Posted on 01/19/2005 9:54:17 AM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan
Article One, Section Eight of the United States Constitution limits the Federal Government to twenty Enumerated Powers or “areas.” None of these powers include the Federal Government taking responsibility for the retirement of citizens, getting into the business of retirement, especially by taking money from Americans against their will and forcing them into a government run system that operates like an illegal pyramid scheme.
Some defenders of Social Security contend that the General Welfare Clause in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution, “…to promote the general welfare,” is in fact clear evidence of the constitutionality of Social Security. While this view is widespread, to say the least, James Madison in Federalist Papers Forty-One & Forty-Two clearly rebuffed such a contention explaining the General Welfare Clause was just a summary of the twenty Enumerated Powers rather than a blanket power as critics of the Constitution, at the time, had argued.
Its worth noting that defenders of Social Security are basing the constitutionality of the largest program in existence on what Madison called a “misconstruction” used by critics who attacked the Constitution. Madison explained, “For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural or more common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify by an enumeration of the particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity ... what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions and disregarding the specifications which limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the general welfare?”
So if Social Security is unconstitutional, hence illegal, why shouldn’t the debate over “reform” center on this grave matter? Shouldn’t it be abolished if indeed the Federal Government has no legal authority to operate such a program?
Do you believe we should appoint Supreme Court justices who will apply a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, and adhere to the original intent of the Founders? If so, on what basis do we determine which justices fit that description?
Edited for accuracy.
The law has been interpreted and those of us who do not like an activist judiciary should accept the law.
I reject the law. I rejected other laws as well, some of which were "interpreted" as proper when in fact they were wrong.
"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned: This is the sum of good government."
Thomas Jefferson, first Inaugural Address; March 4, 1801
#55 You should have read my remarks before skipping to the comments . . .
#57 Earlier in Federalist No. 41, Madison grouped the powers granted the federal government into six "classes" . . .
Please feel free to provide the words of Hamilton that contradict Madison on the General Welfare Clause. Yes, we're told he advocated a strong centralized government, but such a viewpoint is one thing and the law (Constitution) is quite another. Hamilton authored most of the Federalist Papers and I'm not aware of him ever differing with Madison on the General Welfare Clause.
Thank you for your kind comments and assumptions.
The Federalist Papers were written, for what purpose? Do you suppose they might have had the same partisan purpose, though in opposition, as Richard Henry Lee’s The Letters from the Federal Farmer? What role did The Federalist Papers play, for instance, in drafting and passing The Judiciary Act of 1789?
Where in The Federalist Papers did Publius support Hamilton’s constitutional test for a proposed act of Congress? This test:
“If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority.”
None of us can defy the importance of The Federalist Papers as informing historical documents and, collectively, as a treatise on the U.S. Constitution. But, as Hamilton demonstrated, they were not binding, even then, beyond their intended partisan purpose.
Alexander Hamilton would whisper into your ear: “Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.”
Which of Hamilton's Geneneral Interests do you think SS would have fallen - Learning, Manufacturing, Agriculture, or Commerce?
Just curious: what do you plan to do?
No. Pointless. I can say with all certainty that if SS were genuinely threatened on constitutional grounds as you suggest, that the 28th Amendment making it constitutional would be passed overnight.
Do you think an Amendment formalizing the New Deal Commerce Clause (ie the substantial effects doctrine and aggregation principle) would get an overnight pass?
Absolutely. If the powers that be in the state legislatures thought for a moment that they might have to pay for the care and feeding of the elderly out of *THEIR* budget, the Amendment would pass overnight. Only token debate at best before it was ratified in all 50 states.
Are you still talking about Social Security?
I do not mean this to be as flippant or as evasive as this may sound, but I simply don't understand the question. Was there something else you were trying to get at, constitutionally speaking?
I was just kind of wondering what you think Hamilton might have found in this behemoth slush fund for financing government expansion that he would consider it, on the whole, to be providing for the General Welfare of the nation.
Ok.
By "behemoth slush fund," I suppose you mean social security.
He would not have been concerned with it, at all. He was too busy trying to get the new government, and the states, out of debt.
Other than that, I don't know. He was Washington's right-hand, go-to guy, and if he were around in 1935 working for Roosevelt, he most certainly would have found a justification and an implied power to trigger the General Welfare Clause.
Having no historical facts, partially thanks to Aaron Burr, that's just an opinion, as paltry as it probably is.
None of us can defy the importance of The Federalist Papers as informing historical documents and, collectively, as a treatise on the U.S. Constitution. But, as Hamilton demonstrated, they were not binding, even then, beyond their intended partisan purpose.
I underlined the qualifiers listed by Hamilton before a measure should be adopted by Congress. He is saying that there are limitations prescribed in the Constitution on congressional power.
Alexander Hamilton would whisper into your ear: "Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1."
If you are basing that on the Hamilton quote, then you completely missed his point about limitations.
"Congress has the power to use those revenues from taxation to provide for the general welfare"
The Constitution says Promote the General Welfare which has nothing to do with providing.
Promote would be a State Department function, all talk and no expendatures!
Any person who casts their care upon the government should not be surprised to find they resign their choice to that government.
If only generals were eligible for welfare, there'd be no problem.
Would it be presumptuous to presume then, that he considered being in debt - to end up in a position of having more outlays than income - to be detrimental to the General Welfare?
Other than that, I don't know. He was Washington's right-hand, go-to guy, and if he were around in 1935 working for Roosevelt, he most certainly would have found a justification and an implied power to trigger the General Welfare Clause.
Motivated by a desire to provide for the long term General Welfare of the nation, or short term political gain?
Having no historical facts, partially thanks to Aaron Burr, that's just an opinion, as paltry as it probably is.
Given the benefit of 70 years of hindsight, has the Social Security system, on the whole, contributed to the General Welfare of the nation? Has it brought us to a position of strength, or teetering on crisis?
Is "providing for the General Welfare" an objective measure of the law, or simply an assurance of the good intentions of Congress?
"providing for the General Welfare"
It doesn't say provide, it says promote.
There is nothing about promoting something that implies paying for it.
There are nuts standing on soap boxes in the park promoting all sorts of things.
I agree.
If you are basing that on the Hamilton quote, then you completely missed his point about limitations.
I disagree.
Who is doing the clear comprehending?
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.