| wiramc |
Posted on: 01-Aug-2010, 01:40 PM |
Replies: 26
Views: 1,396
|
I would probably bungle the explanation, so if you'll forgive a lengthy quote, I'll present the reasoning for my interpretation. Sources are footnoted at the bottom. I put the summary in bold.
The grant of power to “provide ... for the general welfare” raises a two-fold question: how may Congress provide for “the general welfare” and what is “the general welfare” that it is authorized to promote? The first half of this question was answered by Thomas Jefferson in his opinion on the Bank as follows: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”581 The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power. Although a broader view has been occasionally asserted,582Congress has not acted upon it and the Court has had no occasion to adjudicate the point.
With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause;583 Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers, in other words, as little more than a power of self-support.584
From an early date Congress has acted upon the interpretation espoused by Hamilton. Appropriations for subsidies585 and for an ever increasing variety of “internal improvements”586 constructed by the Federal Government, had their beginnings in the administrations of Washington and Jefferson.587 Since 1914, federal grants-in-aid, sums of money apportioned among the States for particular uses, often conditioned upon the duplication of the sums by the recipient State, and upon observance of stipulated restrictions as to its use, have become commonplace.
The scope of the national spending power was brought before the Supreme Court at least five times prior to 1936, but the Court disposed of four of the suits without construing the “general welfare” clause. In the Pacific Railway Cases588 and Smith v. Kansas City Title Co.,589 it affirmed the power of Congress to construct internal improvements, and to charter and purchase the capital stock of federal land banks, by reference to its powers over commerce, post roads, and fiscal operations, and to its war powers. Decisions on the merits were withheld in two other cases, Massachusetts v. Mellon and Frothingham v. Mellon,590 on the ground that neither a State nor an individual citizen is entitled to a remedy in the courts against an alleged unconstitutional appropriation of national funds. In United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway,591 however, the Court had invoked “the great power of taxation to be exercised for the common defence and general welfare”592 to sustain the right of the Federal Government to acquire land within a State for use as a national park.
Finally, in United States v. Butler,593 the Court gave its unqualified endorsement to Hamilton’s views on the taxing power. Wrote Justice Roberts for the Court: “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 numerated 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, 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 had noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.”594
By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the “general welfare.” The Court accords great deference to Congress’s decision that a spending program advances the general welfare,595 and has even questioned whether the restriction is judicially enforceable.596
FOOTNOTES
581 3 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 147–149 (Library Edition, 1904).
582 See W. CROSSKEY, POLITICS AND THE CONSTITUTION IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES (1953).
583 THE FEDERALIST, Nos. 30 and 34 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) 187–193, 209–215.
584 Id. at No. 41, 268–78.
585 1 Stat. 229 (1792).
586 2 Stat. 357 (1806).
587 In an advisory opinion, which it rendered for President Monroe at his request on the power of Congress to appropriate funds for public improvements, the Court answered that such appropriations might be properly made under the war and postal powers. See Albertsworth, Advisory Functions in the Supreme Court, 23 GEO. L. J. 643, 644–647 (1935). Monroe himself ultimately adopted the broadest view of the spending power, from which, however, he carefully excluded any element of regulatory or police power. See his Views of the President of the United States on the Subject of Internal Improvements, of May 4, 1822, 2 MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS 713–752 (Richardson ed., 1906).
588 California v. Pacific R.R., 127 U.S. 1 (188).
589 255 U.S. 180 (1921).
590 262 U.S. 447 (1923). See also Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464 (1938). These cases were limited by Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968).
591 160 U.S. 668 (1896).
592 160 U.S. at 681.
593 297 U.S. 1 (1936). See also Cleveland v. United States, 323 U.S. 329 (1945).
594 United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65, 66 (1936). So settled had the issue become that 1970s attacks on federal grants-in-aid omitted any challenge on the broad level and relied on specific prohibitions, i.e., the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968); Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971).
