Posted on 07/13/2012 9:00:22 PM PDT by techno
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider… [Otherwise], would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power do to whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please…Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."-- Thomas Jefferson, 1791
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."-- James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution
Alexander Hamilton: “The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this—That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.”
Can you show us any real difference between your construction of the constitutional taxing authority vis a vis Social Security and John Roberts’ construction of the constitutional authority of Congress in the Obamacare case?
Is your construction vis a vis the “general welfare” clause in line with the views of the framers, or in line with the modern understanding of our political and legal elites? It cannot be both.
"Our tenet ever was…that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money."-- Thomas Jefferson
"With respect to the words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by it creators."-- James Madison
ObamaCare required a non-uniform, penalty tax to fund a congressionally approved program. Social Security is a uniform tax to fund a congressionally approved program.
Additionally, ObamaCare’s tax is the only one I can think of that is levied against non-behavior, thereby violating the basic right of liberty.
Social security, on the other hand, is a tax collection placed in a fund that is distributed to all, AND it has opt-out provisions for religious/philosophical dissent.
I was, thanks. Romney will win easily as plenty of disaffected liberals will be happy to vote for him...why wouldn’t they? So we end up on a freight train instead of high-speed rail...they both go to the same destination.
Either the general welfare clause means what I’m saying it means, which is what Madison and Jefferson said it means, or it means what our political and legal elites say it means. It cannot be both.
The former describes limited government, according to enumerated powers. The latter describes unlimited government, without any regard to enumerated powers.
And Madison’s view of the taxing authority was that it only extends to constitutionally-enumerated purposes.
John Roberts, in a rather psychotic contradiction of himself in one opinion, said that the general welfare clause does NOT give the general government unlimited power, but that the taxing authority gives them power to do whatever they want, without limit.
It was also used extensively in the Congress to launch the New Deal.
"The federal government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it....is now universally admitted."-- Chief Justice John Marshall, 1819
Yeah...and?
Does that make them NOT Alex Hamilton’s words. I think he was commenting on the language used in the US Constitution.
Say what you want about what you think it means, but it does say “general welfare”. Alex was simply saying that the word “general” makes it broad. I think he’s right.
And since we have founders in disagreement, that means that it remains up for discussion.
Look to the unconstitutional spending first. That’s all I’m saying.
And don’t think you can balance the budget on the back of national defense. You can’t, and you shouldn’t try.
Again, let me point out that Goode is talking about the fastest way to come to a balanced budget, and that he thinks the end of a war should mean lesser funding necessary for the US military. I see no problem with that.
When you speak of “unconstitutional spending” and you question social security’s constitutionality, and you question Goode’s resolve to preserve social security, you raise an interesting question for me.
Do you plan to end social security? A yes or no answer would be appreciated.
Hamilton's views, as interpreted by you, have prevailed, that is very clear.
As I said before, the quote you've used is what every leftist in American government today uses to justify an unlimited scope on government, on taxation, on spending, on social engineering of any and every sort.
The crucially important question is, is that a good thing?
Because, the end result is necessarily an unlimited, all-powerful, general government.
Is that what you support?
Is that what Congressman Goode supports?
Is that what the "Constitution" Party supports?
Yes. And every other unconstitutional program and agency.
It’s what the oath requires, isn’t it?
I looked up Goode's personal election website, and checked out his statement about Social Security, which seems to be along the lines of "we've stolen $2 trillion from it, we need to pay it back to fulfill our obligations." As much as we may not like this obligation, it's nevertheless one we've made. Simply wanting to cut and run from that shows a lack of charactre on the part of the one wanting to do that. Pay off our obligations, while at the same time phasing the program out of existence completely.
Not sure where the "Social Security is sacrosanct" claim being attributed to Goode comes from. Did he actually say this, or is this more of the "Tom Hoefling super secret interpretation sauce" being applied?
As an aside, I would point out that because the Constitution never explicitly mentions any Air Force, and because the Founders did not mention it either, therefore we should cut the Air Force out completely.
Hamilton, author of the Federalist papers, has had his view on the meaning of “general welfare” prevail over others like Madison and Jefferson. That is because Hamilton recognized the broadness of the term “general”.
And it isn’t just “leftists” who use that understanding, it is also courts, who, at the end of the day on this one, do have to contend with the broadness of the word “general”.
Now, you say those views have prevailed, but you then call programs based on that view “unconstitutional”.
Wouldn’t you have to admit, at a minimum, that their constitutionality is disputed, but not necessarily unconstitutional, and also that their constitutionality is the prevailing view?
Would I prefer a different system than Social Security. Yep. What do I think is the best system? Personal ownership and responsibility.
Now, asking me about the inworkings of the Constitution Party isn’t going to yield much info. I’m new to it, I’m not a spokesman for it, and I would be able to speak in broad terms and not specific.
That said, I’m enthusiastic about what I know of it so far.
Here's a chance to get rid of two birds with a single vote ~ toss this into the House. If they can't figure it out it goes to the entire Congress and each state gets one vote.
At that level Romney and Obama are just out of the loop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.