• 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!

The General Welfare Clause Discussion/Debate

Mircea said:
That's easy to understand.

The system of government is all about balance of power through checks and balances.

Balance of power like a see-saw or the scales of justice? No, like an equilateral triangle.

In an equilateral triangle, all angles are 60° (adding up to 180°) and thus each side is equal length.

Who are the three parties that make up this equilateral triangle? The United States, the several States and the people.

Once you understand that, then everything makes sense. The Constitution is consistent with its terminology.

The "people" means the people and "the people" does not mean the several States or the United States. The several States means the States and it does not mean the people or the United States.

The "United States" means solely and exclusively the federal government.

When reading the Constitution -- if it will improve your understanding -- cross out "United States" everywhere you see it and replace it with "federal government."

"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."

"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 federal government."

What is the correct use of the "general Welfare" Clause?

Q: Would it be in the general Welfare of the federal government to have ambassadors to foreign States residing in those foreign States to effectively engage in diplomacy on behalf of the federal government?

A: Yes, even more so as the world became increasingly more complex.

Since the answer is "Yes", Congress has the authority to levy an appropriate tax to raise the monies needed to pay for the housing for its ambassadors.

Q: Would it be in the common defense and general Welfare of the federal government to have naval bases at Subic Bay in the Philippine Islands?

A: Yes (apparently.)

Q: Would it be in the common defense and general Welfare of the federal government to purchase land in the Hawaiian Islands and construct a naval base at Pearl Harbor?

A: Yes (also apparently.)

In both instances, Congress has the authority to raise the appropriate taxes to fund those ventures.

The "general Welfare" Clause only applies to the federal government and it does not apply to the several States or the people.
Click to expand...
The general welfare has to apply to the people as it doesnt make sense to take the general welfare of entities that only exist in legal systems.
 
PirateMk1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which just serves to show how obsolete the Constitution is.
 
Cordelier said:
So would you say FICA taxes are constitutional in lieu of the 16th Amendment?
Click to expand...
FICA has been ruled "general revenue"... there is no "trust fund".

That money was stolen long ago. SS and Medicare will both be operating in the red in a couple of years.

They were designed to fail - thereby creating a "crisis", that will then, of course, be leveraged to entrap the citizenry more completely in the hopelessness of government dependence and control.

People never learn.
 
wist43 said:
FICA has been ruled "general revenue"... there is no "trust fund".

That money was stolen long ago. SS and Medicare will both be operating in the red in a couple of years.

They were designed to fail - thereby creating a "crisis", that will then, of course, be leveraged to entrap the citizenry more completely in the hopelessness of government dependence and control.

People never learn.
Click to expand...

They're operating in the red now. But that's not the point.

And there are trust funds that hold a fair percentage of our gross debt. But that's not the point either.

And Social Security and Medicare did just about go broke in the early 80's - their assets were just about down to nothing. But Reagan reformed it and put it on a track where it could accumulate substantial reserves for 30 years... but with the retirement of the Baby Boomers and other factors, those reserves have been drawn upon since the Bush (43) Administration. We need another 1983-style reform of the system, and I imagine that will be one of the main issues of the 2024 campaign. But, again, not the point.

All I asked is if they constitute a legitimate tax on income in line with the 16th Amendment... and from your answer, I'll infer that you are in agreement that they are. Would I be correct in that assumption?
 
Cordelier said:
They're operating in the red now. But that's not the point.

And there are trust funds that hold a fair percentage of our gross debt. But that's not the point either.

And Social Security and Medicare did just about go broke in the early 80's - their assets were just about down to nothing. But Reagan reformed it and put it on a track where it could accumulate substantial reserves for 30 years... but with the retirement of the Baby Boomers and other factors, those reserves have been drawn upon since the Bush (43) Administration. We need another 1983-style reform of the system, and I imagine that will be one of the main issues of the 2024 campaign. But, again, not the point.

All I asked is if they constitute a legitimate tax on income in line with the 16th Amendment... and from your answer, I'll infer that you are in agreement that they are. Would I be correct in that assumption?
Click to expand...
No, they are not legitimate taxes, nor are they legitimate expenditures.

They are both wholly unconstitutional, and are designed to rip the peasants off and turn once free citizens into dependent serfs.

We're at the end of that process. The house of cards will be deliberately collapsed, and sweet serfdom will be our reality.

Should be loads of fun ;)
 
bomberfox said:
The general welfare has to apply to the people as it doesnt make sense to take the general welfare of entities that only exist in legal systems.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between legal systems and governmental systems.

Legal systems are English Common Law, Napoleonic Code (used in Louisiana) and others.

The purpose of the Constitution was to create a governmental system, and specifically a system that placed restrictions and limitations on the powers of the central government leaving all other powers to the several States or the people or both.

The Constitution creates a federation, as opposed to a confederation or a unitary-State system (and those are the only three options.)
 
wist43 said:
No, they are not legitimate taxes, nor are they legitimate expenditures.

They are both wholly unconstitutional, and are designed to rip the peasants off and turn once free citizens into dependent serfs.

We're at the end of that process. The house of cards will be deliberately collapsed, and sweet serfdom will be our reality.

Should be loads of fun ;)
Click to expand...

I see it exactly the other way.... if you want to see dependency, try not providing Social Security and Medicare to our seniors.

Is the system in hard shape and in need of repair? You bet it is. But it was in much worse shape in the early 80's and we rolled up our sleeved and fixed the problems... and there's nothing saying we can't do so again.

As for your constitutional pronouncements... well, you'll forgive me for not embracing your views, since they run counter to pretty much every SCOTUS ruling on the subject (most notably Helvering v. Davis, 301 US 619 (1937))
 
Mircea said:
There's a difference between legal systems and governmental systems.

Legal systems are English Common Law, Napoleonic Code (used in Louisiana) and others.

The purpose of the Constitution was to create a governmental system, and specifically a system that placed restrictions and limitations on the powers of the central government leaving all other powers to the several States or the people or both.

The Constitution creates a federation, as opposed to a confederation or a unitary-State system (and those are the only three options.)
Click to expand...
The purpose of the constitution was also to strengthen the federal government further than under the articles of confederation and incorporation further cements the supremacy of the federal constitution. States rights would have done nothing for civil rights.
 
Cordelier said:
I see it exactly the other way.... if you want to see dependency, try not providing Social Security and Medicare to our seniors.

Is the system in hard shape and in need of repair? You bet it is. But it was in much worse shape in the early 80's and we rolled up our sleeved and fixed the problems... and there's nothing saying we can't do so again.

As for your constitutional pronouncements... well, you'll forgive me for not embracing your views, since they run counter to pretty much every SCOTUS ruling on the subject (most notably Helvering v. Davis, 301 US 619 (1937))
Click to expand...
I know what the corrupted courts said - The Money Trust spent years working to subvert the court, and they finally succeeded. FDR was their puppet, and most of the Democratic Party was under their control. Herbert Hoover refused to go along with the New Deal, so they replaced him with FDR.

As for "dependence", that's what families are for. If someone is truly indigent with no family, then it is a state issue.

There's a reason Marx, and most leftist philosophers called for the destruction of the family.

Weak, dysfunctional families produce weak, dysfunctional children that grow into weak dysfunctional adults.

The cycle perpetuates and worsens - hence the supposed justification for empowered, centralized government.

Your positions on these subjects are contaminated and too common.
 
wist43 said:
I know what the corrupted courts said - The Money Trust spent years working to subvert the court, and they finally succeeded. FDR was their puppet, and most of the Democratic Party was under their control. Herbert Hoover refused to go along with the New Deal, so they replaced him with FDR.

As for "dependence", that's what families are for. If someone is truly indigent with no family, then it is a state issue.

There's a reason Marx, and most leftist philosophers called for the destruction of the family.

Weak, dysfunctional families produce weak, dysfunctional children that grow into weak dysfunctional adults.

The cycle perpetuates and worsens - hence the supposed justification for empowered, centralized government.

Your positions on these subjects are contaminated and too common.
Click to expand...

Yeah... not interested in your conspiracy theories. We're trying to have a factual discussion here.
 
Cordelier said:
Yeah... not interested in your conspiracy theories. We're trying to have a factual discussion here.
Click to expand...
Lol... yeah, Washington and the political parties are honest folks who just disagree on a few things??

Trump was right about one thing... "They're rippin' ya off"...

Read Quigley, wake up.
 
wist43 said:
Lol... yeah, Washington and the political parties are honest folks who just disagree on a few things??

Trump was right about one thing... "They're rippin' ya off"...

Read Quigley, wake up.
Click to expand...

Just because you don't understand how things work doesn't make it some vast conspiracy, Wist. If you heeded your own advice and got away from that echo chamber you seem to be stuck in, you'd find that out for yourself.
 
Cordelier said:
Just because you don't understand how things work doesn't make it some vast conspiracy, Wist. If you heeded your own advice and got away from that echo chamber you seem to be stuck in, you'd find that out for yourself.
Click to expand...
I understand how politics dysfunctions perfectly well...

It's all about corrupting the system to harness and expand power; then use that power to insulate against detection and competition; all the while legally stealing as much money as the gullible dupes in perceptionland will stupidly allow as they deceive themselves into believing it is for their own good.

It is History 101, Governance 101, human nature 101, and was written about exhaustively by our Founding Fathers.

One thing is for sure, a government indoctrination, CNN, and reading the NYT is no way a path to understanding the past 100 years of American history.
 
wist43 said:
I understand how politics dysfunctions perfectly well...

