^^ Exactly. [edit: sloth’s last post]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government is limited in what it decides it should spend on or tax to support.
The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states.
I have no idea how you don’t see the contradiction.
Because the power to tax and spend is expressly granted to the federal government both for defense and the general welfare. And this is no written limitation on this power.
But how can it spend money on powers not stated?
You did say, The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states
I don’t see a stated power to set up and maintain a healthcare system.
The powers are specifically stated: 1. Common defense. 2. General welfare. No one has any beef over the federal government having sole discretion over necessary taxing and spending for defense.
It’s only the General Welfare part that gets some. I know it would be much easier if these words weren’t there. But they are. You can explain them away with an interpretation and claim they too only were meant to refer to security and defense. But you can’t just ignore them.
Common defense and General welfare is shorthand for “the STATED powers, that aren’t reserved for the states.” What you’re quoting is meant to spell out the obvious, “yes the federal government can tax to carry out it’s powers.”
Otherwise, your own statement The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states makes absolutely no sense, because the government can now do anything and everything. Own and operate the means of production and distribute the goods to everyone, equally? And decide how scarce resources are going to be used? It’s for the general welfare! Set a limit on how much a CEO or doctor can be paid? It’s for the General welfare![/quote]
As I revised my post above: NOWHERE does the Constitution grant the federal government the authority to institute rationing and Meatless Tuesdays. But that is what it did. Cars, sugar, gasoline, and basically anything else you can think of was rationed because it was considered necessary for the war effort . What any individual family could afford and felt it needed was ignored.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
jsbrook,
I realize that the Constitution is an inconvenience to those who would like to engage in “social engineering” towards (allegedly) “socially desirable” outcomes, but one thing that people like you never seem to understand is this: we either have the rule of law via written documents (such as the constitution) or rule by decree. Which do YOU prefer?
Gimme a break.
Article 1, Section 8:
"The 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 (emphasis added) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Gee, you forgot the qualifiers that follow that semicolon there JS. Moreover, the Federalist papers DO NOT support a broad interpretation of the welfare clause.
Furthermore, to misinterpret the welfare clause in this manner is to misconstrue the entire purpose of the constitution which is based upon enumerated powers - specific powers that the states were willing to grant to the federal government on the specific provision that those enumerated powers DID NOT grant or imply ANY OTHER transfer of powers.
To maintain otherwise is just an attempt to justify trampling on the constitution in pursuit of ideological aims.
That’s extremely misleading. That’s one view. Madison’s. The other view, espoused by the OTHER author of the Federalist papers (Alexander Hamilton) is that spending WAS a specifically enumerates power designed to allow Congress to independently serve the general welfare.
[/quote]congrats, you named the two assholes the purposely mislead those that ratified the constitution.
[quote]
This view was also supported by other primary literature and debates of the time, and the supplanting of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. The weakness of the federal government of the Articles of the Confederation were considered its key failing.
[/quote] This matters little. What did those that ratified the constitution on behalf of their states think? Would they be agreable to the federal gov’t taking over banking, education, healthcare, etc. Would they have been agreeable to the federal gov’t being the largest land owner, employer, insurance provider, bank, educator, landlord,etc. Let’s at least be honest about what the founder invisioned for the federal gov’t. Do you think that would be possible?
[quote]
In fact, there has never been a concensus on what this provision was supposed do, what powers it granted, and what powers and limits the Constitution was supposed to be establishing. Even when it was writtern. There have always been this conflict and these TWO prevailing views.[/quote]
This is bullshit. To try and justify the bloated beheomoth our federal gov’t has become with two words hand picked out of the constitution is about as intellectually dishonest as it gets. Agrue semantics all you want, even Hamilton would cringe at what has become of the federal gov’t and his beloved supreme court.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
congrats, you named the two assholes the purposely mislead those that ratified the constitution.
[/quote]
I agree dhickey with your general argument - this bit is rather mystifying though.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government is limited in what it decides it should spend on or tax to support.
The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states.
I have no idea how you don’t see the contradiction.
Because the power to tax and spend is expressly granted to the federal government both for defense and the general welfare. And this is no written limitation on this power.
But how can it spend money on powers not stated?
