Posted on 05/29/2004 6:51:29 AM PDT by liberallarry
THERE IS BOTH good news and bad news in the flurry of reports describing the decline of American preeminence in science. Falling numbers of scientific papers and prizes, as well as the relative drop in levels of funding and students, provide evidence of this decline. The good news is that it means other governments across the globe have begun investing heavily in basic scientific research. It also means that foreign companies have been investing in research and development, creating opportunities that make more people want scientific careers in their countries. More research anywhere creates more possibilities for innovation everywhere.
Yet the reports from the National Science Foundation and elsewhere indicate that the decline is not only relative. It is also absolute: American science is growing weaker, although not across the board. The boom in research and funding for the biological sciences -- including genetics and molecular biology -- has been matched by a decline in funding for, and interest in, physics and math.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
And some of the most disgusting can be determined from the profile of the troll, AndrewC.
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 of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
My word. By your logic here, healthcare, 3000 sq ft homes and an SUV in every driveway is covered under the "general welfare" clause.
Government funding of basic science can be justified in some, but not all, cases but using the general Welfare Clause to do it is a bridge way too far.
Government funding that provides for the "common Defence" is eminently justifiable. The General Welfare clause is not.
[snip]
Anyway, there's a lot of historical support for the notion that there is no "general welfare" power. If there were, then why bother to enumerate a bunch of specific powers in the same Section?
That's very interesting..... and makes way too much sense!
Why are you bringing up a post from another thread? I don't understand the connection...
Yeah, that's my lifelong curse. Another argument for "general welfare" being a limitation on the taxing power, and not a stand-alone additional power: the Articles of Confederation had no taxing power. Giving the new central government the power to tax was very controversial. They finally agreed that it had to be done, but they were wary of it. Thus, the descriptive language in that clause, to declare the reasons for the taxing power. As I said, it's all been lost now. Congress seems to think they have the power to tax and spend for anything they like.
I'm curious; was there ever a SCOTUS decision that affirmed your interpretation that the "general welfare" clause was a limitation, and not a power?
And, when was it FIRST interpreted as a "power"?
Because this is red herring #5,252, collect the whole set. This is why many people have concluded that he trolls, or at the very least makes a habit of attempting to derail discussions he'd rather people not pay too much attention to, by starting diversionary discussions on side issues, or by "lawyering" points to death by nitpicking word choice, etc.
What makes you think that?
I'm not sure. I doubt that the Supreme Court ever got into the issue in the early days, because the early controversies were all over the use of the president's veto power. Washington vetoed "internal improvements" bills, and sent messages to Congress explaining exactly why. (His thinking informs my opinion.) Madison did the same. So did Monroe, early in his term. Specifically, he vetoed some bill involving roadwork on the Cumberland Gap. Near the end of his second term, he failed to veto some harbor improvement bill (Charleston Harbor, I think) and that set the precedent for pork barrel spending.
I don't see how the Supreme Court would get into such an issue. Either the president vetos a bill or he doesn't. I guess some spending bill could be challenged as being un-Constitutional (a lot of that went on during the early days of the New Deal), and maybe the issue got decided. I could try to look it up, but that would take some effort.
--- time passes as I do some research ---
As for the "first use" of the General Welfare clause, perhaps United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) is what you're after. A New Deal decision. It's HERE. A few swiftly-chosen excerpts:
The Congress is expressly empowered to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare. Funds in the Treasury as a result of taxation may be expended only through appropriation. (Art. I, § 9, cl. 7.) They can never accomplish the objects for which they were collected unless the power to appropriate is as broad as the power to tax. The necessary implication from the terms of the grant is that the public funds may be appropriated "to provide for the general welfare of the United States." These words cannot be meaningless, else they would not have been used. The conclusion must be that they were intended to limit and define the granted power to raise and to expend money. How shall they be construed to effectuate the intent of the instrument?Have fun reading the entire opinion. (At this point I don't know whether this was an opinion by the "good court" before the court-packing stuff, or a later opinion, by the court that caved to everything.)Since the foundation of the Nation, sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view, the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are, or may be, necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, [p*66] limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction.
I don't see where funding was authorized.
That was back in Article 1, Section 8, clause 1, which I already quoted.
Nothing, that's what. The Russians have already lost some crews, closed ranks, and moved on. When we lose a crew it takes several years of agonizing before we reluctantly try again. We all know that one more Shuttle loss will mean the end of US government manned flights. Americans as individuals will gladly partner with Russians to keep on going.
Yes and no, but whether one calls it a "limitation" or a "power" is pretty much a semantic-hairsplit. Congress *was* granted the power to spend money on "providing for the common defense and general welfare" by that clause -- that's exactly why it's there. But in another sense it's also a "limitation" in that Congress *wasn't* granted open-ended spending power to do any damned thing they please (although they're certainly treating it that way these days), they were granted *limited* power to *only* spend money on "providing for the common defense and general welfare", specifically.
In other words, it should be read: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes ... [in order] to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States ... "
No argument here, that's how *I'm* reading it as well. But even by that wording, it *still* makes clear that the Constitution allows Congress to spend money on "providing for the general welfare".
The problem today, of course, is that if Congress (or a court) wishes to, they can make *some* sort of connection between just about any stupid thing imaginable, and the "general welfare". The Framers were, unfortunately, too broad and vague in that clause, and accidentally opened the door to too many things. I wish they'd been a bit more specific.
But the point remains that spending money on things that *do* actually "provide for the common welfare", like useful scientific research and promotion -- especially in the modern age where technology has become so critical -- really *is* specifically (repeat, *specifically*) provided for in the United States Constitution. Folks who style themselves as "strict Constitutionalists" really ought to *read* the Constitution before they start trying to claim that the Constitution doesn't allow for at least certain categories of spending, when in fact it does indeed.
In particular, that bit about the "general welfare" was interpreted by the early presidents, including Washington and Madison (who were at the Convention and thus knew what the words were supposed to mean), to require their use of the veto for strictly local projects (now called "pork barrel," but then known as "internal improvements").
I agree 100% with this as well -- as well as with your concern that it's been stretched out of all recognition (as has the "interstate commerce clause").
Alas, pork barrel spending is now as American as apple pie, so the original idea of limiting the purpose of taxes is lost in the mist of time. A pity.
Indeed.
Nonetheless, federal spending on things that *are* in the true interests of "providing for the general welfare" is specifically allowed by the Constitution, and I think it's pretty easy to make a case that solid research on basic science and technology is well within that category.
Stands to reason.
Then the comment was not meant for you.
My word. By your logic here, healthcare, 3000 sq ft homes and an SUV in every driveway is covered under the "general welfare" clause.
If the federal government could find a way to actually *provide* such things for all Americans in a workable and practical way (i.e., without mortgaging all future generations, destroying our economy, enslaving millions to work the SUV factories for no pay, etc.), then yeah, it *would* be allowed by the general welfare clause, because that would actually raise the "general welfare" of the country's citizens.
However, since it *can't* do any of those things without causing a net *downturn* in the "general welfare", then no, Congress could not Constitutionally do any of that, under the "general welfare" clause, nor any other part of the Constitution.
Government funding of basic science can be justified in some, but not all, cases but using the general Welfare Clause to do it is a bridge way too far.
This makes no sense -- government funding of basic science can be justified precisely *BECAUSE* it provides for the general welfare. Allowing government projects which boost the nation's overall viability is the whole *point* of the general welfare clause. That's why it's *there*.
If you object to the application of the general welfare clause in this case, then specifically how *are* you trying to justify government funding of basic science?
Government funding that provides for the "common Defence" is eminently justifiable. The General Welfare clause is not.
And why not? Why are you approving of one clause in Article 1, Section 8, while rejecting another in the same sentence?
After doing so, head throbs painfully......
It would appear they are trying to have their cake and eat it, too. On the one hand, they claim Hamilton was right, that "general welfare" is a power, but on the other hand they indicate that it is ALSO a limitation on the purpose of taxation. Then they say they don't need to decide the issue anyway....
One side issue: it says "for the general welfare of the United States" ... but the expression "the United States" has changed subtly over the course of the past 200+ years, and it is worth noting that at the time the Constitution was written, it generally meant "the states which are united." This would seem to support your interpretation -- that the clause limits the Federal Government from laying taxes for purposes that do not provide a general benefit to ALL the states.
It also raises another issue; it suggests that Federal taxes must have a stated purpose, otherwise; how else would anyone figure out if they were for the "general welfare" or not? It appears that this is independent of the purpose of an appropriation of funds. So, when was the last time the SCOTUS struck down a tax for failure to specify a purpose?
Without researching it, I doubt that it's ever happened. Tax bills don't have a purpose clause. They're Constitutionally justified by the first clause of the Section quoted earlier. It's the spending bills that require specific Constitutional justification.
Most of the globo free traitors are regressive luddites as well.
Yes. But the problem lies in deciding what's in the "general welfare." Almost everything is, one way or another. Clearly "anything goes" wasn't intended. That's where the specifically enumerated powers come into play. Plus the "necessary and proper" clause. I still go with George Washington's understanding that it means "no local projects." And let's not forget the 10th Amendment, which reminds us that the powers listed in the Constitution are not to be liberally construed:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.Anyway, basic scientific research isn't a local project. I have no doubt (as with the Lewis & Clark expedition) that such spending benefits the United States as a whole. Still, one needs some specific power clause in the Constitution to which to tie such spending. That's why I mentioned the military power and also post roads (which can be construed to include all kinds of communications research, for example).
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.