Is Welfare Unconstitutional?

Capitalist Conservative Republican Homepage. ^

[sopwith]

No less than framers Madison and Jefferson, plus at least five presidents and dozens of prominent statesmen throughout American history thought so!

"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." - President Thomas Jefferson, 1803

How do we interpret the Constitution? Though many erroniously view the Constitution as an intentionally vague and loosely interpreted document, by simply looking at the document one soon learns that there are many very disitinct methods with which to interpret, define, and study the Constitution. 1. The document itself: Though few realize it, the Constitution is a very defined and extremely straight forward text with many definitions inherent in the common logic behind it.

The"necessary and proper" clause of Article I, Section 8, enumerated power of Congress #18 - which mandates that the aforementioned 17 enumerated powers are further defined and expanded upon through implications though limited on the whole by a "necessary and proper" relationship. McCulloch v. Maryland defined this as to Congress may enact legislation within the powers (1) specifically enumerated by Article I, Section 8 and (2) that which reasonably "necessary and proper" in "carrying into execution" these powers and those elsewhere listed to Congress in the constitution (ie. certain amendments). In other words, Congress is strictly defined to very specifically enumerated powers and that which draws a reasonable relationship to these specific powers as a "means" of carrying into play their execution. Oddly enough much of what Congress does today is neither enumerated nor reasonably implied through clause 18 (ie. the use of public monies for charity on the national level - what we know today as social welfare handouts) English Common Law terminology within the Constitution - Reasoning that the framers were men trained in English Law and men who spoke with a common understanding the language and terms of English Common Law, it is only reasonable to read Common Law terminology within the language of the Constitution in light of its Common Law meaning. The Supreme Court implied this under John Marshall in United States v. Wilson and ruled such specifically in Smith v. Alabama half a century later (also later reffered upon by United States v. Wong Kim Ark). Due to these rulings, precedence mandates that we interpret Common Law terminology in the Constitution in light of its Common Law definition. Examples of such Common Law terminology Habeas Corpus - the rule requiring a reasoning for the detainment of a person High Crimes and Misdemeanors - the standard of impeachment which was so recently misconstrued and taken out of context in the Clinton Impeachment trial. This term, roughly meaning a serious offense or a felony, was established in 1388 before being thoroughly and specifically defined shortly afterward (and yes, it does very clearly include perjury within its definition. See here.) Bill of Attainder - Congress cannot legislatively bestow a punishment upon a person (including a fine such as in Censure). Emminent Domain - compensation for lands acquired by the government

[G.Mason]

Is Welfare Unconstitutional?

If, by welfare, it is meant the giving of monetary assistance to one, and at the expence of another, and without the express approval of that other, the answer is a resounding yes.

[uncbob]

Constitution what is that

Oh I remember that is the document that protects pornography
and the media

[dinodino]

"Constitution?" That's that "living document" thingie, right?

[steve50]

Social and corporate welfare can't be found in the document. The government has no more right to pay people not to work than it has to pay outfits like ADM not to farm.

[txdoda]

Is Welfare Unconstitutional?>>>>>>>

If it's not, IT SHOULD BE........but, with a gov't that now openly practices *selective* enforcment of our laws, does it *really* matter what 'we the people think' ???

Questions: (1) Isn't it now 'legal for employers to drug test employees??? How 'bout the gov't drug testing some of these folks recieving their monthly 'welfare check'??? (not elderly/dis-abled).
(2) Doesn't listing 'father unknown' almost guarantee some sort of welfare check for the next 18 yrs., per child ?? Couldn't today's DNA testing shift some 'financial responsibiliy' to these fathers ??
(3)Would it be 'cruel & unusual punishment' to suggest that those living in any gov't housing 'donate' 1 or 2 hrs per week towards 'maintaing the appearence' of their low income housing ???


any thoughts ??....anyone

[Ima Lurker]

Yes,it is unconstitutional and certainly one of the most destructive things we've ever come up with. Welfare and the Department of Education have done more harm to this country than anything else I can think of.

[Ima Lurker]

Whoa.....such radical thinking!! I'm SHOCKED!! : )

[txdoda]

The government has no more right to pay people not to work >>>>>>>

I posted some of my questions in #6 about welfare. I didn't ask about the 'working' part, because I thought in the latest 'reform' at least some on welfare could work.

I would make it 'mandatory' that ALL with kids in school work.

So far as the 'free schooling' some receive, I've heard that many abuse this gift (from the taxpayers). I would make the uneducated hold a min. wage job for one yr., so they might appreciate this 'free education' towards a better job.

Pushing 'welfare' parents into 'responsibility' might help them with their 'parenting skills'.

[ovrtaxt]

Welfare and the Department of Education have done more harm to this country than anything else I can think of.

I can think of the Democrats...

[MissAmericanPie]

Yes it is very un-Constitutional.

[txdoda]

Whoa.....such radical thinking!! I'm SHOCKED!! : )>>>>>>>

Like most I've 'struggled' a few times, but have never been on welfare. So I don't know all the 'in's & outs' of it.

Just seems to me that any 'welfare reforms' should also close all the loopholes that are creating 2nd & 3rd generations on welfare.

[meenie]

The people gave up their representative form of government with the passage of the income tax and direct election of Senators. Since then government by the people became government of the people. The states forfeited Amendment Ten and any reservation of rights to the people. It has been downhill ever since.

[steve50]

Pushing 'welfare' parents into 'responsibility' might help them with their 'parenting skills'.

My problem with that approach is I can't find anything in the Constitution that empowers the government to "push" citizens towards anything. You idea just allows a privilege to be granted if the citizen jumps thru the proper hoops. I think that's at odds with what the framers had in mind.

[FITZ]

I think pushing them toward responsibility could be left to private groups ---- end the government handouts --- let the welfare class turn to the Churches or private charities --- which is where charity belongs --- the government doesn't have that duty.

[txdoda]

My problem with that approach is I can't find anything in the Constitution that empowers the government to "push" citizens towards anything. >>>>

Yes, but most agree tax funded 'welfare' isn't in the Constitution either.

You idea just allows a privilege to be granted if the citizen jumps thru the proper hoops.>>>>>>>

Welfare is a 'privilege' ??? Drug testing legal for the working, yet 'illegal' for many who *choose* not to work, thereby needing $$ support.

I think that's at odds with what the framers had in mind.>>>>.

Lot's about 'today's gov't' seems to be at odds with what the framers had in mind.......;o)

[SCHROLL]

Why stop with Welfare? There are many more things that the government does that could be found to be unconstitutional.

[Zack Nguyen]

Is Welfare Unconstitutional?

Most likely. Some would claim that it falls under the "promote the general welfare" line in the Preamble, which is unfortunately broad enough to include just about anything, including money to study the breeding habits of prothonotary warblers, or whatever.

[txdoda]

I think pushing them toward responsibility could be left to private groups ---- end the government handouts --- let the welfare class turn to the Churches or private charities --- which is where charity belongs --- the government doesn't have that duty.>>>>>>>

Again we agree......;o)

However, I'll look for imm. laws to be strictly enforced, before gov't puts an end to welfare.

Gov't just seems to hand out a lot of fed. monies thru welfare, yet doesn't apply the same rules as it does to 'other fed. money recievers'. Schools a good example of this.

[FITZ]

True -- a lot of our immigration is directly due to the appeal of our "safety net" programs. The government seems more interested in increasing the welfare class and adding more and more welfare programs --- there is not cutting in the works.