Thread: Today is Constitution Day

The first five are fine. The last two are not Constitutional. That being said, the way liberals handle the last two is also not Constitutional and they don't mind, so I'm not defending liberals on it at all. I agree with his conclusions, not his methodology.

Originally Posted by reality

It is practically a carte blanche if you read it as it stands which is what mr. strict constructionist is into.

That is not how I read it as it stands. Nor did the writers consider it that way.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

power to tax, followed by what specifically taxes can be spent on (and limited to):

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

This does not authorize them the power to regulate anything, as those powers follow this part in sec 8. What it does is say what they CANT spend money on, which is anything not mentioned. Therefore if something isnt debt, defence or GENERAL (not specific) welfare, govt cant spend taxes on it.

Madison specifically said that it was not carte blanche:

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.

Jviehe and ericcams this ones for you. Figured I'd combine them and just hit the highlights to save space and time. You know what your posts said, so do I.


Here's the thing: At the beginning of article 1 section 8 (which is the enumeration of powers ) It says 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.
That's paragraph 1, or the Top of the section.

Riddle me this fellas: The power to tax is never elucidated beyond the first paragraph. Neither is duties imposts and excises nor paying the Debts. ( Common defense is fleshed out a bit in the army, navy, and militia paragraphs that show up towards the end of the section. )
It is simply stated that Congress has the power to tax and the ability to make all laws necessary and proper to that effect and there you have it.

Go ahead and have it your way. Then Congress isn't responsible for our debts because it never quite get's around to fleshing out just how they are to go about that, balanced unbalanced etc etc debt ceilings anything like that is completely left out of the section. Why? Because it doesn't need to be in there because the necessary and proper clause allows congress to flesh it out themselves at a later date.
That is your logic about the general welfare bit yeah? That "general welfare" means post offices, roads, and supporting the arts and inventors? That the beginning of section 8 is really nothing more than a preface? Why would you stick a meaningless phrase next to an elucidation of powers? Unless it's not a meaningless phrase at all. Or someone made a typo and no one ever caught it. The entire first paragraph is part of the elucidation of powers. It grants congress taxation authority, impost and excise authority, duties, responsibility to the debts, and the job of providing for the common defense and general welfare.
That's what the english reads man. Don't blame me. I neither penned the document nor came up with the language. I just work here.

Or perhaps "strict constructionism" isn't a very good tact to take?


Madison be dead. All the Founders are dead. It's not their nation anymore. It's ours. The Constitution is as malleable as we agree that it is.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

No, you're still not getting it. "General welfare" is not about finding who is hungry and feeding them, for example. That would be welfare as you see it. A provision for the general welfare is merely a recognition that the government oversees the well-being of The Republic, not the individual people. That is, if something -- not a military threat, which is covered by "the common defense" -- threatens the stability of the republic, then the government is to deal with it.

This is quite obvious as, if it meant what you think it does, the Founders would have set up welfare and monetary redistribution and free healthcare with the writing and passage of the Constitution. For some reason, they didn't. And nobody did, in fact, until FDR decided to make the government the entity to provide all for the people as a means of permanent re-election.

Hope that clarifies things.

You said if there was a famine the gov should step in. I'll quote you if I have to, but you know you said it and I'm about to go to sleep.

What is a famine? 1/2 the pop starving? 1/3? 1/4? What is the magic ratio that allows the gov the power to step in and do something? You've obviously got some sort of rule in mind since you said they could do it in the first place.
Why would they have done that? The Constitution is quite clear on personal property and it's sacred status. Wealth redistribution has nothing to do with the general welfare, intrinsically. It can be construed that way if you're a communist or a socialist, which to my knowledge none of the Founders were. But it's not in there automatically. I think it is you who ain't getting it. You're knee jerking. You hear me say "general welfare" and you freak out and think I'm a liberal who wants to redistribute your wealth and seize the means of production for the government. I don't think that's a necessary or inevitable outcome of general welfare saying what I claim it says. It is possible, in the same way that it is possible someone might wholly amend the constitution to support theocracy, or that I might be struck by lightning several times in a day. Possible, but unlikely.
The document is malleable. I know that's scary. It's ok though. That's what we have our brains for buddy. And guns. Lots and lots of guns. Revolution is an option if the gov does something beyond the pale.
General welfare was thrown in there to allow the government to adapt to problems unforeseen by the Founders. Like Socrates they were wise enough to admit that they didn't know everything and so they packed a parachute. Something weird pops up that wasn't originally in the document but needs to be acted on with alacrity (for a democratic government) and surety (con ammendments can't really take place in this day and age, practically speaking. Everyone is too busy screaming at each other and pointing the finger) boom they can do that.

