No. The constitution says that congress may lay and collect taxes in order to provide welfare of the united states. Read it again:
To lay and collect taxes to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states. So congress has a limited power to tax. This does not translate into a power to operate schools.
I am sorry that I do not get that comment as I do not speak Farrightwingese.
Your statement is false as you prevented a skewed and biased outlook on FDR which was unrecognizable compared to reality.
cpwill said:haymarket said:And what is this about the government gathering up the food and destroying it in the 1930's?
yeah. during the middle of the Great Depression, FDR's solution was to round up all the 'excess' food and destroy it. we still do it today . ahh... old programs never die, they just slowly increase their budgets...
FDR promoted higher food prices by paying farmers to plow under some 10 million acres of crops and slaughter and discard some six million farm animals. The food destruction program mainly benefited big farmers, since they had more food to destroy than small farmers. This policy and subsequent programs to pay farmers for not producing victimized the 100 million Americans who were consumers...
The sovereign statement is completely misinterpreted by you as I was clearly talking about the power of the Supreme Court regarding judicial review
In both cases you attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill.
You do not consider education of children to be an important of the welfare of the United States of America? :shock::doh:roll:
You do not consider education of children to be an important of the welfare of the United States of America? :shock::doh:roll:
:
Teachers should know their subject material.
Congress has the power to tax, to borrow money, to regulate certain commerce, and several other powers. It does not have the power to operate schools.
I took the part of the Constitution THAT YOU QUOTED. Not me - you.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
So you do not consider the education of children as part of the welfare of the USA?
Well then you didn't read it very carefully.
You can reproduce it 55,297 times - it does not change from post to post. Nobody is disputing the words contained in the clause being discussed.
So you do NOT consider the education of children as part of the welfare of the USA?
No, I DO. I just told you that. However the congress currently does not have the power to operate schools.
First, no person in a field as large as history has a fingertip command of every single fact in that field and that would include all the greats including Arthur Schlesinger. There is no shame in that and it means nothing in terms of a persons over all knowledge and understanding of history.
Second, your statement was clear
ALL THE EXCESS FOOD
ALL
You do know the meaning of the word ALL right?
sorry but the event as you described it NEVER happened. It was a hyperbolic over the top ridiculous gross exaggeration which never happened in reality. But then you blamed me for not recognizing an event which never happened and for some reason - you still continue to beat that dead horse after your own intellectual fraud was exposed.
Great. So education then falls within the general welfare scope.
Great. So education then falls within the general welfare scope.
James Maddson said:...Consider for a moment the immeasurable difference between the Constitution limited in its powers to the enumerated objects, and expounded as it would be by the import claimed for the phraseology in question. The difference is equivalent to two Constitutions, of characters essentially contrasted with each other--the one possessing powers confined to certain specified cases, the other extended to all cases whatsoever; for what is the case that would not be embraced by a general power to raise money, a power to provide for the general welfare, and a power to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry these powers into execution; all such provisions and laws superseding, at the same time, all local laws and constitutions at variance with them? Can less be said, with the evidence before us furnished by the journal of the Convention itself, than that it is impossible that such a Constitution as the latter would have been recommended to the States by all the members of that body whose names were subscribed to the instrument?
Passing from this view of the sense in which the terms common defence and general welfare were used by the framers of the Constitution, let us look for that in which they must have been understood by the Convention, or, rather, by the people, who, through their Conventions, accepted and ratified it. And here the evidence is, if possible, still more irresistible, that the terms could not have been regarded as giving a scope to Federal legislation infinitely more objectionable than any of the specified powers which produced such strenuous opposition, and calls for amendments which might be safeguards against the dangers apprehended from them...
I wasn't exactly challenging you to describe the impact of Peggy Eaton.
FDR's solution was to round up all the 'excess' food and destroy it
:doh
Please.
The clause to which you refer does not grant any power. The power being granted is the power to tax.
The power to tax does not equate to the power to operate schools.
In your opinion which is not supported by a reading of the clause itself.
In your opinion which is not supported by a reading of the clause itself.
Then why would they have written the rest if the constitution at all? And why would all of the founders make it clear that the powers are limited to the enumerated list of powers?
For that matters, why would the states even create their own governments if the federal government could control everything in the name of "general welfare"? And why wouldn't income tax have been a defensible program without a constitutional amendment?
The only way your opinion would be supported is if you were to interpret the text as something like, "congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, and congress has the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states."
My interpretation is something like, "congress has the power to lay and collect taxes in order to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states."
So is it your opinion that this clause grants one power or multiple powers?
So by your interpretation is Congress levied taxes to pay for national education that would be legal in your opinion?
The put in what they put in. That is simple reality. If you do not like what they included - your problem is with the Constitution and not with me.
If you turn your same reasoning to the 2nd Amendment then gun owners should have to belong to a "well regulated militia", which is shear poppycock. I mean, according to you - if the founders meant otherwise they would have used "and" in stead of a comma. :roll:The only way your opinion would be supported is if you were to interpret the text as something like, "congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, and congress has the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states."
My interpretation is something like, "congress has the power to lay and collect taxes in order to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states."
So is it your opinion that this clause grants one power or multiple powers?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?