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

[Goobieman]

The inclusion of the commerce clause does not negate the power:
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

No. The inclusion of those power negartes the argument that the power to spend revenue to provide for the common defense and the general welfare confers the power, thru the elastic clause, to create the mechanism thru which the common defense and the general welfare are provided.

There is no way to argue that the 'general welfare clause' argument confers these power when it would clearly then provide the power to raise and maintain an army and navy; the powers to raise an army and navy were specifically included into the powers of congress because, it was said, it would be otherwise impossible for the government to do so.

This gives the power to congress to regulate commerce and to establish an uniform rule....etc. Under your argument, the latter would be uneccesary, because this power is already granted to the fed gov under the commerce clause, however, it does not follow then that the government cannot regulate commerce.

Except that to regulate commerce and to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States are seperate things that do not directly relate to the regulation of commerce.

THis is no different than seperately specifying the powers to raise and maintain a navy and an army.

Now, you have made a new argument...

It is not My argument, it is the argument I am responding to.

Flipping your argument on its head, why then is the general welfare clause included if the only powers to be granted were those listed below?

As noted elsewhere in this topic, Madison said that the "general welfare clause" isnt in and of itself a grant of power, it is a broad, descriptive preamble, to be defined by the specific grants of power, as followed.

 

[The_Patriot]

Show me where in the constitution it say that that particular power- to tax and spend to promote the general welfare- is limited only to areas where it overlaps another power?

I already did which is the Tenth Amendment. Also, taxation is limited in Article I Section IX Clauses IV-V and Article I Section X Clause II. Since taxation is limited by enumeration so to must spending be done by enumeration. This is why Article I Section VIII Clauses II-XVI are listed. If Article I Section VIII Clause I was an unlimited grant of power then the rest of the Section would be unnecessary. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton both state in the Federalist Papers that Article I Section VIII Clause I does not grant the government an unlimited grant of power and is limited by the clauses that follow in that Section. Both of them state that general welfare pertains to only the Clauses II-XVI in that Section.

 

[Goobieman]

. Flipping your argument on its head, why then is the general welfare clause included if the only powers to be granted were those listed below?

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.

MADISON, Federalist 41

 

[The_Patriot]

Jefferson, federalist 41

Not to nitpick, but Thomas Jefferson never wrote a single Federalist or Anti-Federalist paper. He was in France at the time of the debate. Federalist Paper 41 was written by James Madison.

 

[Goobieman]

What did Madison ask?

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?

Hmm. What have I been asking?

Why, the very same thing.

Imagine that.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Gobbieman and patriot, I am talking to you.

This is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. We can do anything we want to or to put it another way, we are not ruled by the constitution, the constitution is ruled by the people, and we can change it any time we want to with a ratified amendment, which has already been done numerous times.

You two seem to be living in a constitutional monarchy with your own personal interpretations as the law of the land, just cause you say so..

 

[The_Patriot]

Gobbieman and patriot, I am talking to you.

This is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. We can do anything we want to or to put it another way, we are not ruled by the constitution, the constitution is ruled by the people, and we can change it any time we want to with a ratified amendment, which has already been done numerous times.

You two seem to be living in a constitutional monarchy with your own personal interpretations as the law of the land, just cause you say so..

Actually, the Constituton limits government and that it was written by the states. The people have nothing to do with the federal government. That's why the states had the Senate and drafted the Constitution.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Actually, the Constituton limits government and that it was written by the states. The people have nothing to do with the federal government. That's why the states had the Senate and drafted the Constitution.

:slapme::beam:

 

[TurtleDude]

And in order to create the laws that do this, it was granted, and thus limited to, the remaining 17 powers found in the section; the inclusion of these powers negates any argument that the power to spend on the CD/GW confers the power to create the legislation thru which said spendng is affected.

teamosil believes that if congress claims a bill is for the "general welfare" it is constitutional. He doesn't believe that the tenth amendment has any restriction on any act of congress that is designated for the general welfare. LIberals often believe that clause is a carte blanche for congressional action

 

[TurtleDude]

Gobbieman and patriot, I am talking to you.

