criminal appellate and employment discrimination attorney, I have no idea if he is a lawyer for the terms he used are not ones I have heard in the 26 years I have been an attorney licensed to practice Law in Ohio. Its normally a concept involving predicted returns in investment versus a review of actual returns.

 

[TurtleDude]

No it isn't. The number of millionaires has presumably increased by somewhere around 70% in the past generation... A million buck in today's dollars is pretty much what a couple needs to have by retirement including home equity... Besides, we're talking about welfare dependency. How hard it is to get out of poverty, not how hard it is to become a millionaire.

But, we don't need to sit here and guesstimate how strong our intergenerational income mobility is. It's a standard statistical measure. It's very low in the US and fairly high in European countries for example.



Hmm... I gues it is plausible that you're far enough out of law school to have forgotten the theory stuff... Maybe... The legal theory stuff is all I know well enough to test you, so if you've forgotten that I can't really test you.

I am glad you concede that a million isn't all that much-which is true yet that is where dems want the death confiscation tax to start. I don't recall those terms ever being discussed at either the school I attended or the one I sometimes lectured at. ONe of the kids working as a summer clerk at my office is the editor in chief of a law review-I will ask him and see if its something that is used these days at top regional law schools

 

[teamosil]

I am glad you concede that a million isn't all that much-which is true yet that is where dems want the death confiscation tax to start.

A million is still an awful lot of free money to get without being taxed on it...

 

[LiberalAvenger]

A million is still an awful lot of free money to get without being taxed on it...

I could live on that.:2dance:

 

[TurtleDude]

A million is still an awful lot of free money to get without being taxed on it...

if you have a million dollars you are yours have already paid lots of taxes on it

 

[TurtleDude]

A million is still an awful lot of free money to get without being taxed on it...

those who inherit a million dollars are always more deserving of it than those who want the government to take it

besides if an estate tax is so great based on the fact that the heirs-in your mind-didn't earn it why not extend that tax to all estates>

if the estate tax was applied to everyone it never would survive. dems know that and that is why they only seek to punish a small minority. Its silly social engineering that slakes the envy of people like you

 

[teamosil]

if you have a million dollars you are yours have already paid lots of taxes on it

Somebody else paid taxes on it. The recipient didn't.

besides if an estate tax is so great based on the fact that the heirs-in your mind-didn't earn it why not extend that tax to all estates

I would potentially support that.

What do you mean they didn't earn it "in my mind"? They didn't earn it. Their parents did.

 

[TurtleDude]

Somebody else paid taxes on it. The recipient didn't.



I would potentially support that.

What do you mean they didn't earn it "in my mind"? They didn't earn it. Their parents did.

if you earn something you should be able to give it to whom you want without it being taxed again

I totally oppose gift and estate taxes. the government takes enough wealth without that crap

 

[TurtleDude]

Somebody else paid taxes on it. The recipient didn't.



I would potentially support that.

What do you mean they didn't earn it "in my mind"? They didn't earn it. Their parents did.

I would note Earn is not known--if your father or uncle or grandfather decides to leave you money he may well have believed you did something to earn that bequeath. It wasn't the case with my family where my late parents treated all three of us equally even though one brother lives far away and did little to care for my parents as they were dying but I know plenty of cases where the son or daughter who made such sacrifices were better rewarded

but one thing is for sure-the heirs are more deserving than greedy politicians and the parasites that support such a tax

 

[Goobieman]

Even if you just ignore all the arguments I keep making, as you are,

I'm not ignoring them. I'm telling you how they dont fly. You keep ignoring THAT and keep refusing to soudly explain the inclusion of the powers mentioned when you have already admitted that said inclusion was unnecessary.

You need to soundly explain, under your argument, why powers that were granted in the CD/GWC clause were then repeated later in the same article, because under your agrument, it was unnecessary to do so.
You need to do this in the context of the explanations of their inclusion by the people that put them there, each of whom presented an argument as to the necessity of including any of the given powers.
The people that wrote the constitution found it necessary to include these powers, as if they did not, Congress would not have them - which is completely opposite of your argument.

Thus, if you cannot provide that sound explanation, your argument is nullified, your continued complaints to the contrary not withstanding. Its really that simple.

You're applying a standard that they never would have included both a broad power and a narrow power which could arguably have fallen within the broad power

On the contrary -- the rule agianst surplusage holds that if you have included someting, there's no need to include it a 2nd time; to incluse it a 2nd time violates the rule.
The people that wrote the Constitution, all underdtood this; none of them made any remark as to how the power they put there was so important that it needed to be stated twice.

 

[teamosil]

You need to soundly explain, under your argument, why powers that were granted in the CD/GWC clause were then repeated later in the same article, because under your agrument, it was unnecessary to do so.

I have several times, but you haven't come up with a good counter argument... First, lots of things in the constitution could potentially have been deduced from other powers. For example, the example I gave about one power granting congress the ability to regulate the army, and another giving them the power to make laws about the army. You haven't responded to that one, but by your standard that would seem to imply that the clause about making laws is also void, in which case the whole process of having laws in unconstitutional, which is obviously false.

Second, although you percieve maintaining an army as being nothing more than spending, that isn't really the case. Why don't you, as a citizen, try to create a standing military with your own money. Would you be allowed to? Why not? Because you aren't granted that right by the constitution, where congress is. A military is a lot more than just a spending area, it is about having overwhelming deadly force, its about intimidation, it's granted all kinds of powers that civilians are not. Certainly it isn't unreasonable to call that power out specifically.

Third, you're just assuming that they avoided "surplus" language. There is no legal basis for that standard, and as I demonstrated above, if you applied it across the whole constitution you would knock out even basic things like the power to make laws, which is specified twice in the context of the military, maybe even 3 times, in article 1 section 8, then re-iterated several times elsewhere... So, no, that is not a reasonable standard and you haven't provided any reason to accept it as the standard. It appears to just be an assumption you are making.

 

[pro-bipartisan]

The power to is lay taxes with the intent to create revenue and the power to spend that revenue in and of itself confers no power to create the legislation through which that revenue is spent.
Thats what the rest of the enumerated powers do. If the 'general welfare clause' argument were sound, there'd then be no Powers of Congress save the first and last.

And this is relevant to my post how? I simply said it does say provide for the general welfare and it clearly does. I said nothing regarding the context it is in.

 

[4776]

Found a GREAT response to the "it's OK it's for the General Welfare" trick: How General The General Welfare Clause?

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Found a GREAT response to the "it's OK it's for the General Welfare" trick: How General The General Welfare Clause?

Sounds like the colonel is a confederate :cowboy:

 

[TurtleDude]

Sounds like the colonel is a confederate :cowboy:

sounds like he just "hillary-slapped" all the loons who think that the GWC is a carte blanche for congress