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.
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” James Madison
I ain't able to find it either, Jimmy.
The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
I certainly recall learning about how government 'works' back in high school. I believe we had to read the Constitution.
In law school we certainly studied the Constitution. The quote, above, from Mr. Bork shows why he was denied his seat on the Supreme Court: it is idiocy, meant to deceive the simple-minded.
The Constitution is a short document. I am not sure what Mr. Bork and others mean by 'studying' the Constitution. Do they mean learning the document by heart and repeating it by rote? Perhaps translating it into French, from French into German, and then back into King's English?
The law school course, which covers two semesters, is called "Constitutional Law".
You see, after the Constitution (and quickly enough the Bill of Rights) became the Law of the Land, it quickly became apparent that different people interpreted various provisions differently. In the early 1800s the Supreme Court became (of its own volition) the final interpreter of the Constitution, subject to some amiable limitations (such as Acts of Congress in some cases).
It would be a poor, and short, class that simply mandates 'reading the Constitution'. Why, some lunkhead would probably raise his hand and say, "I knew it, the Second Amendment is referring to the arming of the Militia", while some other lunkhead would respond "Idiot! It clearly allows me to own a bazooka!" Two people, reading the exact same sentence, and reaching different conclusions.
Consequently, despite what Mr. Bork claims, Constitutional Law, of necessity, involves studying what various jurist (including lower courts) have said about what they believe the Constitution actually says, or means.
I believe that Mr. Bork occasionally teaches, or did. I bet that during his course he freely gives his opinion on what various provisions of the Constitution 'means'.
The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.
The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
That is the General Welfare Clause as explained during the ratification process. Either our welfare state is unconstitutional or we were greatly mislead.
I certainly recall learning about how government 'works' back in high school. I believe we had to read the Constitution.
In law school we certainly studied the Constitution. The quote, above, from Mr. Bork shows why he was denied his seat on the Supreme Court: it is idiocy, meant to deceive the simple-minded.
The Constitution is a short document. I am not sure what Mr. Bork and others mean by 'studying' the Constitution. Do they mean learning the document by heart and repeating it by rote? Perhaps translating it into French, from French into German, and then back into King's English?
The law school course, which covers two semesters, is called "Constitutional Law".
You see, after the Constitution (and quickly enough the Bill of Rights) became the Law of the Land, it quickly became apparent that different people interpreted various provisions differently. In the early 1800s the Supreme Court became (of its own volition) the final interpreter of the Constitution, subject to some amiable limitations (such as Acts of Congress in some cases).
It would be a poor, and short, class that simply mandates 'reading the Constitution'. Why, some lunkhead would probably raise his hand and say, "I knew it, the Second Amendment is referring to the arming of the Militia", while some other lunkhead would respond "Idiot! It clearly allows me to own a bazooka!" Two people, reading the exact same sentence, and reaching different conclusions.
Consequently, despite what Mr. Bork claims, Constitutional Law, of necessity, involves studying what various jurist (including lower courts) have said about what they believe the Constitution actually says, or means.
I believe that Mr. Bork occasionally teaches, or did. I bet that during his course he freely gives his opinion on what various provisions of the Constitution 'means'.
I realize the Constitution, as intended, does not please your socialist masters.
Study the ratification process of the Constitution, read the Federalist papers and Anti-Federalist writings and you will understand the Constitution strictly limited the powers of the federal government.
This guy had it right:
Quote:
"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been
surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely,
people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1930
Yep, the founder of the welfare state knew he was pulling a fast one.
Study the Constitution to understand what a great document it was. Study the rulings to see how badly the Constitution has been basterized.
Do you feel every year from 1st grade to graduation, the US Constitution should be taught and reviewed.
Definitely.
When I used to teach intro to PoliSci and IR courses, I had to waste class time teaching the Declaration of Independence as an essay, because high school teachers are so pathetic they don't know how to teach students to write a proper essay.
I also had to waste time on the Constitution, because students didn't know that the president is the Chief Diplomat, that only the Senate can ratify treaties, and that only the president (as Chief Diplomat) can abrogate a treaty.
