Con Law - Lesson 1 "The Preamble"

[Flash]

Not a lawyer. What has SCOTUS said about the General Welfare clause? The Promote the Common Defense clause?

The Declaration of Independence isn't law either. How many authoritarian assholes want to ignore that too?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The general welfare clause allows Congress to tax and spend for functions it does not have authority to perform by providing money to the states for that purpose. If Congress wants to encourage and support special ed programs in the schools it can give money to the states for that purpose. Education is a state function and the federal government cannot control it but they can support it financially.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Absolutely wrong. The framers quite clearly stated that what was allowed to the federal government was spelled out in the constitution, everything else was reserved to the states or the people. The whole federal welfare state is built on bullshit.

So now you are simply claiming that words that do exist in the Constitution don't exist? Interesting since I quoted Article I where Congress is granted the power you say doesn't exist.

You two are talking past each other. Gardner is correct that the Constitution was a limitation on Federal powers. Democrats tend to misconstrue that as "Feds give people their rights".

The Preamble sets the stage, but the Articles spell out the law of limiting the Federal government. Article 1 simply says that Congress has the power that it is being given.

I'm not a lawyer, but over 450 Law & Order episodes, plus some Perry Mason, have long taught me that laws require a foundation. The Constitution was that foundation. It lays out the basic rules for the Federal government. Anytime a group of non-related people are gathered together, there's bound to be disagreements.

At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, hadn't all the 13 states already ratified their own? States rights rule but there are some things that they can't do by themselves or would greatly benefit by gathering as "united states". National defense and treaties with foreign powers are two areas of interest.

Is anyone disagreeing on this?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The general welfare clause allows Congress to tax and spend for functions it does not have authority to perform by providing money to the states for that purpose. If Congress wants to encourage and support special ed programs in the schools it can give money to the states for that purpose. Education is a state function and the federal government cannot control it but they can support it financially.

Thanks.

The Lefties keep whining that the poorly educated Red States are taking up too much of that Federal tax money and want to cut them off. It appears to be working.

 

[Jarod]

Sure, the history of the Bill of Rights was that the Anti-Federalists did not favor the new Constitution because there was nothing guaranteeing certain basic rights. As a compromise, the founders agreed to write some amendments protecting those rights in return for supporting the ratification.

That resulted in 12 amendments and ten of those were ratified between 1789 and 1791. One of the original Bill of Rights was not ratified until 1992 (which is essentially moot).

I was asking for support for this statement...

"The framers did not believe the Bill of Rights were needed because they did not think Congress had the power to abridge any of those rights; thus, believing in very limited powers."


Are you saying all of the "framers" were anti-federalists?

 

[Flash]

I think we have concluded it is restricted to not violating restrictions under the rest of the Constitution and it can only provide for the general welfare using tax/spend policies. That leaves us with a rather broad range of what Congress can do.

I basically agree, but I would say it is a little more limited than just the restrictions specifically listed. There must be some basis for the powers it exercises even though those have been stretched greatly over the years.

For example, the courts struck down certain provisions of Obamacare because Congress had no authority in that area.

Or, Congress could not determine the textbooks, calendar holidays, or required number of days schools must be open because they have no authority. Neither of those examples are due to any restrictions denied Congress in the Constitution.

 

[Flash]

Thanks.

The Lefties keep whining that the poorly educated Red States are taking up too much of that Federal tax money and want to cut them off. It appears to be working.

I think only 8% of K-12 education comes from federal funds.

 

[Flash]

I was asking for support for this statement...

"The framers did not believe the Bill of Rights were needed because they did not think Congress had the power to abridge any of those rights; thus, believing in very limited powers."

Are you saying all of the "framers" were anti-federalists?

No, just the opposite. The Anti-Federalists did not want a stronger central government and did not attend the constitutional convention since that was its purpose. So, the convention was made up only of Federalists. The Anti-Federalists in society opposed ratification and agreed to support it in return for the amendments.

Sorry if I was unclear.

 

[ParachuteAdams]

It’s completely gone nuts

What am I doing here?

I go to St. John’s university. I’m studying criminal justice. These are the hew juniors.

It’s kids, get this pooxxyy out of here. Come to my house.

How to live a dull life. I don’t want to play I won. He kept it.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I think only 8% of K-12 education comes from federal funds.

Correct. However, as most here know, poor areas, be they urban or rural, with poor family support can't benefit as well with even the best education...which they are not getting.

A few years into the Iraq War, Rumsfeld responded to questions about delays on setting up democracy in Iraq by saying something like "It's hard to set up a democracy when you don't have electricity and water".

Same for the USA; 40% of our citizens don't vote. Is it because they are worried about electricity and water?

This isn't the quote, but a related article: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2005/12/why-elections-won-t-bring-democracy-to-iraq.html
Elections Aren’t Enough
Seeing Iraqis vote is wonderful, but you can’t rush democracy.
The book argues that, while mature democracies do tend to be more peaceful and almost never go to war with one another, emerging democracies tend to be more violent and aggressive than any other type of regime—and are more likely to erupt in civil war or revert to autocratic rule....

...Mansfield and Snyder do just that, and the results come up all zeros. Present-day Iraq, they write, exhibits “all the risk factors”: an inflammatory mass media, scant rule of law, corrupt bureaucracies, low income and literacy, an economy based almost entirely on oil, and an exceedingly weak administrative state.

Successful democratization, they write (in both the book and the article), depends not just on some critical mass of conditions but also on the sequence in which these conditions develop.

 

[Matt Dillon]

That last picture is you huh

Wouldn't you like to know? I ain't tellin' ya.

It's a picture of somebody doing a pretty good derp face, I'll tell you that.