It's all about corrupting the system to harness and expand power; then use that power to insulate against detection and competition; all the while legally stealing as much money as the gullible dupes in perceptionland will stupidly allow as they deceive themselves into believing it is for their own good.

It is History 101, Governance 101, human nature 101, and was written about exhaustively by our Founding Fathers.

One thing is for sure, a government indoctrination, CNN, and reading the NYT is no way a path to understanding the past 100 years of American history.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, those are certainly extraordinary accusations you are making. The thing about extraordinary accusations is that they require extraordinary proof.... and seeing how that isn't forthcoming from you, I'm just going to have to consign your argument to the drivel file.
 
Cordelier said:
Yeah, well, those are certainly extraordinary accusations you are making. The thing about extraordinary accusations is that they require extraordinary proof.... and seeing how that isn't forthcoming from you, I'm just going to have to consign your argument to the drivel file.
Click to expand...
Read Quigley... no point trying to teach physics to someone at 2+2.

Even as most have no idea what is going on, I find it amazing that people are so naive.

Corruption is human nature. Whether you understand the greater objectives or not, it should at least be easy to understand corruption. Greed, ego, ambition... politicians, including judges, don't give a shit about "the people" or the country.

You do understand that Machiavelli was right??
 
wist43 said:
Read Quigley... no point trying to teach physics to someone at 2+2.

Even as most have no idea what is going on, I find it amazing that people are so naive.

Corruption is human nature. Whether you understand the greater objectives or not, it should at least be easy to understand corruption. Greed, ego, ambition... politicians, including judges, don't give a shit about "the people" or the country.

You do understand that Machiavelli was right??
Click to expand...

You live in a comic book.... so it's no surprise your world is populated by comic book villains.
 
Cordelier said:
You live in a comic book.... so it's no surprise your world is populated by comic book villains.
Click to expand...
Well, you've been ripped off to the tune $29 trillion to date - hundreds of trillions when you factor in SS and Medicare.

Yet you somehow have been convinced that's both normal and legal. The courts have been rubber stamping this nonsense since the 30's.

It doesn't strike you as odd that SC rulings prior to FDR all held, properly so, that all this garbage was unconstitutional??

Then, viola!! all of a sudden it's all okey-dokey?? Did you know that Herbert Hoover wrote some years after he left office that he was approached by The Money Trust after they crashed the stock market, and was told to implement their "New Deal" or they'd replace him?? He refused, they replaced him with FDR.

The New Deal was written before FDR ever even ran for President... the "official" history books don't say that though, huh??

The fix is in... the system is going to be deliberately collapsed - for very logical reasons from the perspective of the banking class.

And there's nothing you or I can do to stop it.
 
wist43 said:
Well, you've been ripped off to the tune $29 trillion to date - hundreds of trillions when you factor in SS and Medicare.

Yet you somehow have been convinced that's both normal and legal. The courts have been rubber stamping this nonsense since the 30's.

It doesn't strike you as odd that SC rulings prior to FDR all held, properly so, that all this garbage was unconstitutional??

Then, viola!! all of a sudden it's all okey-dokey?? Did you know that Herbert Hoover wrote some years after he left office that he was approached by The Money Trust after they crashed the stock market, and was told to implement their "New Deal" or they'd replace him?? He refused, they replaced him with FDR.

The New Deal was written before FDR ever even ran for President... the "official" history books don't say that though, huh??

The fix is in... the system is going to be deliberately collapsed - for very logical reasons from the perspective of the banking class.

And there's nothing you or I can do to stop it.
Click to expand...

And where exactly did Herbert Hoover write that?

Give me facts, Wist. I don't give a damn about conspiratorial spin.
 
As James Madison said, if "general welfare" were an actual grant of power, then the FedGov would possess unlimited power, because anything, literally anything, could be argued to be in the "general wefare".

And that is why America is collapsing, i.e., because the government does do anything those who control it to do.
 
wist43 said:
As James Madison said, if "general welfare" were an actual grant of power, then the FedGov would possess unlimited power, because anything, literally anything, could be argued to be in the "general wefare".

And that is why America is collapsing, i.e., because the government does do anything those who control it to do.
Click to expand...

America is "collapsing" because the government is governing...Hmmm

In your mind, why can't the federal government be trusted, but state governments can be ?
 
wist43 said:
As James Madison said, if "general welfare" were an actual grant of power, then the FedGov would possess unlimited power, because anything, literally anything, could be argued to be in the "general wefare".

And that is why America is collapsing, i.e., because the government does do anything those who control it to do.
Click to expand...

Tell me, Wist... when exactly did this "cabal" take over the country? Give me a time frame here. Was it before or after the Panic of 1907, when the Federal Government was essentially powerless to right the economy, but private financiers like J. P. Morgan had the power to essentially walk into the NYSE and turn everything around single-handed?

Morgan,_Sam.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom