So what was the point of forming a union if that union was to be prevented by its own rules from taking any action whatsoever?
Can You Answer These Constitutional Questions?
- Thread starter Robo
- Start date
So what was the point of forming a union if that union was to be prevented by its own rules from taking any action whatsoever?
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...onstitutional-Questions&p=1480661#post1480661
They're all just hoping mad because the ACA passed through Congress and the Senate, became law and got the O.K. from the SCOTUS. So now they want their personal interpretations to supercede the process.
Last time I checked, making healthcare available to more Americans as to alleviate the burden put upon Emergency Rooms is good for the general welfare.
Last time I checked, making sure insurance companies can't discriminate against women price wise, or drop long term clients for dubious reasons or discriminate against folk with pre-existing conditions good for the general welfare.
Last time I checked, invoking a OPTIONAL tax so that helps insures such improvements are maintained FOR ALL is good for the general welfare.
And Last time I checked, the majority of the people raising the most stink about the ACA are the ones LEAST affected by it!
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Additional limitation placed upon the States...
Additional limitation placed upon the States...
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Libertarian lunkheads really try to either separate or de-emphasize this from the comprehensive reading of the Amendments and law.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
that is a false assumption on your part. the founders intent was to have a LIMITED government, where the states handled everything else not prescribed to the federal government. it was NOT the founders intent to have the federal government control everything.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and if you were to follow this to it's logical conclusion, the states could not intrude upon the rights protected by the bill of rights as well, but I don't see you railing about differing gun laws by state.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
no, that would be you
Lol, so the courts should do nothing when the legislature over steps the commerce or general welfare clause?
The assumption that the taxing and spending clause are two different clauses is incorrect. The Congress is only authorized to collect indirect taxes for the general welfare of the United States, for the entire country as a whole such as defense. The general welfare and common defense clauses are not grants of powers, but are only referrals to the enumerated powers which followed.
The general welfare clause was a limiter on the purpose of taxes and the purpose of how that money was spent.
Congress was not granted plenary power to tax, spend, and regulate. There no evidence to support this from the convention debates and to make the assumption that Congress has this plenary power is incorrect; the taxes levied under the enumerated powers could only be spent to satisfy the enumerated powers, and the welfare clause is not an enumerated power. The 10th Amendment is not a plausible argument as the 10th Amendment came a few years after the Constitution, and would have precedence over the welfare clause with a conflict. The same applied to the 9th Amendment, which was a restrictor on the federal government to not expand its powers outside of the enumerated powers, and was a restrictor on the boundaries of the enumerated powers.
Notice in Article 1, Section 8 the difference in verbs; this was not a grammatical mistake: “…taxes will be levied to “pay the debts” but then the verb changes to provide for the common defense and general welfare. Not pay, but to provide. This is not the only time the term “provide” is used in the Constitution and in this context.
In constitutional textualism, the meaning words in the 18th century in required. The word “provide” in the 18th century meant to procure beforehand as evidence by 18th century dictionaries: to procure beforehand; to get ready; to prepare. To look ahead and be prepared was the context. It has a completely different meaning today-- to make available; furnish.
The meaning of the word “welfare” in the 18th century had two meanings; one for persons and one for states. To persons: Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; to states, and the intended meaning in the general welfare clause: Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government;
One would have to produce undiscovered evidence that the Committee of Detail did not understand that the general welfare clause granted Congress powers of taxation and spending.
As Madison explained that there was no money attached to the general welfare clause:
Money cannot be applied to the general welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the general welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the general authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it: it be not, no such application can be made.
Monroe vetoed a bill in 1822 that would have spent tax money to repair the Cumberland Road; his reasoning was that Congress’ power to spend was limited "to purposes of common defence, and of general, national, not local, or state, benefit." Monroe had forgotten more about the meaning of the Constitution than the entire judiciary from 1900 to the present. The fourth Congress also refused to give aid to Savannah, Georgia when a fires destroyed the city, as they did not have the power to spend tax dollars in that manner.
It defies the very fabric of logic and reasoning to believe that these men at the convention, who debated certain words or phrases regarding the power to the newly created government, who stated there is nothing implied in the Constitution, who were intensely opposed to a powerful government, who left the states sovereign other than the enumerated powers—which is one of the reasons that Hamilton stormed out of the convention and never came back—would put a couple of phrases in the Constitution that would override the entire reason for the Revolutionary War, and take precedent over the entirety of the Constitution they labored over from May to September.
The general welfare clause was a limiter on the purpose of taxes and the purpose of how that money was spent.
Congress was not granted plenary power to tax, spend, and regulate. There no evidence to support this from the convention debates and to make the assumption that Congress has this plenary power is incorrect; the taxes levied under the enumerated powers could only be spent to satisfy the enumerated powers, and the welfare clause is not an enumerated power. The 10th Amendment is not a plausible argument as the 10th Amendment came a few years after the Constitution, and would have precedence over the welfare clause with a conflict. The same applied to the 9th Amendment, which was a restrictor on the federal government to not expand its powers outside of the enumerated powers, and was a restrictor on the boundaries of the enumerated powers.
Notice in Article 1, Section 8 the difference in verbs; this was not a grammatical mistake: “…taxes will be levied to “pay the debts” but then the verb changes to provide for the common defense and general welfare. Not pay, but to provide. This is not the only time the term “provide” is used in the Constitution and in this context.
