You are incorrect. After being enumerated in the Constitution, the N&P clause has been supported by SCOTUS beginning in 1819 (McCullough v MD).A constitutionally incoherent and laughable "justification" perhaps . . .
For what purpose it is presented is not readily apparent, other than to usurp, which is rejected.
This is true. I haven't actually pulled up the clean air act, but I'll do so. That's the objections I continually have to related assertions of "That's not what the Constitution authorized". The Supreme Court rejected the minimalist approach during the lifetime of the Founders, and they've rarely looked back. Even so-called "strict constructionists" like Jefferson and Madison didn't behave that way while in office.
The Constitution provides a framework for governance, and it is intended to be functional. The goal of too many complainers is, they don't want a functional government. (It's really why they hate Democrats. Democrats get things done.) Congress is given broad authority, and the ability to pass legislation to accomplish it. Yes, legislation has to be within that authority, but it is mostly Congress that gets to decide if it is.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Completely and utterly. You need better sources. Seriously.
There is a faction of conservative theorists who wish to promote that fiction, but it had been rejected over 200 years ago.
Where it comes to the General Welfare clause, all you need to remember is this:
Hamilton > Madison
None of this was made available to all equally in its day, whatever the interpretation. And it doesn't seem to have settled anything formally that we can all agree on since it's inception. So were still thinking about it out loud why? We don't still yet understand it? We're all trying to maximize our own personal angle on it? We're still interested in running this thing like an 18th century fledgling empire slave society? Mental philosophical exercise?Pulling a post over from another thread:
It's a founding principle of this nation that individual rights exist... and that holds true whether or not they are actually written down within a Constitution. Remember that famous statement in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...."
All the 9th Amendment really does is pay heed to that principle. The rights we hold extend far beyond what is in our power to list. All we need do is lay claim to them... and the Courts need do is supply the means for determining them unalienable.
Complements of @Cordelier
It was interesting to think about the fact that the Constitution does not specifically call out life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The definition of unalienable is: impossible to take away or give up
In looking this over.....
1. Can one state recognize a right while another does not (this was the case in 1972 when Roe was heard by the SCOTUS) ?
2. Are the courts really the ones to determine them inalienable ?
3. If the answer to (2) is no, then how are they claimed ?
Just thinking out loud.
None of this was made available to all equally in its day, whatever the interpretation. And it doesn't seem to have settled anything formally that we can all agree on since it's inception. So were still thinking about it out loud why? We don't still yet understand it? We're all trying to maximize our own personal angle on it? We're still interested in running this thing like an 18th century fledgling empire slave society? Mental philosophical exercise?
It's well worth studying. The problem is the "sides" perceptual reality. And we're talking about a land mass colonized by the taking. Rhetoric aside. And we're inherently violent and pretty neurotic. So even if it was the perfect document ...I have to agree with your point.
And to a large extent, I am not sure we'll ever understand it in the sense that we'll agree on what it means as that might actually mean allowing the "other side" to do what you don't want them to do.
It is clear that people believe what they want to believe because it fits their view of what should be.
I put myself in that same category.
No worries. Minutia hides the realities, I'm off, cheers.BTW: Folks....
This thread is about the ninth amendment.
No worries. Minutia hides the realities, I'm off, cheers.
You didn't cite your source. I was insulting your source.Congress can't mint money ?
Who knew ?
Or did you means something else.
Seriously. How do you expect anyone to buy your argument when you didn't make one ?
I have a lot of respect for your knowledge.
But to simply make this type of claim is insulting.
I look forward to contributing. It's one of my favorite topics.I'll look for a thread or start a new one on the General Welfare Clause.
Supreme Court precedent. As was pointed out earlier with the reference to Butler. Justice Story's view has controlled for about 200 years. But, that should probably go in the General Welfare thread.I have to honestly ask how you think your claim should be taken seriously ?
What is the basis for that claim.
I have to honestly ask how you think your claim should be taken seriously ?
What is the basis for that claim.
Except it absolutely was, because it was the federal government which crushed Jim Crow.
My mistake.
The things I keep seeing today on white supremacy must all be false.
After all, the federal government (which was complicit in setting it up) "crushed it".
I hate to be sarcastic, but the evidence does not support your claim.
From Justice Owen Roberts' opinion in US v. Butler, 297 US 1, 16 (1936):
"The general welfare clause should be construed broadly to include anything conducive to the national welfare; it is not limited by the subsequently enumerated powers. Congress may tax (and appropriate) in order to promote the national welfare by means which may not be within the scope of the other Congressional powers. That this, commonly known as the Hamiltonian theory, is correct, is shown by the plain language of the clause; by the circumstances surrounding its adoption; by the opinion of most of those who participated in the early execution of the Constitution; by the opinion of later authorities; and by long-continued practical construction."
All of which uses to be the law of the land, with the states defending it fanatically. Mississippi even created its own version of the Stasi to try and protect Jim Crow. None of that changed until the federal government dropped the hammer.
I guess that was my point.
They missed.
Except they didn’t. Jim Crow is as dead as a door nail
Forgive me, but this is Owen Roberts (the famous "switch in time that saved nine").
He was a SCOTUS judge which allowed him to write this.
It certainly does not protect it from being challenged.
You are incorrect. After being enumerated in the Constitution, the N&P clause has been supported by SCOTUS beginning in 1819 (McCullough v MD).
Challenge it on what basis, though? Like I said before, if "general welfare" wasn't a separate grant of spending power to Congress, then why use the term at all?
This is what you quoted from Roberts.
"The general welfare clause should be construed broadly to include anything conducive to the national welfare; it is not limited by the subsequently enumerated powers.
His first sentence is at total variance with spirit of the Constitution.
His tacked on commentary only pours salt in the wound created by his first statement.
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?