Welfare is the new work

Two recent news stories highlight how pernicious the welfare state has become in America today.

The first was an announcement by the feds that food stamps can be used to have groceries delivered right to a recipient’s door. Service with a smile. The Obama administration says it is too much of a hardship for those on welfare to actually travel to the grocery store. What’s next? Cooking the meal for them? If only the DMV would do home deliveries for drivers licenses.

The second story was about the hullabaloo over a proposal by Maine governor Paul LePage to prohibit food stamp recipients from using their food aid to purchase junk foods like sugary soft drinks and candy bars. He says that the state has an obesity problem and he will “implement reform unilaterally or cease Maine’s administration of the food stamp program altogether.” The Obama administration rejected his request and the left activists act as if the idea that a welfare recipient can’t buy a pint of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream at taxpayer expense is a violation of civil liberties.

Thank you for referencing that article PROCON. As usual, please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

Patriots, this post will first explain why federal social spending programs like Social Security and welfare are unconstitutional imo. It will then provide a rough estimate of the federal budget as the Founding States had probably envisioned that budget.

First note that there has never been anything stopping the states from establishing their own individual social security and welfare programs, such programs ultimately depending on what the legal voters of a given state want.

Also, should the states ever decide that the feds could run a national social security program better than the individual state can (cough), then there is nothing stopping the states from amending the Constitution to give the feds the power to do so, the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification feds blatantly ignoring the Constitution when they established Social Security and Obamacare for example.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Next, the key to understanding why federal welfare and programs like Social Security are unconstitutional is to understand how FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices tortured the Founding States’ intentions for the Constitution’s General Welfare Clause (GWC; 1.8.1) so that the feds could establish unconstitutonal federal spending programs like Social Security.

From a related thread . . .

Unconstitutional federal taxing and spending went into high gear when state sovereignty-ignoring FDR was president. This is because FDRs thug justices wrongly ignored that the Constitution’s GWC, which the 74th Congress used to justify programs like Social Security, was not intended to be a delegation of specific power to Congress. This observation is evidenced by the excerpt from the writings of James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution.

The excerpt is actually from the constitutionally required veto explanation (1.7.2) which Madison wrote to the House of Representatives when the 14th Congress tried to use the GWC to justify its federal public works bill of 1817.

In his veto letter Madison explained that the GWC is not a delegation of specific power to Congress, but only an introductory clause for the clauses which follow it in Section 8 which are specific delegations of power.

”To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.” - Veto of federal public works bill, 1817

The post-17th Amendment ratification 74th Congress made the same mistake with the GWC when it used that clause as its excuse to establish Social Security, the 111th Congress likewise walking in the misguided footsteps of the 14th and 74th Congresss when it established unconstitutional Obamacare.

But not only did FDRs state sovereignty-ignorinng activist justices ignore Madison’s clarification of the GWC when it declared Social Security to be constitutional in Helvering v. Davis, a later generation of activist justices likewise wrongly gave the green light to unconstitutional Obamacare, no clause in Section 8 giving Congress the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate healthcare purposes.

The rest of this post concerns the federal budget as the Founding States had probably intended for it to be understood and comes from the following thread.

$765,645,000,000: FY2016 Taxes Set Record Through December; $5,107 Per Worker; Feds Still Run…

Four times the amount shown in thread title is over three trillion dollars. And this is a major constitutional problem, imo, as indicated by the following material, also previously mentioned in related threads.

Note that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers. This is evidenced by a previously noted excerpt.

”Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” - Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

In fact, based on the Court’s statement above, here is a rough approximation of how much taxpayers should be paying Congress annually to perform its Section 8-limited power duties.

Given that the plurality of clauses in Section 8 deal with defense, and given that the Department of Defense budget for 2015 was $500+ billion, I will generously round up the $500+ billion figure to $1 trillion (but probably much less) as the annual price tag of the federal government to the taxpayers, not the $5 trillion now benig projected for that budget.

In other words, the corrupt media, including Obama guard dog Fx Noise, should not be reporting multi-trillion dollar annual federal budgets without mentioning the Supreme Court’s clarification of Congresss limited power to appropriate taxes in budget discussions.

Trump supporters need to get him up to speed on the idea that a good percentage of the federal taxes that he and his rich friends have been paying throughout their lives are probably unconstitutional.

Remember in November !

Patriots need to suppoort the Trump / Pence ticket by also electing a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its Section 8-limited powers to support Trump’s vision for making America great again for everybody, but will also put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes and likewise unconstitutional interference in state affairs.

Also, consider that such a Congress would probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.

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.