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.
The clause deals with "the general welfare of the UNITED STATES".. It says NOTHING about the general welfare of the citizens...
Yes, congress has the power to raise taxes only so that they can take out their globes and give the US political map a super-expensive massage. "There you go, California!" "Prrrrrrrrr" "Good California!"
"Hey Obama, I think Kansas is next!"
"Good thinking McCain, I'll get out my Kansas brush that we taxed the people to buy,"
"Make sure you feed Kansas lots of milk so he grows up to be real big an strong!"
"Sure thing, sure thing, I sure am glad we're following the constitution, George Washington would be proud."
"Well I'm proud of the state of Washington for being such a fine gentleman today, he gets three doggie treats instead of two! Good Washington, good Washington. Gooooo washeetoooon! Yoosa gooo washeetooon arent you, yessu arr! YESSUU AARR A GOO WASSHHEETON YESSUU ARR!"
Now that sounds like what I call good government!
Last edited by fishmonger; 04-03-2008 at 07:34 PM..
I wasn't talking about the preamble, it's a clause in the Constitution about the Congress' tax power. Not sure what the location is but it's in there. There was a debate back in the olden days as to exactly what "raising taxes for the general welfare" entailed, some thought it meant only in accordance with the other powers granted while others held that it itself was a power. Like I said, the courts have over time sided with the latter interpretation.
Article 1, Section 8.
"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;"
Same exact response. Regardless of what activist justices of the 30s may have decided, the intent is clearly defined in the words of Jefferson and Madison. Federalist Paper #41 speaks to this very issue.
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison
"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 constitutents." - James Madison
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson
How do you feel about Alexander Hamilton's interpretation?
The same Alexander Hamilton that argued that the Bill of Rights would be not only unnecessary, but dangerous?
“For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?†Alexander Hamilton
He was keen to admit that the Constitution was secure its original writing because it had clearly enumerated powers which were neither unnecessary nor broad. However he was also interested in using a broad interpretation when it suited his purposes of establishing a national bank. But even assuming his defintion of general welfare were correct, it still refers to the welfare of the states, not of individuals. But regardless of his opinion, the Bill of Rights were ratified, and the 9th and 10th Amendments were seen as redundant... but ask yourself why the ratifiers of the Constitution demanded their existance, knowing how redundant they were? Because they were that important to its ratification.
I don't think it's necessarily a "broad" interpretation to assume that "congress having the power to levy taxes for the general welfare" entails an enumerated power to spend money on the general welfare. Now... if you interpreted it to mean that "congress can do anything to promote the general welfare" then that would, indeed, make their powers basically unlimited if not for the bill of rights, but that wasn't how it was worded. What do you mean by "general welfare of the states?" States are made up of people. Without people they're just land and the imaginary boundaries disappear, rendering them no longer states but instead wilderness.
Now, granted, Hamilton seems like he was sort of an *******, but weren't so many of the signers *******s? Like the ones who came up with the part where slavemasters got to take the voting power of "3/4 of each slave?" Or the ones who had slaves themselves?
Just saying that if you're rich enough to ***** about paying a higher tax rate than everyone else you're probably rich enough to take a plane ride to somewhere you feel suits your tax preferences better. You say you "just can't up and move out of the US" but a lot of people "Just can't up and move out of Birmingham" or "Just can't up and move out of Arkansas," so what's the real difference, as it applies to the morality or justification of social spending? Especially considering that many states tax the poor more than the rich?
Your having problem understanding the concept of local, non federal support arent you? Were you born here in the states, or the Soviet Union?
Yes, congress has the power to raise taxes only so that they can take out their globes and give the US political map a super-expensive massage. "There you go, California!" "Prrrrrrrrr" "Good California!"
"Hey Obama, I think Kansas is next!"
"Good thinking McCain, I'll get out my Kansas brush that we taxed the people to buy,"
"Make sure you feed Kansas lots of milk so he grows up to be real big an strong!"
"Sure thing, sure thing, I sure am glad we're following the constitution, George Washington would be proud."
"Well I'm proud of the state of Washington for being such a fine gentleman today, he gets three doggie treats instead of two! Good Washington, good Washington. Gooooo washeetoooon! Yoosa gooo washeetooon arent you, yessu arr! YESSUU AARR A GOO WASSHHEETON YESSUU ARR!"
Now that sounds like what I call good government!
I've read this 2-3 times, and cant figure out if you forgot to take your medications today, or if you were rubbing yourself thinking about the Federal Government controlling your life... ahhh, yes.. that feels good!!
I was conceived in Antarctica during a love tryst between Al Gore and a Polar Bear and born from the polar bear's womb after it migrated to Siberia back in the 80's, so the USSR, to answer your question. But despite my half-polar bear brain, I do understand the "concept," I just don't get what point you're trying to make. I already nonchalantly vanquished the one you were trying to make earlier so I'm not sure which one you've switched to, warrior! Also, in case you weren't aware, I am responding to the post above the one above mine, rather than the one directly above, which appeared magically as I was typing with my crazy white-furred paws! OOOAAARAAWL.
I was conceived in Antarctica during a love tryst between Al Gore and a Polar Bear and born from the polar bear's womb after it migrated to Siberia back in the 80's, so yes, to answer your question. But despite my half-polar bear brain, I do understand the "concept," I just don't get what point you're trying to make. I already nonchalantly vanquished the one you were trying to make earlier so I'm not sure which one you've switched to, warrior! Also, in case you weren't aware, I am responding to the post above the one above mine, rather than the one directly above, which appeared magically as I was typing with my crazy white-furred paws! OOOAAARAAWL.
The point AGAIN..
The federal government has no authority or responsibility to take care of the citizens, that the responsibility is local, and at the highest level, a state issue. PERIOD..
And then, presumably, the big conservative/libertarian "Aww, sucks to be you, tough ****" for the kids on the other side of the planet. They're a whole global diameter away from being people anyway, so I don't know why anybody would care, though. Good post.
Not sure of your point. Theyre people, just not my problem. If I choose to help them I can. The same with poor here. Ask yourself how many are having trouble making it because of the tax burden placed on us, not only by welfare benefits but by the huge Gov't buerocracy needed to run it. I'd bet money that running it costs more than the help it provides & I'd bet money that alot of people could get off it if they could keep the money they make.
We should care, & if we do the help will still be there. Thats what help is, its freely given, its generosity. Its not tax money divied up as some civil servant see's fit, thats socialism.
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.