This is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. We can do anything we want to or to put it another way, we are not ruled by the constitution, the constitution is ruled by the people, and we can change it any time we want to with a ratified amendment, which has already been done numerous times.

You two seem to be living in a constitutional monarchy with your own personal interpretations as the law of the land, just cause you say so..

that might be the most idiotic interpretation of the republic and its constitutional basis I have ever seen

however, it is a popular belief held by many liberals, most democratic politicians and most of FDR's judges.

 

[drz-400]

"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? "

Were the particular powers an exhaustible list? It would seem strange to include the words "to provide for the common defence and promote the general welfare" if all you wanted the government to do was what is listed.

It is obvious the forgoing powers lie "within" the general welfare. I am telling you this does not particularly matter, since the list is not exhaustive (hence a plausible reason as to why we have the general welfare clause).

You have responded several times saying, well if they lie within the general welfare clause, whats the purpose of them? I am telling you that this does not particuarly matter either. Even the list of foregoing powers has things that intersect (they are not mutually exclusive). Here is another example, the commerce clause and "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."

You continually go to madison to support your view, which is fine, except that another important founder had the polar opposite view. Plus, there is no reason why the founders views particuarly matter. Shall I present the views of the modern courts and say their interpretation is the "more important one". The fact is we cannot assign any sort of ordinal rank to the founders, past judges, or anyone elses interpretation of the clause.

That said, it is pretty obvious the current interpretation of the clause does not lie outside of what could plausibly be interpretted from the text. Its funny how people continue to say, "there is no basis," "the interpretation is unsound," etc, when all of these must then resort to an interpretation of the constitution to show this. These sort of arguments are simply question begging.

 

[The_Patriot]

"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? "

Were the particular powers an exhaustible list? It would seem strange to include the words "to provide for the common defence and promote the general welfare" if all you wanted the government to do was what is listed.

It is obvious the forgoing powers lie "within" the general welfare. I am telling you this does not particularly matter, since the list is not exhaustive (hence a plausible reason as to why we have the general welfare clause).

You have responded several times saying, well if they lie within the general welfare clause, whats the purpose of them? I am telling you that this does not particuarly matter either. Even the list of foregoing powers has things that intersect (they are not mutually exclusive). Here is another example, the commerce clause and "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."

You continually go to madison to support your view, which is fine, except that another important founder had the polar opposite view. Plus, there is no reason why the founders views particuarly matter. Shall I present the views of the modern courts and say their interpretation is the "more important one". The fact is we cannot assign any sort of ordinal rank to the founders, past judges, or anyone elses interpretation of the clause.

That said, it is pretty obvious the current interpretation of the clause does not lie outside of what could plausibly be interpretted from the text. Its funny how people continue to say, "there is no basis," "the interpretation is unsound," etc, when all of these must then resort to an interpretation of the constitution to show this. These sort of arguments are simply question begging.

What is the purpose of this?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What is the purpose of this?

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

 

[drz-400]

What is the purpose of this?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We made the constitution to do all these things (make a more perfect union, establish justice, etc.)

What is the purpose of this?

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

States wanted to prevent the abuse or the wrong use of the constitutions powers, and more clauses that restrict government should be added, to make people more confident in the government.

 

[The_Patriot]

We made the constitution to do all these things (make a more perfect union, establish justice, etc.)

States wanted to prevent the abuse or the wrong use of the constitutions powers, and more clauses that restrict government should be added, to make people more confident in the government.

Yes, but what is the purpose of having them in the documents?

 

[drz-400]

Yes, but what is the purpose of having them in the documents?

They are there as an introduction, is that what you mean?

 

[The_Patriot]

They are there as an introduction, is that what you mean?

Yes, that is what I mean. Article I Section VIII Clause I is an introduction for that section.

 

[drz-400]

Yes, that is what I mean. Article I Section VIII Clause I is an introduction for that section.

I guess you could look at it that way. It states the purpose of the section.

 

[The_Patriot]

I guess you could look at it that way. It states the purpose of the section.

That's how all of the founding fathers viewed it.

 

[Goobieman]

Gobbieman and patriot, I am talking to you.
This is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. We can do anything we want to or to put it another way, we are not ruled by the constitution

Great! We'll then outlaw homosexuality, abortion and Islam -- and THEN we'llreinstotue slavery.

the constitution is ruled by the people, and we can change it any time we want to with a ratified amendment, which has already been done numerous times.