In constitutional textualism, the meaning words in the 18th century in required. The word “provide” in the 18th century meant to procure beforehand as evidence by 18th century dictionaries: to procure beforehand; to get ready; to prepare. To look ahead and be prepared was the context. It has a completely different meaning today-- to make available; furnish.
The meaning of the word “welfare” in the 18th century had two meanings; one for persons and one for states. To persons: Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; to states, and the intended meaning in the general welfare clause: Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government;
One would have to produce undiscovered evidence that the Committee of Detail did not understand that the general welfare clause granted Congress powers of taxation and spending.
As Madison explained that there was no money attached to the general welfare clause:
Money cannot be applied to the general welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the general welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the general authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it: it be not, no such application can be made.
Monroe vetoed a bill in 1822 that would have spent tax money to repair the Cumberland Road; his reasoning was that Congress’ power to spend was limited "to purposes of common defence, and of general, national, not local, or state, benefit." Monroe had forgotten more about the meaning of the Constitution than the entire judiciary from 1900 to the present. The fourth Congress also refused to give aid to Savannah, Georgia when a fires destroyed the city, as they did not have the power to spend tax dollars in that manner.
It defies the very fabric of logic and reasoning to believe that these men at the convention, who debated certain words or phrases regarding the power to the newly created government, who stated there is nothing implied in the Constitution, who were intensely opposed to a powerful government, who left the states sovereign other than the enumerated powers—which is one of the reasons that Hamilton stormed out of the convention and never came back—would put a couple of phrases in the Constitution that would override the entire reason for the Revolutionary War, and take precedent over the entirety of the Constitution they labored over from May to September.
Robo
Verified User
So then according to you the actual construction of the Constitution has little valid authority in determining lawful rights and privileges of individuals and limitations on the powers of government, it’s simply a loosely constructed guideline for the courts to interpret willy-nilly to validate their own particular political biases and collective ideology, correct?
Please explain how the “general welfare” can be trumped by just about anything legally and constitutionally. What trumps for instance The power of the Congress “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 an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”
“To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”
“To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;”
“To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;”
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”
“To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;”
“To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;”
“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”
“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”
“To provide and maintain a Navy;”
“To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;”
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And”
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
And to enforce all laws established by the amendments to the Constitution whereby the power to be enforced is granted to the Congress by the Constitution.
These are the actual “General Welfare” mentioned in article one, section eight of the Constitution. Where in the Constitution can we find the power of the courts to trump anything enumerated in the Constitution as the general welfare?
Where in the Constitution can we find the power of the courts to establish or deliver it’s opinions based on a “balance test?”
Robo
Verified User
In your own words and with your own rationality if you can and will, please tell us if the general welfare clause trumps the rest of the Constitution? If the general welfare clause trumps the rest of the Constitution, why did the founders waste so much paper and ink writing the rest of the Constitution? What DOESN'T the general welfare clause trump in the Constitution? Who gets to decide what's a valid action of government in the name of the general welfare? By what authority? What's the meaning of the 10th Amendment in your own words and rationality?
Robo
Verified User
The actual intent of the founders was to have a limited federal government and to leave the States and the people free to establish their own State governments within the strictest limitations of the national Constitution's guidelines. In other words all things not delegated by the Constitution as an enumerated power of the federal government was delegated as a power of the several States or the people.
As we all know, the Constitution - like the various books collected together as 'the Bible' - means whatever the Americans' masters tell 'em through the crooked lawyers/bible-bashers they choose. It is certainly the most utterly tedious subject going since the Berlin Wall went down.
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou
rebel
where did you get such an idiotic idea over what I posted?
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Please explain how enacting a law to control private companies from screwing over the general public "controlling everything". Part of the federal government's job is to promote and protect the general welfare of the people who VOTE for the government that presides over them.
They're all just hoping mad because the ACA passed through Congress and the Senate, became law and got the O.K. from the SCOTUS. So now they want their personal interpretations to supercede the process.
Last time I checked, making healthcare available to more Americans as to alleviate the burden put upon Emergency Rooms is good for the general welfare.
Last time I checked, making sure insurance companies can't discriminate against women price wise, or drop long term clients for dubious reasons or discriminate against folk with pre-existing conditions good for the general welfare.
Last time I checked, invoking a OPTIONAL tax so that helps insures such improvements are maintained FOR ALL is good for the general welfare.
And Last time I checked, the majority of the people raising the most stink about the ACA are the ones LEAST affected by it!
How did the ACA pass Congress? Did SCOTUS grant the IRS unfounded rights to write legislation? Was the origination clause part of the federal question when it was ruled a tax?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the last time I checked (which is this post) you're a blooming idiot. i'm talking about federal government limitations and you're still the broken record about the ACA.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Really? How so? Because as your exchanges with Jarod shows, it's YOU who are IGNORING historical precedence and facts that don't jibe with your personal opinion of what "should" be. Why don't you READ the excerpt I posted, as it gives a more balanced view on the issue.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I don't need to read more court cases to understand that the judiciary has been torturing and twisting the plain words of the constitution for their own ends.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
In answer to your first question: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032100943.html
In answer to your second question: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/11/groups-obamacare-tax-form-evades-facts/
In answer to your third question: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...eneral+welfare/