You did say, The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states
I don’t see a stated power to set up and maintain a healthcare system.
The powers are specifically stated: 1. Common defense. 2. General welfare. No one has any beef over the federal government having sole discretion over necessary taxing and spending for defense.
It’s only the General Welfare part that gets some. I know it would be much easier if these words weren’t there. But they are. You can explain them away with an interpretation and claim they too only were meant to refer to security and defense. But you can’t just ignore them.
Common defense and General welfare is shorthand for “the STATED powers, that aren’t reserved for the states.” What you’re quoting is meant to spell out the obvious, “yes the federal government can tax to carry out it’s powers.”
Otherwise, your own statement The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states makes absolutely no sense, because the government can now do anything and everything. Own and operate the means of production and distribute the goods to everyone, equally? And decide how scarce resources are going to be used? It’s for the general welfare! Set a limit on how much a CEO or doctor can be paid? It’s for the General welfare![/quote]
No one would support such a ludicrous interpretation. The most liberal legal theorists believed the taxing and spending power is strictly limited to how much the federal government decides to tax and what it spends GOVERNMENT money on. Nothing gives it authority to put a cap on an individuals wages. Or take over the means of production.
Although precedent suggests, if anything, it would allowed to do such things in wartime by claiming it’s necessary for the national defense. Something you must surely be as against as social security program.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
As I revised my post above: NOWHERE does the Constitution grant the federal government the authority to institute rationing and Meatless Tuesdays. But that is what it did. Cars, sugar, gasoline, and basically anything else you can think of was rationed because it was considered necessary for the war effort . What any individual family could afford and felt it needed was ignored.[/quote]
It was a temporary policy instituted during wartime. Using that as some sort of basis to justify socialism is foolish at best.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
No one would support such a ludicrous interpretation. The most liberal legal theorists believed the taxing and spending power is strictly limited to how much the federal government decides to tax and what it spends GOVERNMENT money on. Nothing gives it authority to put a cap on an individuals wages. Or take over the means of production.
[/quote]
Have you been in a coma for the last 3 weeks?
The government just passed a bill that caps individual wages, and takes over an entire industry.
Wake up.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government is limited in what it decides it should spend on or tax to support.
The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states.
I have no idea how you don’t see the contradiction.
Because the power to tax and spend is expressly granted to the federal government both for defense and the general welfare. And this is no written limitation on this power.
But how can it spend money on powers not stated?
You did say, The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states
I don’t see a stated power to set up and maintain a healthcare system.
The powers are specifically stated: 1. Common defense. 2. General welfare. No one has any beef over the federal government having sole discretion over necessary taxing and spending for defense.
It’s only the General Welfare part that gets some. I know it would be much easier if these words weren’t there. But they are. You can explain them away with an interpretation and claim they too only were meant to refer to security and defense. But you can’t just ignore them.
Common defense and General welfare is shorthand for “the STATED powers, that aren’t reserved for the states.” What you’re quoting is meant to spell out the obvious, “yes the federal government can tax to carry out it’s powers.”
Otherwise, your own statement The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states makes absolutely no sense, because the government can now do anything and everything. Own and operate the means of production and distribute the goods to everyone, equally? And decide how scarce resources are going to be used? It’s for the general welfare! Set a limit on how much a CEO or doctor can be paid? It’s for the General welfare![/quote]
So, are you just as against all the heavy wartime measures that were undertaken as you are against programs not expressly mentioned in the Constitution? If not, what is the CONSTIUTIONAL authority from which they derive?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government is limited in what it decides it should spend on or tax to support.
The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states.
I have no idea how you don’t see the contradiction.
Because the power to tax and spend is expressly granted to the federal government both for defense and the general welfare. And this is no written limitation on this power.
But how can it spend money on powers not stated?
You did say, The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states
I don’t see a stated power to set up and maintain a healthcare system.
The powers are specifically stated: 1. Common defense. 2. General welfare. No one has any beef over the federal government having sole discretion over necessary taxing and spending for defense.
It’s only the General Welfare part that gets some. I know it would be much easier if these words weren’t there. But they are. You can explain them away with an interpretation and claim they too only were meant to refer to security and defense. But you can’t just ignore them.
Common defense and General welfare is shorthand for “the STATED powers, that aren’t reserved for the states.” What you’re quoting is meant to spell out the obvious, “yes the federal government can tax to carry out it’s powers.”
Otherwise, your own statement The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states makes absolutely no sense, because the government can now do anything and everything. Own and operate the means of production and distribute the goods to everyone, equally? And decide how scarce resources are going to be used? It’s for the general welfare! Set a limit on how much a CEO or doctor can be paid? It’s for the General welfare![/quote]
So, are you just as against all the heavy wartime measures that were undertaken as you are against programs not expressly mentioned in the Constitution? If not, what is the CONSTIUTIONAL authority from which they derive?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
As I revised my post above: NOWHERE does the Constitution grant the federal government the authority to institute rationing and Meatless Tuesdays. But that is what it did. Cars, sugar, gasoline, and basically anything else you can think of was rationed because it was considered necessary for the war effort . What any individual family could afford and felt it needed was ignored.
It was a temporary policy instituted during wartime. Using that as some sort of basis to justify socialism is foolish at best.
[/quote]
It has the exact same CONSTITUTIONAL basis. I agree as a practical measure that it was much more appropriate. But if so-called socialist policies are unconstitutional, so are national policies that micromanage like that. War or no war. There is no getting around this.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
dhickey wrote:
congrats, you named the two assholes the purposely mislead those that ratified the constitution.
I agree dhickey with your general argument - this bit is rather mystifying though. [/quote]
You’re right… I am being a bit hard on Madison. He was really nothing more than an enabler of Hamilton’s bungling and deceipt. It’s been awhile but I believe he eventually wised to Hamilton’s game.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
No one would support such a ludicrous interpretation. The most liberal legal theorists believed the taxing and spending power is strictly limited to how much the federal government decides to tax and what it spends GOVERNMENT money on. Nothing gives it authority to put a cap on an individuals wages. Or take over the means of production.
Have you been in a coma for the last 3 weeks?
The government just passed a bill that caps individual wages, and takes over an entire industry.
Wake up. [/quote]
Fair enough. Not a measure I support. But, no, I don’t think it’s unconstitutional.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
dhickey wrote:
congrats, you named the two assholes the purposely mislead those that ratified the constitution.
I agree dhickey with your general argument - this bit is rather mystifying though.
You’re right… I am being a bit hard on Madison. He was really nothing more than an enabler of Hamilton’s bungling and deceipt. It’s been awhile but I believe he eventually wised to Hamilton’s game.[/quote]
Are you a complete ignoramus with no knowledge of history? Madison diametrically opposed Hamilton and had a completely different view. Your view. He believed that spending had to be tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers. And that the General Welfare clause was not a specific grant of power. Merely a statement of purpose that qualified the power to tax.
The debates between the two were famous, well-documented, and legendary. And far from being ‘mislead’ by them, other scholars and ratifiers of the time participated in the debates and took sides. Nothing you say in this thread can be given credit. There most certainly was a most spirited debate abou what the General Welfare clause meant and what the Constiutiton was designed to do. Both before and after it was ratified.
Worst Debate ever.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Worst Debate ever.
The worst debate ever - POLITICO [/quote]
Pretty good analysis.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Worst Debate ever.
The worst debate ever - POLITICO [/quote]
I agree.
It was a boring debate.
It would be great if each side could be called out on lame answers.
It appears to me that each is afraid to get too nasty because they don’t want to be challenged on their own sensitive issues and bad decisions.
Both candidate are really disappointing.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
hedo wrote:
Worst Debate ever.
Pretty good analysis.[/quote]
I liked the best of brokaw video
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government is limited in what it decides it should spend on or tax to support.
The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states.
I have no idea how you don’t see the contradiction.
Because the power to tax and spend is expressly granted to the federal government both for defense and the general welfare. And this is no written limitation on this power.
But how can it spend money on powers not stated?
You did say, The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states
I don’t see a stated power to set up and maintain a healthcare system.
The powers are specifically stated: 1. Common defense. 2. General welfare. No one has any beef over the federal government having sole discretion over necessary taxing and spending for defense.
It’s only the General Welfare part that gets some. I know it would be much easier if these words weren’t there. But they are. You can explain them away with an interpretation and claim they too only were meant to refer to security and defense. But you can’t just ignore them.
Common defense and General welfare is shorthand for “the STATED powers, that aren’t reserved for the states.” What you’re quoting is meant to spell out the obvious, “yes the federal government can tax to carry out it’s powers.”
Otherwise, your own statement The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states makes absolutely no sense, because the government can now do anything and everything. Own and operate the means of production and distribute the goods to everyone, equally? And decide how scarce resources are going to be used? It’s for the general welfare! Set a limit on how much a CEO or doctor can be paid? It’s for the General welfare!
So, are you just as against all the heavy wartime measures that were undertaken as you are against programs not expressly mentioned in the Constitution? If not, what is the CONSTIUTIONAL authority from which they derive?[/quote]
Wartime. W-A-R-T-I-M-E. That’s all that needs to be said. Why that even needs to be said, I don’t know.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government is limited in what it decides it should spend on or tax to support.
The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states.
I have no idea how you don’t see the contradiction.
Because the power to tax and spend is expressly granted to the federal government both for defense and the general welfare. And this is no written limitation on this power.
But how can it spend money on powers not stated?
You did say, The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states
I don’t see a stated power to set up and maintain a healthcare system.
The powers are specifically stated: 1. Common defense. 2. General welfare. No one has any beef over the federal government having sole discretion over necessary taxing and spending for defense.
It’s only the General Welfare part that gets some. I know it would be much easier if these words weren’t there. But they are. You can explain them away with an interpretation and claim they too only were meant to refer to security and defense. But you can’t just ignore them.
Common defense and General welfare is shorthand for “the STATED powers, that aren’t reserved for the states.” What you’re quoting is meant to spell out the obvious, “yes the federal government can tax to carry out it’s powers.”
Otherwise, your own statement The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states makes absolutely no sense, because the government can now do anything and everything. Own and operate the means of production and distribute the goods to everyone, equally? And decide how scarce resources are going to be used? It’s for the general welfare! Set a limit on how much a CEO or doctor can be paid? It’s for the General welfare!
No one would support such a ludicrous interpretation.[/quote]
You might want to look into Marxism.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government is limited in what it decides it should spend on or tax to support.
The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states.
I have no idea how you don’t see the contradiction.
Because the power to tax and spend is expressly granted to the federal government both for defense and the general welfare. And this is no written limitation on this power.
But how can it spend money on powers not stated?
You did say, The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states
I don’t see a stated power to set up and maintain a healthcare system.
The powers are specifically stated: 1. Common defense. 2. General welfare. No one has any beef over the federal government having sole discretion over necessary taxing and spending for defense.
It’s only the General Welfare part that gets some. I know it would be much easier if these words weren’t there. But they are. You can explain them away with an interpretation and claim they too only were meant to refer to security and defense. But you can’t just ignore them.
Common defense and General welfare is shorthand for “the STATED powers, that aren’t reserved for the states.” What you’re quoting is meant to spell out the obvious, “yes the federal government can tax to carry out it’s powers.”
Otherwise, your own statement The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states makes absolutely no sense, because the government can now do anything and everything. Own and operate the means of production and distribute the goods to everyone, equally? And decide how scarce resources are going to be used? It’s for the general welfare! Set a limit on how much a CEO or doctor can be paid? It’s for the General welfare!
So, are you just as against all the heavy wartime measures that were undertaken as you are against programs not expressly mentioned in the Constitution? If not, what is the CONSTIUTIONAL authority from which they derive?
Wartime. W-A-R-T-I-M-E. That’s all that needs to be said. Why that even needs to be said, I don’t know.[/quote]
Because it’s the same clause and neither can be forbidden under a constitutional interpretation that allows for one. The Constitution is not your personal plaything where you’re free to pick one interpretation that supports a normative outcome you like and then simply discard it in another situation where you wouldn’t like the results.
Madison and Jefferson and all other Founders who adopted your interpreation did not feel the federal government should have power to enact measures not specifically authorized by the Constitution in order to wage war either.