You're also missing a pretty big point of life and societies: They change. Governments are abolished, religions lose and gain followers etc. People change. If the government is unable to change with them it is discarded, generally with much bloodshed, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. See the French Revolution, and the Commonwealth period of the British Empire. Or about 100 other popular revolutions against a government unable to adapt to the times.
Think about it this way: If suddenly we woke up one morning and you and I were the only 2 non- commies in the country our voices would count for jack shit no matter what the Constitution says. Why? Because its a piece of paper holding a magic spell. Magic, as you know, does not exist. Therefore it only has force upon you through psychosomatic effects (you believe the wicked hoodoo lady cursed you and so you die of a heart attack induced by sheer panic. wicked hoodoo lady curses another dude and he laughs her all the way back to her creepy hoodoo shack. ). These psychosomatic effects in this case are called fidelity to the law. We follow it because we believe we should, for whatever reason (and we could get into philosophies of law if you'd like. Legal positivism, Legal Realism, Natural Law theory. Etc.) but we do follow it. However, a phenomenon can occur where people discard their belief in the juju of a particular document, and thus even if the document is not discarded it loses it's force of law. It becomes void if not enough people believe it should be so because no one will follow it or allow it to be enforced upon them. This is the fiction of law. Much as I love it and believe it holds society back from the state of nature I must admit it is little more than a pleasant fiction, a lie we tell ourselves to hold back the monsters in the darkness.
therfore it is best to have a pleasant fiction that we can adapt to most any situation.

Originally Posted by reality

Jviehe and ericcams this ones for you. Figured I'd combine them and just hit the highlights to save space and time. You know what your posts said, so do I.


Here's the thing: At the beginning of article 1 section 8 (which is the enumeration of powers ) It says 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.
That's paragraph 1, or the Top of the section.

Riddle me this fellas: The power to tax is never elucidated beyond the first paragraph. Neither is duties imposts and excises nor paying the Debts. ( Common defense is fleshed out a bit in the army, navy, and militia paragraphs that show up towards the end of the section. )
It is simply stated that Congress has the power to tax and the ability to make all laws necessary and proper to that effect and there you have it.

Go ahead and have it your way. Then Congress isn't responsible for our debts because it never quite get's around to fleshing out just how they are to go about that, balanced unbalanced etc etc debt ceilings anything like that is completely left out of the section. Why? Because it doesn't need to be in there because the necessary and proper clause allows congress to flesh it out themselves at a later date.
That is your logic about the general welfare bit yeah? That "general welfare" means post offices, roads, and supporting the arts and inventors? That the beginning of section 8 is really nothing more than a preface? Why would you stick a meaningless phrase next to an elucidation of powers? Unless it's not a meaningless phrase at all. Or someone made a typo and no one ever caught it. The entire first paragraph is part of the elucidation of powers. It grants congress taxation authority, impost and excise authority, duties, responsibility to the debts, and the job of providing for the common defense and general welfare.
That's what the english reads man. Don't blame me. I neither penned the document nor came up with the language. I just work here.

Or perhaps "strict constructionism" isn't a very good tact to take?


Madison be dead. All the Founders are dead. It's not their nation anymore. It's ours. The Constitution is as malleable as we agree that it is.

What can I say, youre reading it wrong. I just quoted Madison who straight out said your interpretation is rediculous and in fact was used by anti-federalist as a reason to be AGAINST the consitutiton. They thought it wasnt strict enough. Yet here you are now saying the opposite, that its a blank check by design.

Originally Posted by reality

You said if there was a famine the gov should step in. I'll quote you if I have to, but you know you said it and I'm about to go to sleep.

What is a famine? 1/2 the pop starving? 1/3? 1/4? What is the magic ratio that allows the gov the power to step in and do something? You've obviously got some sort of rule in mind since you said they could do it in the first place.

Uh, you're still not getting it. It's not based on the number of people but the mechanism. Perhaps you're trying to put a percentage on it so that you can then argue "aha, but 90% of our children are hungry ...so you must feed them!" But that's not due to an actual food shortage. If, for example, you told me that there was one year where we actually had no food in the country -- not that we had a bad year for blueberries, for example, but that we had no food at all -- then the federal government can and should step in to protect the Republic.

Originally Posted by reality

General welfare was thrown in there to allow the government to adapt to problems unforeseen by the Founders.

What problems were unforseen by the Founders that the "general welfare" clause has been interpreted to address? Poverty? They didn't have that? Hunger? They didn't have that? Illness/healthcare? They didn't have that? It is inescapable that had they wanted the government to, for example, ensure that someone could retire at a certain age and continue to draw an income, they would have created some rudimentary vehicle for that to occur.

Originally Posted by reality

Think about it this way: If suddenly we woke up one morning and you and I were the only 2 non- commies in the country our voices would count for jack shit no matter what the Constitution says.

Oh, absolutely. My only point has ever been that social programs are unconstitutional. If your argument is "I agree, but so what?" then at least I'd say "fine, at least you're being honest." My problem arises when people say "no, it is Constitutional" because that's ignorant and a lie. Get my drift? But at least tell me you're ignoring the Constitution and that's what "the majority" of people want.