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's a section of the Constitution, that mentions providing for the general welfare. It's popularly called (surprise!) the "Welfare Clause". And it's been used more than almost any other part of the Constitution, to try to justify unlimited expansion of the Federal government.
In full, that part of the Constitution says:
Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have the 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; "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization...."
It's difficult, and sometimes unwise, to take pieces out of context. And that's been done wrong, more times than can be counted, for this particular Clause. Here's an attempt to do it right:
"Congress shall have the Power To collect Taxes to provide for the general Welfare of the United States[and for other listed purposes]...."
People often leave out the collect-taxes part, and claim simply that "Congress can provide for the general Welfare". They then decide that "general Welfare" means anything that helps people, in any way. This is very convenient for those who want to expand government control, since the number of things that can help people, is almost unlimited.
They couldn't be more wrong, though.
It wouldn't have made much sense, for the original writers of the Constitution to take all the trouble of writing out certain powers of the government such as coining money, setting up Post Offices, punishing counterfeiters, offering patents for inventions, etc. Those things all help people, certainly.
If they were going to just make a general clause saying Government could do anything it wants, that helps people, those other powers are pretty redundant, aren't they? Why bother naming those particular powers, when you've already put a blanket permission for them plus lots of others, in place?
If the Welfare clause were a blanket permission, then 3/4 of the Constitution could be tossed out, because it would already be covered.
But, remember the collect-taxes part.
"Congress shall have the Power to collect Taxes to provide for the general Welfare of the United States[and for other listed purposes]...."
In fact, the Clause is a statement of what government can spend tax money on. Not a permission to do whatever they wanted under the vague guise of "helping people". And "general Welfare" had a specific definition in 1787-- it was written that way, to distinguish it from "Welfare of particular groups". So, "to provide for the general Welfare" is actually a restriction on government, not a broad permission. The complete clause really means, that the government can collect and spend tax money, but that anything spent to help people, must be applied evenly to the entire population, and cannot be "targeted" at certain groups. Further, it implies but does not explicitly say, that if a spending program does not boost the welfare of the entire population, then it is forbidden. Unless, of course, the spending program comes under other permissions listed in the Constitution, such as National Defense, the Courts, Patent office, etc.
History of the Welfare Clause
Laws and court cases challenging the meaning of the Welfare Clause, began as soon as the Constitution was written. And in every case for a century and a half, the Supreme Court firmly reminded us that the Clause was not a broad permission to do anything. This trend continued day after day, year after year, with remarkably little deviation from the idea that the government had only limited powers-- those listed explicitly in the Constitution. Financial panics, natural and man-made disasters, crop failures, and wars did not change the view of the courts.
And that view was simply that the Welfare Clause was never intended to change the limited nature of the Federal government... and that "events do not change Constitutions". Only the amendment process could alter this basic idea. And the people advocating change, avoided such a public referendum like the plague.
The Interstate Highway System authorized by Eisenhower, had nothing to do with Post Roads, since he knew that argument wouldn't fly. They were built as part of a National Defense system. That's why it has oddball requirements like every ten miles or so, there has to be a two-mile straight stretch, etc. That's for bomber and fighter aircraft to land on if needed during a war. It wasn't explicitly written into the regulations for the system, but the roads stick to it whenever possible.
I wasn't just talking about the interstate highway system; I was referring to the entire federal highway system. There are federal highways other than the interstates.
Maybe its because I live in Louisiana, but I find that local and state governments somehow manage to be EVEN MORE corrupt and insane than the Federal government, which we know is saying alot.
99% of freedoms we lose around here are done by state and local governments.
Anyhow, I get the concept behind states rights, but why can't they levy their own taxes? It seems states like Louisiana just milk the federal government for funds to manage programs. IT's a moral hazard because they view it as free money. If Louisiana were responsible for funding their own programs it would be a lot better.
Currently 2/3rds of the state budget is Federally funded. Shift those to state taxes if they want it.
