I'm going to skip your outrageous diatribe about what the Tea Party or Michelle Bachmann would advocate, and we're going to talk about "general welfare" and what it means, according to the man who wrote it. You see, dimwit, the Founding Fathers debated the entire Constitution for years, mostly through a series of papers known as the Federalist Papers. In Federalist 41, Madison explains the "general welfare" clause:
For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter....But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare?
Since he is using language and parlance of the late 1700s, it is somewhat difficult to follow, but he is clearly saying the "general welfare" phrase, is followed by a specific enumeration to which it applies. Furthermore, he concludes you would have to be an absolute idiot to assume it means what Democrats currently claim it means.
Alexander Hamilton, the primary author of the Federalist papers, is responsible for the more expansive history that has pretty much been the default interpretation for all of American history. So, you have one author of the Federalist paper on your side. That's great. We have another author, and 200 years of precedent.
The SCOTUS has also upheld that black people were not citizens, but property, owned by their masters. It seems to me, the SCOTUS and what they may have ruled, is not the best barometer for what is intended in the Constitution.
Many founders also believed that black people were not citizens, but property, owned by their masters. It seems to me, that the founders are not the best barometer for what is intended in the constitution.
The opposite of stupidity is not intelligence. The SCOTUS made a bad ruling once. But the tradition of respecting SCOTUS interpretation of the constitution is, IMHO, every bit as important as the constitution itself. Without it, the branches would interpret on their own, and if they interpreted on their own, they would interpret to their caprice, as humans have a tendency to do. There is no freedom without stare decisis.
The Constitution does not mention gay marriage, or perverting religious traditions and customs for the sake of legitimizing a sexual lifestyle preference.
I suppose that if a man asks a girl if she wanted to have sex, and she says yes, then they can still try him for rape afterwards because she didn't specifically give him permission to stick his penis in her vagina. No, sticking the penis in the vagina is implicit in the request for sex. When the constitution says we protect all citizens equally, protecting gays and other minorities is implicit in that command.
Again, we can go to the Federalist Papers and find the "commerce clause" has been perverted from its original intent. This is why Constitutional Conservatives are upset with the power grab Obama has made, regarding nationalized health care.
Commerce clause /= general welfare clause.
In essence, your entire argument here is based on your totally false understandings and misconceptions of the Constitution. You want to stomp in the room and lay the law down, and insist you are the final arbiter on what is and isn't intended in the Constitution, and you just aren't.
Actually, I am the one showing deference to the cosntitutional tradition of the United States as it has existed for 200 years, while teabaggers and you are the ones claiming independent authority to throw all of that aside and interpret it to your convenience.
In fact, you are about the most clueless person on the planet, because you haven't bothered to read the Federalist Papers or try and understand what was envisioned. The Constitution lays the groundwork for a very LIMITED central government, with very LIMITED power, and most everything left to the people and the states.
Actually, the authority granted to the federal government under the constitution are pretty expansive. Many of the founders had a vision for a more expansive federal government than the one laid out in the constitution, but the clear intent of the constitutional convention was to fix the problem with the weak and powerless federal government established by the Articles of Confederation.
You see, while they were debating and arguing about a Constitution, the #1 biggest main concern the people of America had, was a fear of a tyrant government stealing their freedoms.
"On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist no. 1
I think this quote is especially meaningful in the context of the current demagogic teabaggers of our day.
So when these open-ended phrases came up in discussion, like "general welfare" or "common good" etc., people naturally wanted some clarification on just what the hell that meant, and the founders painstakingly explained it. As Madison so aptly put it, it would be silly and foolish to think that the general welfare clause granted Congress the authority to do anything it damn well pleased in the name of "general welfare." IF that had been the original intent, there would have been no need for a Constitution. We could have simply said, Congress has the power to do whatever they want, as long as it's for what they determine is our general welfare... does that make any logical sense at all to you?
The general welfare clause only gives the government the power to spend tax money for the general welfare, it does not give the government general power otherwise.
Some posters here think government medical is a nefarious, socialist plot first dreamed up by Obama. :lol:
