Please show me the specific post where I slandered someone so that I may apologize.
I posted the book review in #377 as a summary of the history of claims of what the clause means. I happen to agree with you, that it was intended as a justification for taxes raised for the enumerated powers. I also happen to agree with takenoprisoner, that the Anti-Federalists were correct in their claim that it could and would be taken as a grant of unlimited unenumerated power. The review I posted gives,
"Any doubt remaining after Butler as to the scope of the General Welfare Clause was dispelled a year later in Helvering. There the Court defended the constitutionality of the 1935 Social Security Act, requiring only that welfare spending be for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose. Justice Benjamin Cardozo summed up what has become controlling doctrine ever since: "Nor is the concept of the general welfare static.... What is critical or urgent changes with the times." "
They(Madison) should have it explicit in the Constitution itself, not just in the Federalist papers. As the review notes, Madison's private papers contain other meanings.
" But privately, Madison believed that the General Welfare Clause delegates to the Congress plenary legislative power; that the enumeration of specific powers served simply to allocate and assign governmental functions, establish certain procedural limitations, and illustrate some of the powers deemed to be necessary and proper. This alleged difference between Madison’s public and private persona is at the root of the so-called Madisonian contradiction."
I don't have the private papers, but it is because of this Madisonian contradiction and lack of explicit meaning, that I made the statement, "As can be seen from what I posted the founders failed to expound and limit it's meaning." You posted in #341 what is truly the meaning of the clause. Any private comms Madison made are overruled by the public annoucements, because it's the public that's being addressed and if contrary meaning is given in private, it can only be taken as fraud and tossed out on that basis.
Southack, you haven't posted anything, but etherial comment and slander. You've also failed to post anything of substantial worth, or the legal value of, "who knows what your claims are regarding the welfare clause, you haven't made any." Your claims consist of telling everyone else they are wrong.
Sorry, I was wrong. It was burried in the mud.
Please show me the specific post where I slandered someone so that I may apologize.
Only by amateur government shills. The pros use the commerce clause.
"Any doubt remaining after Butler as to the scope of the General Welfare Clause was dispelled a year later in Helvering. There the Court defended the constitutionality of the 1935 Social Security Act, requiring only that welfare spending be for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose. Justice Benjamin Cardozo summed up what has become controlling doctrine ever since: "Nor is the concept of the general welfare static.... What is critical or urgent changes with the times." "
I highly doubt anything from anyone who believes in "preamble powers", but if the ruling actually said that, then it means, by logical necessity, that there is nothing outside the sphere of federal authority. Any later decision upholding enumerated powers (United States vs. Morrison, for example) overturns it.