595 Id. at 207 (citing Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 640, 645 (1937)).
596 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 90–91 (1976); South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 n.2 (1987).
|
| |
Forum: Politics & Current Events · Post Preview: #298751 |
| wiramc |
Posted on: 01-Aug-2010, 08:31 AM |
Replies: 26
Views: 1,396
|
| QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 31-Jul-2010, 08:55 PM) | Thank you for sharing your views. Just know this. In your absence or your presence, conversations like this will continue to develop and each who chooses will share his/her viewpoint. Take myself for example. I thought my inclusion of Matthew 7:6 was pure genius.  Gotta love it. |
I would expect nothing less then that the conversation continue. As to your verse, I do not think people are dogs or swine, though they may act like them at times. Yes, I know that the verse is comparing the two and not literally speaking of dogs and swine. I think I made my view of fraud very clear; find the guilty and prosecute them. They are the ones who are preventing us from helping those who are truly in need. |
| |
Forum: Politics & Current Events · Post Preview: #298746 |
| wiramc |
Posted on: 01-Aug-2010, 08:23 AM |
Replies: 26
Views: 1,396
|
| QUOTE (MacEoghainn @ 31-Jul-2010, 04:20 PM) | | Taking religion and religious beliefs completely out of the picture, what article(s) in the Constitution or by what legal theory do you believe that the Congress or Society has the lawful authority to compel it citizens to support those social programs? |
The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 8;
"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;"
|
| |
Forum: Politics & Current Events · Post Preview: #298744 |
| wiramc |
Posted on: 31-Jul-2010, 08:43 AM |
Replies: 26
Views: 1,396
|
| QUOTE (Jillian @ 29-Jul-2010, 06:37 AM) | The families that utilized the system until they could get on their feet were a small percentage compared to the families that abused the system. This was my experience...and I heard the same complaints from other social workers. There needs to be regulation w/teeth. UAs need to be enforced so that those using drugs and ETOH can be offered help w/their addictions and if they refuse--are subsequently refused welfare. Charity accompanied by family responsibility...what a novel concept!
Jillian |
I said the fraud should be eliminated. Those who abuse the system should not ruin it for those who need the system. Those who abuse the system should be prosecuted and sent to "a gated community" with three squares a day and bars on the windows for added security.
That said, I don't think the social programs should be eliminated because of the bad apples. Just eliminate the bad apples. |
| |
Forum: Politics & Current Events · Post Preview: #298724 |
| wiramc |
Posted on: 31-Jul-2010, 08:30 AM |
Replies: 26
Views: 1,396
|
I'm back and a little behind in the conversation. It seems people have misinterpreted what I said. The verses I mentioned are what helped formed my political opinions. I do not believe that the US should be based on Biblical principles. I do not expect everyone to agree with me. I do not believe that social programs should be Biblically based. I expect that there are many non-Christian humanists whose views on social prgrams are similar to mine. To sum up, I just wanted to explain what shaped my outlook on life. I did not mean that the country should adopt any program based on the Bible, or share my religious beliefs. |
| |
Forum: Politics & Current Events · Post Preview: #298723 |
| wiramc |
Posted on: 24-Jul-2010, 04:56 PM |
Replies: 9
Views: 936
|
Thanks for the warm welcome folks. I may not burn up the forums, but I'll try and stop by on somewhat of a regular basis. |
| |
Forum: Introductions · Post Preview: #298654 |
| wiramc |
Posted on: 22-Jul-2010, 02:35 PM |
Replies: 26
Views: 1,396
|
I didn't say the government's responsibilities should be biblically based, but rather was say that was what formed by views of what a government's responsibilities should be. In other words, if asked why I feel about social programs the way I do, it is because of that religious background. I do not expect everyone to have my religious convictions, I just express the reasons I feel as I do.
I'm sure we all would like a few million dollars, but that doesn't come under the heading of helping folks who need help now does it. I'm sure there is fraud in the entitlement programs and it should be rooted out and prosecuted to the fullest. But what do you have against who are in true need.