Excellent! You then agree that an amendment is necessary for the government to have the power to create things like SocSec. Well done!

 

[Goobieman]

teamosil believes that if congress claims a bill is for the "general welfare" it is constitutional.

Yes. His argument to that effect is unsound, as already illustrated.

 

[Goobieman]

Were the particular powers an exhaustible list?

Yes, as no general legislative authority outside the enumerated powers was granted -- indeed, such powers are specifically recognized as held by the states.

It would seem strange to include the words "to provide for the common defence and promote the general welfare" if all you wanted the government to do was what is listed.

Madison addressed this.

It is obvious the forgoing powers lie "within" the general welfare. I am telling you this does not particularly matter, since the list is not exhaustive

This is unsupportable.

You have responded several times saying, well if they lie within the general welfare clause, whats the purpose of them? I am telling you that this does not particuarly matter either.

Indeed it does, as per the question asked by Madion.
The powers listed after the CD/GWC were all argued as necessary the federal govermnet to have, and if not listed, the governmne twoudl not have them. As all of those powers fall under CD/GW, it is then clear that the power to tax and spend was never held to grant the powers here argued.

Even the list of foregoing powers has things that intersect (they are not mutually exclusive). Here is another example, the commerce clause and "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."

This has already been addressed. These are different things, just as are the army and navy.and thus listed speerately; that there may be som ecrossing in concept, the particulars are obvious seperate.

You continually go to madison to support your view, which is fine, except that another important founder had the polar opposite view.

Yes - he had polar opposite views even within his own point of view -- for instance, he argued against the Bill of Righte becaus ehe 'feared' that a listing of rights would be construed as the only rigfhts that exixt; he had no similar argument against listing the enumerated powers -- indeed, he DEFENDED te enumeration of powers -- for the same reason.

While Hamilton argued that the power conferred by the CD/GWC shoudl be interpreted liberally and boradly, recall that HImilton -also- stated that:

This specification of particulars 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.

Which Hamiltonian position do you cling to, and why?

Plus, there is no reason why the founders views particuarly matter.

Unless, of course, they happen to agree with your own partisan purpose (see above)

That said, it is pretty obvious the current interpretation of the clause does not lie outside of what could plausibly be interpretted from the text.

Indeed, it is, as per the arguments listed here.

IF the CD/GWC clause was meant to be interpreted as such, there's be no reason for the other powers.
That there are other powers, the interpretation of the CD/GWC in question is necessarily unsound.

 

[Goobieman]

I guess you could look at it that way. It states the purpose of the section.

That's EXACTLY what Madison said it was.

 

[teamosil]

I already did which is the Tenth Amendment. Also, taxation is limited in Article I Section IX Clauses IV-V and Article I Section X Clause II. Since taxation is limited by enumeration so to must spending be done by enumeration. This is why Article I Section VIII Clauses II-XVI are listed. If Article I Section VIII Clause I was an unlimited grant of power then the rest of the Section would be unnecessary. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton both state in the Federalist Papers that Article I Section VIII Clause I does not grant the government an unlimited grant of power and is limited by the clauses that follow in that Section. Both of them state that general welfare pertains to only the Clauses II-XVI in that Section.

You're just caught in a loop... You say "congress can only do the things enumerated". I say "the power to tax and spend is ennumerated". You say "only in combination with other powers". I say "where does it say that". You say "congress can only do the things enumerated"...

 

[Goobieman]

You're just caught in a loop... You say "congress can only do the things enumerated". I say "the power to tax and spend is ennumerated". You say "only in combination with other powers". I say "where does it say that". You say "congress can only do the things enumerated"...

This specification of particulars (that is, the enumerated powers) evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, (lthat is, your interpretation of the CD/GWC) because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.
-Hamilton

 

[The_Patriot]

You're just caught in a loop... You say "congress can only do the things enumerated". I say "the power to tax and spend is ennumerated". You say "only in combination with other powers". I say "where does it say that". You say "congress can only do the things enumerated"...

I already gave you the answer and you didn't like it.