Posted on 03/11/2003 11:05:47 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen
True. And once we see that, there is really no need to argue further with them.
I just like to knock their argument down in their own terms when I can, because maybe they could benefit. If he really believed what he said, now he has had an opportunity to see one way in which that belief was wrong.
In my experience, though, people who make arguments like that don't really believe what they are saying. In southack's case, he might really believe that "welfare" is good, but he doesn't really believe that the "general welfare phrase"(as he puts it) actually justfies it. He just thinks that he might be shake some people's reasons for being against it by making a false argument.
An info-warrior type. I wonder if there's any money in that line of work?
The liberal anti-gunners will never give up.
As long as they control the mass media, as long as the NEA maintains its ... Bolshevik monopoly * * --- on public education, and as long as we support churches, actors and other organizations who try to subvert our God-given, governmentally guarenteed rights, we will lose by gradual attrition.
zl ...
We must take strong action on the propaganda front to sieze the initiative from these anti-Constitutionalist, left-wing wacko revisionists.
41 posted on 04/04/2003 11:34 AM PST by ZULU
fC ...
Bolshevik monopoly (( evolution )) !
The catholic hirearchy and the ussc sanctions ...
rubberstamps this gestapo science (( gun // bible grabbers )) ---
... * * ... junta !
Main Entry: jun·ta
Pronunciation: 'hun-t&, 'j&n-, 'h&n- Function: noun
Etymology: Spanish, from feminine of junto joined, from Latin junctus, past participle of jungere to join -- more at YOKE
Date: 1622
1 : a council or committee for political or governmental purposes; especially : a group of persons controlling a government especially after a revolutionary seizure of power
2 : JUNTO
Of course I can. Gambling, for instance, seems to have little to do with "general welfare", thus, it is left up to the States.
And now, since I politely answered your challenge above in bold, perhaps you'll have the courtesy and intellectual honesty to answer my own challenge to you, which is to *specify* what power, if any at all, you ascribe to the legal, written, codified "general welfare" clause in our Constitution.
I'll be waiting...
You seem to be getting pretty wordy, but no, you still haven't described the *precise* definition/power that you personally ascribe to the legal, written, codified "general welfare" clause in our Constitution.
Perhaps in your own mind you've never yet given that clause any meaning, one wonders (in which case, you would sadly be illegally interpreting our Constitution contrary to its design)...
But, I'm willing to give you one more chance to try to *specifiy* the precise definition that you give that clause, at least, if you aren't going to get all wordy and dodgy on me.
I'll be waiting...
That's incorrect. See post #17 above, which cites Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
"General welfare" does not mean "whatever you feel like"." - Sofa King
Then what does it mean to you, specificly? Please be precise, and keep in mind that whatever limits are ascribed to "general welfare" must *also* be ascribed to "common defense", as they are both in the same part of the same sentence in our Constitution.
I already did:
"..the enumerated power here is the ability to tax, not the power to care for the general welfare of the nation. In other words, the government uses it's enumerated powers to work for the general welfare of the nation- and pays for it with the taxes collected as allowed for by this clause.
Perhaps it would be more clear if I said that whatever the government does with it's enumerated powers is caring for the general welfare of the nation, and this clause means that it can use taxes to pay for it.
Whatever powers this gives to the federal government concerning the "common defense" are irrelevant since the government's authority to raise a military and defend the nation are enumerated elsewhere.
general -- overall, broad
welfare -- well-being, benefit
United States -- The nation as abstracted from the government or the people, the nation as a whole.
So, "The overall well-being of the nation as a whole."
Like I said: interstate highways, meteorological services, etc ...
The meaning is clear on the face of it, confusion only occurs when it is introduced by the artifice of frauds such as yourself.
And thus, so would go the same for "common defense, such that every aspect of our defense would have to be enumerated in your view by the logic you list above.
"Whatever powers this gives to the federal government concerning the "common defense" are irrelevant since the government's authority to raise a military and defend the nation are enumerated elsewhere." - Sofa King
No, I don't buy your above explanation, as that would mean that whole parts of our U.S. Constitution were REDUNDANT and thereby unnecessary.
Let's not go throwing out whole parts of our Constitution just so that it starts to fit your world-view, shall we...
Yes, the general welfare clause is all one sentence. Why then do you put your emphasis on the common defence and general welfare, and ignore all that follows the semicolon. That is a list of paticulars qualifying the previous portion of the sentence.
From the Federalist Papers #41:
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? 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 nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of 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, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.
Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc... OK, you've just agreed with me by insisting on using the definition that you posted above, after all, your definition fails to differentiate between why meterological services would be granted by the "general welfare" clause but that Medicaid would not...
Wrong answer - Think about it, if the gambling question came to prominence in the U.S. congress (because of the crime associated with it) and they decided to legislate the industry out of business, they would use "the general welfare clause" to defend this extra constitutional behavior. If you believe their is a "general welfare clause" then you would have to say "oh well, I guess it's constitutional because outlawing gambling is for the general welfare of the United States". Everything congress does, and will do, is for the general welfare, at least that's what they tell us. So try again to name ANY former, current, or potential government legislation that couldn't fit under "general welfare".
What do those written words mean? Lets look at it shall we ...
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Notice how this paragraph pretty much summarizes everything in Article 1, section 8? Well that's what it does. Every specifically enumerated power that follows can fit into either "general welfare" or "common defense". If the words "general welfare", and "common defense" were the actual enumerated powers they wouldn't have had to enumerate them any farther.
It's absolutely obvious that if "general welfare" was meant to be an enumerated power granted to the central government then constitutional limits are non existent. Do you think the founding dads wanted the constitution to limit the central government or grant unlimited powers to the central government.
There's no need to quote the Federal Papers, as they were never agreed upon, debated, vetted through a compromisation process, or ratified into written law by enough states to make it into our Constitution.
At best, they are mere pieces of opinion from a *minority* of Founding Fathers.
What makes you say that?
Nonsense. Not a single federal judge in the past 200 years would agree that such a claim was "obvious", nor would I.
Bwaaaahhahhahahah! Yeah what would they know about it? Bwaahahahahah!
A *minority* of Founding Fathers does *not* a law make...
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.