Maybe its because I live in Louisiana, but I find that local and state governments somehow manage to be EVEN MORE corrupt and insane than the Federal government, which we know is saying alot.
99% of freedoms we lose around here are done by state and local governments.
Anyhow, I get the concept behind states rights, but why can't they levy their own taxes? It seems states like Louisiana just milk the federal government for funds to manage programs. IT's a moral hazard because they view it as free money. If Louisiana were responsible for funding their own programs it would be a lot better.
Currently 2/3rds of the state budget is Federally funded. Shift those to state taxes if they want it.
Taxes vary widely by state. Further, the federal government compels states to act in a certain way by withholding funding if they don't do as the fed wants... That is how it wields power in areas it does not have an enumerated power to act.
Just a thought or two, how would like to get married or divorced in one State and then move and come find out your marriage or divorce is not recognized any longer? That is what you get when the States are loose association of seperate mini-Nations as ome here think we should be, it is only one example of many why the Federal Government should have it's place and the States have theirs and basing it only on the Constition is ludirous. FYI, Federal Social Prgrams such as Medicare, SS, food stamps and Welfare are legal since the do benefits us all, just because you never had need of them does not mean it would not be there if you did need it, hence it is for everyones good. I would also add that I find it interesting that those that want this loose confederation of States to be fact are the same ones that whine like little children when their State passes laws they disagree with and want to break the State apart, just like they want to do to the United States of America. Ok all specualting, dreaming and wishful thinking aside, the reality is the USA is not going to change to please a handful of people that think that breaking down the Federal government we (they) would be better off, it is NOT Going To Happen. Have fun.
I don't think states can be trusted like the Feds can.
That's true.
To my knowledge, no state (even the ones that have state income taxes) has tried to deny tax-free status to political groups based on whether they were conservative or not.
Only the Feds have done that.
Good point.
The Fed originally took some powers from the states and assigned them to itself (power to determine discrimination by race, etc.) when some of the states abused that power. Now that the Fed is abusing some of ITS power, should we take the powers it's abusing, and return them to the states?
Maybe the power to levy taxes on incomes should be stripped from the Fed govt (by repealing the 16th amendment) and returned to the states, as it originally was. Then we could pick which state we wanted to live in, based on how much of our livelihood the state takes away, without leaving the country.
Well, you can start by picking out a government function, and then looking through the Constitution to see if it's named there.
If it isn't, then transfer it to the states. Or, you can look into amending the Constitution to include it as a Federal power, if you want. For example, airplanes hadn't been invented in 1789, so no Air Force is mentioned. But clearly the Framers would want this under the same government as the Army and Navy, so amending the Const to include it should be quick and easy.
Keep in mind that the so-called "welfare clause" from Article 1, Section 8, isn't a permission for the Fed to do anythig it wants that helps people. It's actually a restriction, saying that the Fed can spend money only on projects that benefit ALL Americans EQUALLY (that's what "General Welfare" meant, which was different from "Local Welfare" at the time). It's basically an Anti-Special-Interests clause.
The AirForce was orginally part of the Army. No change is needed. Same for the Marines and Coast Guard.
To my knowledge, no state (even the ones that have state income taxes) has tried to deny tax-free status to political groups based on whether they were conservative or not.
Only the Feds have done that.
Good point.
The Fed originally took some powers from the states and assigned them to itself (power to determine discrimination by race, etc.) when some of the states abused that power. Now that the Fed is abusing some of ITS power, should we take the powers it's abusing, and return them to the states?
Maybe the power to levy taxes on incomes should be stripped from the Fed govt (by repealing the 16th amendment) and returned to the states, as it originally was. Then we could pick which state we wanted to live in, based on how much of our livelihood the state takes away, without leaving the country.
HurricaneKid, I'm glad you brought up this idea.
I just made a thread about it. Such idea has been discussed many times before.
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.
