HikerGuy83
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2021
- Messages
- 7,279
- Reaction score
- 2,934
- Location
- Arizona
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
So explain to me the dichotomy in your thinking.... Providing for the Air Force - even though it isn't listed under the spending functions of Congress - is considered "necessary and proper" in providing for the common dense.... but providing for Medicare - even though it isn't listed under the spending function of Congress - presumably shouldn't be considered "necessary and proper" in providing for the general welfare?
originally, US air power was under the Army and the navy. it is clearly a function of our military-whatever you call it. Medicare-not at allIn a different thread, we wondered off a bit.....
So I brought over a request/question from that thread to start this one:
Technically the only military we should have is a Navy.originally, US air power was under the Army and the navy. it is clearly a function of our military-whatever you call it. Medicare-not at all
I don't think so. an armed force is what the constitution grants to the federal government-it might be horse-drawn or on warp drive space shipsTechnically the only military we should have is a Navy.
The Constitution is very specific and further the founders at the time did NOT want a standing army. The Constitution specifies Navy section 8 clause 13 with no limits on appropriations. Armies can be raised but appropriations for them is limited to two years Section 8 clause 12. Section 8 clauses 10-16 deal with military matters in the Constitution. Clause 16 deals with Militias and their organization and use.I don't think so. an armed force is what the constitution grants to the federal government-it might be horse-drawn or on warp drive space ships
That is no longer realistic but an amendment should have been in orderThe Constitution is very specific and further the founders at the time did NOT want a standing army. The Constitution specifies Navy section 8 clause 13 with no limits on appropriations. Armies can be raised but appropriations for them is limited to two years Section 8 clause 12. Section 8 clauses 10-16 deal with military matters in the Constitution. Clause 16 deals with Militias and their organization and use.
So explain to me the dichotomy in your thinking.... Providing for the Air Force - even though it isn't listed under the spending functions of Congress - is considered "necessary and proper" in providing for the common dense.... but providing for Medicare - even though it isn't listed under the spending function of Congress - presumably shouldn't be considered "necessary and proper" in providing for the general welfare?
The Constitution is very specific and further the founders at the time did NOT want a standing army. The Constitution specifies Navy section 8 clause 13 with no limits on appropriations. Armies can be raised but appropriations for them is limited to two years Section 8 clause 12. Section 8 clauses 10-16 deal with military matters in the Constitution. Clause 16 deals with Militias and their organization and use.
That is no longer realistic but an amendment should have been in order
That's how they always get away with it. They just do it and once enough time goes by it becomes constitutional, e.g. the drug war, the alphabet soup agencies, etc.
The Constitution is very specific and further the founders at the time did NOT want a standing army. The Constitution specifies Navy section 8 clause 13 with no limits on appropriations. Armies can be raised but appropriations for them is limited to two years Section 8 clause 12. Section 8 clauses 10-16 deal with military matters in the Constitution. Clause 16 deals with Militias and their organization and use.
A further sign that the Constitution is obsolete and needs complete replacement.
An interesting thought.
But we are discussing the General Welfare Clause.
Which, as the name implies, is far too "general" to actually mean anything
At the most liberal interpretation, Congress could argue that every law they pass or will pass, is aimed at improving the general welfare of the people.
In the context of other writings, the meaning is quite clear.
That is a myth.The Constitution is very specific and further the founders at the time did NOT want a standing army.
Everything Congress passes is limited by the duration of its Session, which is two years. No prior Session of Congress may bind a future Session of Congress. So even when they claim something is funded for 10 years, it is really only funded for the duration of the current session. It must be funded again by each subsequent session of Congress, any of which may change their minds and either increase funding or kill it completely.The Constitution specifies Navy section 8 clause 13 with no limits on appropriations. Armies can be raised but appropriations for them is limited to two years Section 8 clause 12. Section 8 clauses 10-16 deal with military matters in the Constitution. Clause 16 deals with Militias and their organization and use.
The only thing you really need to know about Hamilton is that he was always wrong. It didn't matter what it was, Hamilton was on the wrong side of the argument.People seem to want to pit Madison against Hamilton on this one.
I am not that familiar with Hamiltons's statements.
In an oft-quoted piece, Madison states in a letter....
I enclose the report of the Secy. of the Treasury on Manufactures. What think you of the commentary (pages 36 & 37) on the terms “general welfare”?1 The federal Govt. has been hitherto limited to the Specified powers, by the greatest Champions for Latitude in expounding those powers. If not only the means, but the objects are unlimited, the parchment had better be thrown into the fire at once.
Founders Online: From James Madison to Henry Lee, 1 January 1792
From James Madison to Henry Lee, 1 January 1792founders.archives.gov
Apparently, Madison took some exception.
Something I am sure we'll further discuss.
To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.
If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, that clause would not only enable Congress to supplant the States in the regulation of agriculture and of all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, sedulously framed to define and limit the power of the United States and preserve the powers of the States, could be broken down, the independence of the individual States obliterated, and the United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the Union superseding all local control over local concerns. P. 297 U. S. 75.
In a different thread, we wondered off a bit.....
So I brought over a request/question from that thread to start this one:
Why would Medicare be considered 'General Welfare' rather than 'Common Defense?' Isn't there some evidence by this point that viruses pose a deadly threat to American citizens?
Why would Medicare be considered 'General Welfare' rather than 'Common Defense?' Isn't there some evidence by this point that viruses pose a deadly threat to American citizens?
Technically the only military we should have is a Navy.
MediCare/MedicAid violates the Tenth Amendment. Only the States have the exclusive constitutional authority with regard to our healthcare. The federal government was never given any such power, and is therefore prohibited from exercising any such power.Why would Medicare be considered 'General Welfare' rather than 'Common Defense?' Isn't there some evidence by this point that viruses pose a deadly threat to American citizens?
An interesting thought.
But we are discussing the General Welfare Clause.
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?