I suppose it boils down to, do we project our own feelings of what is right and just onto the government or do we sit back and accept less than what we feel our government should be? I know full well that many disagree with me and that is why we have elections and a representative form of government to hash out just where those responsibilities lie. I gather that you would urge your representatives to oppose social programs. I would urge mine to support them and I just wanted to explain why I feel that way. |
| |
Forum: Politics & Current Events · Post Preview: #298610 |
| wiramc |
Posted on: 22-Jul-2010, 03:05 AM |
Replies: 14
Views: 3,591
|
These are for kids not about kids.
question: What happens when a duck flies upside down?
answer: He quacks up.
question: Why is getting up at 5:00 AM like a pig's tail?
answer: Because, it's all twirly.
boy to teacher: Sorry I'm late. I had to help my father put out more elephant repellent.
teacher: There are no elephants within 10,000 miles of here.
boy: It must be working. |
| |
Forum: Ye Ole Celtic Pub - Open all day, all night! · Post Preview: #298603 |
| wiramc |
Posted on: 22-Jul-2010, 12:13 AM |
Replies: 9
Views: 936
|
Hello everyone. I thought I'd test the waters. I am by no means new to Celtic Radio (have been a faithful listener for many years), but have not been an active poster before now. I'm another old guy with time on his hands who thought he would bore everyone. Before I retired, I used to work in a retail bakery. One look and you can tell how much I enjoyed my work. I started the MK game a while back and am just now showing up on peoples' radar. Hope to make new friends here and in the game.
Will |
| |
Forum: Introductions · Post Preview: #298601 |
| wiramc |
Posted on: 22-Jul-2010, 12:02 AM |
Replies: 26
Views: 1,396
|
I do not mix religion and politics, but the origin of my political beliefs was formed upon my understanding of religious responsibilities. I believe that the government has a social responsibility to help those who need help whether they be homeless or sick or uneducated or unemployed or in other major distress that they they need help with. Am I a socialist? I don't know. I do not believe in government ownership of private businesses. I do believe in the rights of individuals to own property and to make money, but I also believe that those who have are morally obligated to help those who have not. Private charities and organizations do a fine job, but they do not ensure the universal availability of or uniform distribution of that help that the government can provide.
So where do I get this belief in social responsibility. From Mathew 25, 35-45:
35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
Even as we do unto the least of these. I believe that will be one of the basis for a judgement that we will all face one day. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is where my political beliefs originate. |
| |
Forum: Politics & Current Events · Post Preview: #298600 |
| wiramc |
Posted on: 21-Jul-2010, 11:05 PM |
Replies: 38
Views: 6,565
|
I can assure you that I have no connection to Clan Argyle other than the fact that I have studied the history of the game and observed their tactic. They bided their time, aparently building resources in secret, until they were ready to make an appearance. This seemed a good strategy, unlike some who seem to have no strategy but whinging to prove their worth. I give fair warning to any cowardly complainers, Sir Englishmix, that I will become a force to be reckoned with. |
| |
Forum: Medieval Kingdom · Post Preview: #298599 |
| wiramc |
Posted on: 21-Jul-2010, 12:13 AM |
Replies: 38
Views: 6,565
|
Allow me to introduce myself, I am Wiramc of Harnett. I am new to Medieval Kingdom, but have heard much of the battles fought here. In due time, I shall join in some of those battles. I do not expect to win all, but I shall win my share. I may befriend some along the way and I am sure to make bitter enemies, but through all, I shall uphold the honor of my self and my clan, Clan Mack. When the time is right, I shall come calling, in the meantime, let us lift a flagon to this fine land we now call home. |
| |
Forum: Medieval Kingdom · Post Preview: #298573 |
 Open Topic (new replies)
 Open Topic (no new replies)
 Hot Topic (new replies)
 Hot Topic (no new replies)
 Poll (new votes)
 Poll (no new votes)
 Locked Topic
 Moved Topic
|