My friend's daughter does a pretty good one, too. We taught her well.

 

[Matt Dillon]

They told us their intent



If it was throw away they would have thrown it away


You have no interest in the founders INTENT


THANK YOU FOR ADMITTING THAT



It was always a right wing bullshit lie

It seems to me you don't care that the Founding Fathers' "Well regulated" Means armed and ready for action at a moment's notice.

Not a thing to do with the government. "In proper working order", yes. This is a picture from an old dictionary.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

That last picture is you huh

Yes....on his "calm" days.

 

[Flash]

4) Particularly interesting is the actual power the "Preamble" has had when interpreting the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Court has used it to illustrate the intent of the framers as to what powers they actually intended to give with the subsequent Articles. In, Berman v. Parker, 348 US 26 (1954) the Court held that the term "promote the general welfare.." illustrates that the writers intended to give the Federal Government powers that enabled them to promote the general welfare, in that case use the right of eminent domain.

I always believed neither the Declaration or the Preamble contained any legally binding principles and so was surprised about Berman v. Parker using the Preamble to illustrate the general welfare provision.

I looked at the case and can find nothing about the Preamble or general welfare clause. It talks about the police powers. and takings clause. Did I miss something?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The general welfare clause allows Congress to tax and spend for functions it does not have authority to perform by providing money to the states for that purpose. If Congress wants to encourage and support special ed programs in the schools it can give money to the states for that purpose. Education is a state function and the federal government cannot control it but they can support it financially.

It Congress doesn't have the authority to perform some function, then they can't tax and spend to support that function because if they tax and spend to support that function, they are in essence, performing that function!

You are correct that education is a state function and that the federal government cannot control it. That's why the Department of Education at the federal level should be eliminated in its entirety.

 

[Flash]

It Congress doesn't have the authority to perform some function, then they can't tax and spend to support that function because if they tax and spend to support that function, they are in essence, performing that function!

You are correct that education is a state function and that the federal government cannot control it. That's why the Department of Education at the federal level should be eliminated in its entirety.

No, they are not really performing the function because they provide financial aid.

You say the federal government cannot tax and spend to provide financial aid if they don't have the authority to perform a function; yet, it is done all the time. Federal financial aid goes to education, highways, law enforcement, and many other functions. About 25% of state-local revenue comes from federal funding.

 

[Into the Night]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


These 52 words were presented to the Constitutional Convention by the "Committee on Style" and adopted to be what we call the Preamble to the Constitution. It is as good of a place to start our study of the United States Constitution as any. While there is debate as to the use of the Preamble to establish law and or structure of American government, it is clearly an attempt to set the tone and explain what the document is, how it is to be viewed and the what the document is intended to be and do.

1) "We the People of the United States..." The first seven words show us the class of people who this document applies to... There were several drafts of this portion of the Constitution including "We the people of the various states" as is used in the Articles of Confederation and there was" or "We the People of the various states" and "The People of the united States... (listing them)" as was used in the Treaty of France. It is commonly noted that the drafters did not know how many States would sign on so listing them was a bad idea. The choice of the novel previously unused phrase "We the People of the United States" creates the existence of an actual Nation of people called the United States... Note that they capitalized the phrase "United States" making it an entity on its own. The States are not even mentioned in the preamble.

2) "In Order to form a more perfect Union" - The reason the Constitution was written, and to establish its supremacy over the previous Government created by the Articles of Confederation.

3) "This Constitution..." is also another important phrase, establishing that this is it, the entirety of what is to be considered The Constitution, establishing that it was to be this single document as distinguished from what English Government calls its Document which is a series of Writings and Documents cobbled together to establish the form and structure of their government. The single document Constitution was a novel idea for these former English Subjects.

4) Particularly interesting is the actual power the "Preamble" has had when interpreting the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Court has used it to illustrate the intent of the framers as to what powers they actually intended to give with the subsequent Articles. In, Berman v. Parker, 348 US 26 (1954) the Court held that the term "promote the general welfare.." illustrates that the writers intended to give the Federal Government powers that enabled them to promote the general welfare, in that case use the right of eminent domain.

The preamble cannot be used to discard the remainder of the Constitution. The General Welfare clause is NOT a power or authority. It is a directive how how and why the power or authorities given the federal government are to be used.

The Supreme Court does NOT have authority to change the Constitution.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

No, they are not really performing the function because they provide financial aid.

You say the federal government cannot tax and spend to provide financial aid if they don't have the authority to perform a function; yet, it is done all the time. Federal financial aid goes to education, highways, law enforcement, and many other functions. About 25% of state-local revenue comes from federal funding.

The feds shouldn't be providing general financial aid for education. I can understand specific ones they provide in return for service like paying for med school for public health service doctors, or military service, and the like. Those are sort of like corporate sponsorship where the recipient contracts service for payment-in-kind education.

General loans and grants? Nah, not a federal function.

 

[Into the Night]

Trump told them what is in the Constitution. No reason to read it.

Trump did not write the Constitution. The Constitution is the only authoritative reference of the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

this is just the start. If and when I have time I will continue with other parts of the constitution. Parts are important, including the preamble. Very significant part of the preamble is the promotion of the common good. The writers were very specific about the words they chose the capitalizations and the sentence structure.

It’s more than just a forward, it’s an intention statement, that can be used when discussing the framers intent in later portions.

You do not need to interpret the Constitution that you discard.

You should read it sometime though, including the history of how it came about.

 

[Into the Night]

How so?

RQAA. You cannot use the Welfare Clause to cancel the rest of the Constitution. It is NOT a power or authority. It is a directive.

Now...do you want to ask this stupid question again?