General Welfare

202 posts / 0 new
Last post

Comments

polycarp2
poly replies: Section 8. The

poly replies:

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

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Capital1
Capital1's picture
polycarp2 wrote: poly

polycarp2 wrote:

poly replies:

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

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

So how many copies of that passage do we now have on the thread.   12 or so?  And yet that doesn't answer my question..... 

Would you care to try again?

polycarp2
If the Constitution can't

If the Constitution can't answer your question, who can?

The intent of the Constitution....why it was written...can be found in the Preamble to what follows it.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There is a clause that provides the power to tax in order to do that. Section 8. If it was only for defense, the words general welfare needn't be included in Section 8.  If you'd like to separate that from the intent , I suppose you can do that. It would probably be better just to scratch out the preamble.Then we wouldn't know why the Constitution was written in the first place. and your argument might have a bit of validity to it.

The Preamble, the Constitution, the Declaration of independence are all political documents. Every Constitution is.

When governments don't provide for the general welfare...the well-being of their populations, the population usually ends up dissolving it and establishing one that will. Sometimes it takes a few attempts to do that. The First French Republic didn't do well...didn't end well. Ours won't end well either if we don't stop listening to Republican fruit-cakes that dominate Washington. Ditto their twins on the other side of the aisle..

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  Capital1 wrote:Pierpont

 

Capital1 wrote:
Pierpont wrote:

if Congress is given the power to pass bills to tax and to pass bills to spend on X,Y, and Z... THOSE ARE ALL GRANTS OF POWER.

And you think my comprehension of english is bad...

Not just your comprehension of English, but your reasoning skills as well.

Quote:
So even though you have Nothing from the Founders that says basically. Government can spend it money on anything it damn well wants. You going to claim it always existed.... Even though this "power" wasn't created until 156 years later.
I've no idea WTF you're babbling about... unless this goes back to another of your nutty theories that nothing is really constitutional until ruled on by a federal court.

Quote:
Quote:
But it's not "unlimited"... that's YOUR strawman. But YOUR theory is that Congress is free to tax and spend WITHOUT constitutional restraints on federal properties including federal territories. And by 1803 after the Louisiana Purchase, the federal territories consisted of perhaps half the landmass of the US. So according to you Congress has no limits on its taxing and spending powers there except unless they interfere with the BoR. And that in your mind is NOT close to "unlimited power"?

By all means, Define the limiting restraints of "general".

Louisiana Purchase was done by Treaty. It's constitutionality falls into a gray area that even Jefferson was uncomfortable about. He wanted to amend the Constitution, But the time constraints made that impractical.

You're getting sleazy here by glossing over that fact the Louisiana Purchase made all this new land a territory of the US subject to Art 4/3/2 which YOU claim gives Congress the power to tax and spend WITHOUT regard for debt/defense/general welfare.

 

Capital1
Capital1's picture
polycarp2 wrote: The

polycarp2 wrote:

The Preamble, the Constitution, the Declaration of independence are all political documents. Every Constitution is.

<facepalm>

Generally, every modern written constitution confers specific powers to an organization or institutional entity, established upon the primary condition that it abides by the said constitution's limitations

Quote:
 There is a clause that provides the power to tax in order to do that. Section 8. If it was only for defense, the words general welfare needn't be included in Section 8. 

Yet Common defense is convered in the enumrated powers of section 8,   Just as General welfare are also covered in Section 8.  ie: Roads, Post office, promoting the Sciences and Arts.    So according to the founders AND me.  General Welfare is NOT a power granting clause but a qualifier to the Spending clause.

 

mjolnir
mjolnir's picture
Pierpont wrote: polycarp2

Pierpont wrote:

polycarp2 wrote:
The Founding Fathers were well aware, that when governments don't do that, they tend to disappear from power. They had just vanquished one for not providing for the general welfare, (the well-being of the population), didn't they?

From the Senate's May 16, 1789 response to Washington's address to Congerss: "We are conscious that the prosperity of each state is inseparably connected with the welfare of all, and that, in promoting the latter, we shall effectually advance the former." 

If you read further it seems to me that this response from the Senate deals with Washington's admonition  against parties and fractional divides,
at his first inaugural address George Washington wrote:
"In these honorable qualifications I behold the surest pledges that as on one side no local prejudices or attachments, no separate views nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests, so, on another, that the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world."
, not as an homage to wealth redistribution via promoting "the General Welfare".

     http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres13.html

From

     http://ahp.gatech.edu/senate_to_wash_1789.html

We, the Senate of the United States wrote:
[...]We are conscious that the prosperity of each State is inseparably connected with the welfare of all; and that, in promoting the latter, we shall effectually advance the former. In full persuasion of this truth, it shall be our invariable aim to divest ourselves of local prejudices and attachments, and to view the great assemblage of communities and interests committed to our charge with an equal eye. [...]