I went to school alternately in two different districts in jr high and high school. We went in some serious depth in Constitutional studies (which is why i ended up a liberal)....we did mock trials and all kinds of stuff.
My son graduated from H.S. in 2007....same thing. In fact, he did so well in his business law classes in college based a lot on his high school Government and Constitution classes.
And no. Neither of us learned it in private schools. So all districts aren't the same.
So, I'm curious, desertdetroiter, how did your study of the constitution make you a liberal? I think your perspective would be interesting for the "Only conservatives support the Constitution" crowd.
I realize the Constitution, as intended, does not please your socialist masters.
Study the ratification process of the Constitution, read the Federalist papers and Anti-Federalist writings and you will understand the Constitution strictly limited the powers of the federal government.
This guy had it right:
Yep, the founder of the welfare state knew he was pulling a fast one.
Study the Constitution to understand what a great document it was. Study the rulings to see how badly the Constitution has been basterized.
I find you responses rather mystifying.
You keep asking people to STUDY the Constitution, yet then you advise reading material that is not part of the Constitution.
Basic Contract Law: what matters is what is in the finished and signed contract, not the verbiage leading up to it. So with the Constitution, which I have certainly 'read' and, indeed, studied (see, if you bold something, it drives a point, doesn't it?).
Let us recall, that we first had the Articles of Confederation. Study these articles, which gave much more power to the several States. Study why it was determined by the Founders, including George Washington, that said Articles of Confederation would not work: that the new country needed more power in a central Federal government. Read then whatever you please, and then finish it all up by again studying the Constitution.
However, my point is: one also must study the various Supreme Court decisions that interpret various articles and amendments found within the Constitution.
You keep asking people to STUDY the Constitution, yet then you advise reading material that is not part of the Constitution.
Basic Contract Law: what matters is what is in the finished and signed contract, not the verbiage leading up to it. So with the Constitution, which I have certainly 'read' and, indeed, studied (see, if you bold something, it drives a point, doesn't it?).
Let us recall, that we first had the Articles of Confederation. Study these articles, which gave much more power to the several States. Study why it was determined by the Founders, including George Washington, that said Articles of Confederation would not work: that the new country needed more power in a central Federal government. Read then whatever you please, and then finish it all up by again studying the Constitution.
However, my point is: one also must study the various Supreme Court decisions that interpret various articles and amendments found within the Constitution.
Studying the Constitution should certainly include studying the ratifying process where the meaning of passages in the Constitution, such as Madison's explanation of the General Welfare Clause in Federalist paper #41, is clearly laid out.
It is quite clear that those who went to the Constitutional Convention wanted a more powerful federal government than existed under the Articles of Confederation. It is also abundantly clear that the powers of the new federal government were limited to the powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8 and the amendments.
Let me quote FDR in 1930 again:
Quote:
As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely,
people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere
Yes, you should study the judicial decisions so you can understand the basterized Constitution that the tyrannical oligarchs in black have created. If you study the judicial decisions you will find that, by and large, up until the USSC changed their mind on Social Security that the decisions of the court properly excluded federal welfare programs. The fact is our welfare state is unconstitutional by any rational interpretation of the Constitution.
I disagree the constitution is the most important document in the nation. Maybe the most important document for the government as an institution, but this is a free country with people with many different values. I would think most Christians would enshrine their Bible as more important than the Constitution. Of course some people like Mormons might think both are holy books...
"""Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors" -
Thomas Jefferson
I disagree the constitution is the most important document in the nation. Maybe the most important document for the government as an institution, but this is a free country with people with many different values. I would think most Christians would enshrine their Bible as more important than the Constitution. Of course some people like Mormons might think both are holy books...
"""Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors" -
Thomas Jefferson
Exactly, that is why we have the amendment process to change the Constitution.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." Thomas Jefferson
You were so right, Tommy. The oligarchs in black robes have no bounds to their power.
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.
)....we did mock trials and all kinds of stuff.
