Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There seems to be a pretty sharp disagreement about the meaning of the constitution.
On one side of the debate there's a group that says that the U.S. Congress can only make laws dealing with issues that are specifically mentioned by the U.S. Constitution, and therefore, any law passed by congress that falls outside of that limited scope is unconstitutional.
The other side of the debate argues that in Article 1 Section 8 there's a clause that says that Congress has the power to appropriate money to provide for the General Welfare of the United States. Therefore, even though it doesn't specifically say so in the constitution, Congress must also have the power to enact legislation governing the distribution of funds appropriated for the General Welfare, otherwise the clause about appropriating money for the General Welfare would be meaningless.
For the past two hundred years, Congress has interpreted the Constitution in accordance with the second argument, which is why we have several dozen volumes of laws governing things like federal income taxes, drug enforcement, education, etc. etc..
Which side of the debate do you agree with and why?
There seems to be a pretty sharp disagreement about the meaning of the constitution.
On one side of the debate there's a group that says that the U.S. Congress can only make laws dealing with issues that are specifically mentioned by the U.S. Constitution, and therefore, any law passed by congress that falls outside of that limited scope is unconstitutional.
The other side of the debate argues that in Article 1 Section 8 there's a clause that says that Congress has the power to appropriate money to provide for the General Welfare of the United States. Therefore, even though it doesn't specifically say so in the constitution, Congress must also have the power to enact legislation governing the distribution of funds appropriated for the General Welfare, otherwise the clause about appropriating money for the General Welfare would be meaningless.
For the past two hundred years, Congress has interpreted the Constitution in accordance with the second argument, which is why we have several dozen volumes of laws governing things like federal income taxes, drug enforcement, education, etc. etc..
Which side of the debate do you agree with and why?
"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;"
It gives the federal government the power to tax for the general welfare, but it doesn't give it the power to create laws that violate other aspects of the constitution. Those powers not enumerated in the constitution, not denied to the states, that don't fall within the commerce clause, are reserved to the states.
If the federal government could use the general welfare clause to pass any legislation under the argument of general welfare, then they could have federal laws on virtually every issue, that would preempt state laws, completely defeating the point of have a federal system of government.
Would not murder laws be part of the general welfare? But we widely recognize it's a power reserved to the states to deal with, hence why murder laws are state laws.
A lot may depend on one's definition of 'welfare'. My take on the clause is that Congress may lay and collect taxes to provide for things individual States can't do (like national defense.) Acts that Congress does under this clause are limited to preserving the well-being of the Federal entity and the soundness of the union. 'Welfare' as I understand it in this context does not mean sending checks to needy people.
We have a mechinism in place that interprets what is constitutional or not. It is called the supreme court. Actually it's their only job. That's the way our founding fathers set it up. The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. There are legions of lawyers on all sides of Constitutional issues who study every law passed by congress to challenge it's constitutionality or not. If the general welfare clause of the Constitution didn't apply to social welfare programs it would have been challenged by now and these programs would have been abolished by the SC. Same goes for Obama. Everybody screams about how he is stomping on the constitution. Well where are the legal challenges from the right?
We have a mechinism in place that interprets what is constitutional or not. It is called the supreme court. Actually it's their only job. That's the way our founding fathers set it up. The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. There are legions of lawyers on all sides of Constitutional issues who study every law passed by congress to challenge it's constitutionality or not. If the general welfare clause of the Constitution didn't apply to social welfare programs it would have been challenged by now and these programs would have been abolished by the SC. Same goes for Obama. Everybody screams about how he is stomping on the constitution. Well where are the legal challenges from the right?
It's being challenge by the State of Virginia, Obamacare.. Litigation takes a long time.
The thing is, the liberals think the federal government has UNLIMITED power and can pass any law it wants, which is clearly wrong, because if that were the case, we wouldn't have state governments.
It's being challenge by the State of Virginia, Obamacare.. Litigation takes a long time.
The thing is, the liberals think the federal government has UNLIMITED power and can pass any law it wants, which is clearly wrong, because if that were the case, we wouldn't have state governments.
It's not just liberals, take the florida court's overturn of gay parenting that was just announced yesterday. Fact is, anybody can pass a law or a congressional bill but the courts will determine the constitutionality of it or not right up to the SC if need be. Great system we have here in America.
It's not just liberals, take the florida court's overturn of gay parenting that was just announced yesterday. Fact is, anybody can pass a law or a congressional bill but the courts will determine the constitutionality of it or not right up to the SC if need be. Great system we have here in America.
Not exactly, the Supreme Court has held that the draft doesn't violate the 13th amendment, yet is no clearer an example of a violation of the prohibition against slavery..
... If the general welfare clause of the Constitution didn't apply to social welfare programs it would have been challenged by now
mohawkx, please help me understand, WHAT?! social welfare programs existed in 1792 that would have been supported by that phrase 'general welfare'. When did these social welfare programs come into existence and which founders or authors of the constitution were in favor of them?
As I understand, in the 18th century, most social assistance was provided by churches or other like organizations. If that were the case then the government owes the church a whole lot of social welfare.
Last edited by Willsson; 09-23-2010 at 02:27 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
