Well this seems constitutional

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Yeah actually it is, dumbfuck.

Only if you have a restricted view of the general welfare clause. You can't honestly pretend like only one is legitimate, because the expanded and restricted view were believed in by many founding fathers. But the expanded view has, over time, been the one more widely accepted, not only be our elite, but by the people in general. Even if you could appoint enough supreme court justices to redefine what has been constitutional for 200 years as unconstitutional, you'd soon have a constitutional ammendment steamrolling your ass.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Only if you have a restricted view of the general welfare clause.

An accurate view, actually. The so-called "Welfare Clause" was never a permit for Congress to do anything and everything that might help people. That would have invalidated most of the Constitution, making it redundant to later list only specific thing Congress was permitted to do.

The clause was actually part of a statement saying what tax money could be spent on. And "general welfare" was written to distinguish it from "particular welfare", which would be the welfare of exclusive groups (blacks only, merchants only, left-handed redheads only etc.).

The entire sentence read: “The Congress shall have 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. . .” .

Cutting down to the relevant parts here, “Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes... to provide for the... general welfare of the United States. . .” .

"General Welfare" meant things that would benefit ALL people in the U.S., not just special-interest groups.

In other words, the "general welfare" clause is a restriction, not a permission. It says that taxes can only be spent on things that benefit everybody equally. Govt-paid health care, in a country where most people already pay for their own health care, would only help those who don't, and so is forbidden. As are most other things liberal big-govt addicts have tried to shovel into the "General Welfare" clause.

 

[Bonestorm]

An accurate view, actually. The so-called "Welfare Clause" was never a permit for Congress to do anything and everything that might help people. That would have invalidated most of the Constitution, making it redundant to later list only specific thing Congress was permitted to do.

The clause was actually part of a statement saying what tax money could be spent on. And "general welfare" was written to distinguish it from "particular welfare", which would be the welfare of exclusive groups (blacks only, merchants only, left-handed redheads only etc.).

The entire sentence read: “The Congress shall have 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. . .” .

Cutting down to the relevant parts here, “Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes... to provide for the... general welfare of the United States. . .” .

"General Welfare" meant things that would benefit ALL people in the U.S., not just special-interest groups.

In other words, the "general welfare" clause is a restriction, not a permission. It says that taxes can only be spent on things that benefit everybody equally. Govt-paid health care, in a country where most people already pay for their own health care, would only help those who don't, and so is forbidden. As are most other things liberal big-govt addicts have tried to shovel into the "General Welfare" clause.

By your reading couldn't Congress borrow money on the credit of the United States to do any damn thing it wishes? I mean, if the general welfare clause serves as a restriction on what taxes can be spent on, there is absolutely no restriction on what Congress can do with money it borrows on the credit of the United States.

That doesn't quite wash.

 

[Little-Acorn]

By your reading couldn't Congress borrow money on the credit of the United States to do any damn thing it wishes? I mean, if the general welfare clause serves as a restriction on what taxes can be spent on, there is absolutely no restriction on what Congress can do with money it borrows on the credit of the United States.

That doesn't quite wash.

If that were the only sentence in the Constitution, maybe.

But if you look through the rest of it, you'll find a list of things Congress can do, with or without tax money, and a prohibition against their doing anything else.

Nice try.

Anybody else here think the "Pay the debts" clause is a universal permit for government to do anything it wants?

 

[Bonestorm]

If that were the only sentence in the Constitution, maybe.

But if you look through the rest of it, you'll find a list of things Congress can do, with or without tax money, and a prohibition against their doing anything else.

Nice try.

Oh, so now it's appropriate to look at the rest of Article I. I see.

Well, in any event, going back to your prior analysis regarding "general welfare" versus "particular welfare," please explain why you omitted "of the United States" from your analysis. The clause is "general welfare of the United States." What in the hell would be an example of the "particular welfare of the United States?"

Again, your analysis doesn't wash.

 

[Damocles]

An accurate view, actually. The so-called "Welfare Clause" was never a permit for Congress to do anything and everything that might help people. That would have invalidated most of the Constitution, making it redundant to later list only specific thing Congress was permitted to do.

The clause was actually part of a statement saying what tax money could be spent on. And "general welfare" was written to distinguish it from "particular welfare", which would be the welfare of exclusive groups (blacks only, merchants only, left-handed redheads only etc.).

The entire sentence read: “The Congress shall have 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. . .” .

Cutting down to the relevant parts here, “Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes... to provide for the... general welfare of the United States. . .” .

"General Welfare" meant things that would benefit ALL people in the U.S., not just special-interest groups.

In other words, the "general welfare" clause is a restriction, not a permission. It says that taxes can only be spent on things that benefit everybody equally. Govt-paid health care, in a country where most people already pay for their own health care, would only help those who don't, and so is forbidden. As are most other things liberal big-govt addicts have tried to shovel into the "General Welfare" clause.

General Welfare is a proposition, then they get into the meat.

They list the powers of each of the branches, the rights of individuals specifically protected, then state that any power not specifically given to the feds belongs to States or individuals.

If they are outside those limitations working towards the "general welfare" they are still outside of their constitutional limits that all of them swore to uphold.