"If you think there's a "general welfare power", you logically have to agree with xm177e2 in his claim that Congress can do anything it claims is in the general welfare. ... If it's not granted by that clause, it's not granted at all. "General welfare" grants everything, or nothing."
Like most Libertarians, you've definitely contracted the all-or-nothing disease. By your logic the "general welfare" clause either has no meaning and can be disregarded as if it was never written into our Constitution, or else it has unlimited meaning and invalidates the rest of the Constitution.
I refer you to post #377, which dissects the general welfare clause reasonably well for having such a limited amount of space to do so with in the first place.
You and I clearly disagree on this point. This is one of the points that I have cited as being wrong with Libertarians, in that libs consistently misinterpret the Constitution. You would have us either throw out the phrase "general welfare" or throw out the rest of the Constitution.
Neither of your extreme bi-polar claims are accurate, however. The truth is somewhere in the middle (again, see post #377). The general welfare clause does have meaning and does convey to our government some power, but that power is NOT unlimited. In alcohol, slavery, gambling, and secession are incontravertible examples of LIMITS and boundaries on the general welfare clause.
In contrast, your views would either throw out the phrase "general welfare" as if it had never been written, or else throw out the rest of the Constitution as if it was all superfluous.
You can't do either, legally. Every word has to count in the Constitution. You can't just run around and toss out unpleasant phrases simply because they are inconvenient to your political philosophy. In fact, you can't toss them out for any reason unless you follow the Constitutional Amendment process.
Like most Libertarians, you've definitely contracted the all-or-nothing disease. By your logic the "general welfare" clause either has no meaning and can be disregarded as if it was never written into our Constitution, or else it has unlimited meaning and invalidates the rest of the Constitution.It hasn't got anything to do with libertarianism; it has to do with simply reading the text. Your position, it seems, is that the text grants a limitless power to do everything in the general welfare, but doesn't really mean it. Some things are outside the federal sphere in spite of the lack of textual support for the exception.
If I'm wrong, then prove it. Assume, for the sake of discussion on this particular point, that you're right about the "general welfare power". Cite the specific text in the Constitution itself preventing Congress from legislating in the general welfare when it comes to alcohol, ect. If there are no such explicit exceptions, then it really is an either-or, not because I'm "bi-polar", but because the wording of the text forces it on us.
You would have us either throw out the phrase "general welfare" or throw out the rest of the Constitution.
It seems you have a short memory, so I'll repeat what I said about interpreting phrases rather than sentences: you can't do it. "General welfare", in isolation, means exactly nothing as far as legal obligation is concerned. You seem to think the mere appearance of the phrase, the disconnected words, implies some obvious legal implication regardless of whether it says, "Congress shall have all power to legislate in the general welfare," or "Congress shall not have the power to do anything in the general welfare." As it happens, the Constitution says neither. You're the one looking at things in black and white here.
The general welfare clause does have meaning and does convey to our government some power, but that power is NOT unlimited. In alcohol, slavery, gambling, and secession are incontravertible examples of LIMITS and boundaries on the general welfare clause.
Where are those limits in the text?
In contrast, your views would either throw out the phrase "general welfare" as if it had never been written, or else throw out the rest of the Constitution as if it was all superfluous.
I've already said exactly what it means. You're trying to take the radical choice above, which is implied by your view of it, and impose it on mine. It doesn't fit. That choice, accepting the "general welfare clause" or accepting the rest of the Constitution, is a result of seeing it as a separate grant of power. If you get past this false view and see it as part of the grant of the power to tax, everything fits together nicely.
The general welfare, left without qualification, encompasses the entire legitimate sphere of government; so unless you can show from the text where certain subject areas are exempted (and I'm not holding my breath) your view, by logical necessity, gives every government power to the federal government, and the fact that such powers do not, in fact, belong to the federal government merely proves you wrong.