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote:You're getting

Pierpont wrote:
You're getting sleazy here by glossing over that fact the Louisiana Purchase made all this new land a territory of the US subject to Art 4/3/2 which YOU claim gives Congress the power to tax and spend WITHOUT regard for debt/defense/general welfare. 

Let your fingers do the Walking. and explain the governmental procedure the US Government did in the Louisiana Purchase

Then perhaps we can discuss whether the Purchase (which I believe was done by Treaty and not Legislative act) was constitutional or unconstitutional. But should be a fairly short conversation since Jefferson himself thought it was unconstitutional But government did it anyway. And nobody challenged it in court.

So I'm guessing you are going to infer what legislative powers once the it became a territory. 

Quote:
 YOU claim gives Congress the power to tax and spend WITHOUT regard for debt/defense/general welfare. 

Feel free to read up,  they made the argument for defense. 

polycarp2
Capital1 wrote: polycarp2

Capital1 wrote:

polycarp2 wrote:

The Preamble, the Constitution, the Declaration of independence are all political documents. Every Constitution is.

<facepalm>

Generally, every modern written constitution confers specific powers to an organization or institutional entity, established upon the primary condition that it abides by the said constitution's limitations

Quote:
 There is a clause that provides the power to tax in order to do that. Section 8. If it was only for defense, the words general welfare needn't be included in Section 8. 

Yet Common defense is convered in the enumrated powers of section 8,   Just as General welfare are also covered in Section 8.  ie: Roads, Post office, promoting the Sciences and Arts.    So according to the founders AND me.  General Welfare is NOT a power granting clause but a qualifier to the Spending clause.

 

poly replies: tsk tsk. . What's the purpose of taxation if you don't have the power to spend it?

If you don't think the Founders weren't aware that governments who refused to look after the population's welfare tended to disappear, you must think they were pretty stupid.

The intent of the Constitution is pretty clear in the preamble....to provide in part, for the General Welfare right along with the blessings of liberty, etc.. The taxing authority is in Sec. 8.

Constitutions are all political statements...their content determined by those in charge of the political arena of the day. Health care is in the political discourse, isn't it? In the German Constitution that political debate was resolved. It's a guarantee.

In the U.S., labor unions are a part of the political discourse. In the German Constitution, that political discourse was resolved. Their place is imbedded in the German Constitution.

Constitutions are nothing more than political resolutions arrived at and a framework established  to resolve future ones.To the extent they remain adequate to resolving political issues, they remain. To the extent they fail in doing that, they disappear..

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

 

Capital1
Capital1's picture
polycarp2 wrote: poly

polycarp2 wrote:

poly replies: tsk tsk. . What's the purpose of taxation if you don't have the power to spend it?

Do you think that Congress has the power to spend the public trust on one single person under the qualifiers provided in the US Constitution. 

Quote:

If you don't think the Founders weren't aware that governments who refused to look after the population's welfare tended to disappear, you must think they were pretty stupid.

The intent of the Constitution is pretty clear in the preamble....to provide in part, for the General Welfare right along with the blessings of liberty, etc.. The taxing authority is in Sec. 8.

You are not putting forth a very convincing arguement that the mere words of General Welfare is a power granting "clause".  

They clearly meant General welfare to include Roads, Post office and other vast vast expeditures to be enjoyed my everyone and not specfic welfare that benefit the few. 

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

Since he wrote it,  I'll assume his finger is the most accurate. 

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
mjolnir wrote: Pierpont

mjolnir wrote:

Pierpont wrote:
From the Senate's May 16, 1789 response to Washington's address to Congress: "We are conscious that the prosperity of each state is inseparably connected with the welfare of all, and that, in promoting the latter, we shall effectually advance the former." 

If you read further it seems to me that this response from the Senate deals with Washington's admonition  against parties and fractional divides,
That worked like a charm, didn't it.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital1 wrote:Pierpont

Capital1 wrote:
Pierpont wrote:
You're getting sleazy here by glossing over that fact the Louisiana Purchase made all this new land a territory of the US subject to Art 4/3/2 which YOU claim gives Congress the power to tax and spend WITHOUT regard for debt/defense/general welfare. 

So I'm guessing you are going to infer what legislative powers once the it became a territory. 

It doesn't really matter since according to your theory Article 1 and/4 gives Congress the power to tax and spend WITHOUT regard for debt/defense/general welfare on federal property AND in US territories. Which ALSO seems to deal with your direct tax problem... which you swept under the rug rushing to find some other lame way to keep your dying theory alive.

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote: It doesn't

Pierpont wrote:

It doesn't really matter since according to your theory Article 1 and/4 gives Congress the power to tax and spend WITHOUT regard for debt/defense/general welfare on federal property AND in US territories. Which ALSO seems to deal with your direct tax problem... which you swept under the rug rushing to find some other lame way to keep your dying theory alive.

Should I ask you to point to where I said this or just assume like most things, this is something you made up in your head.

I have pointed to all relevant passages that support my argument and you seemingly dismiss them.. Seems to me we are running into the enviable stalemate again. Where I laid out the facts and you dream up strawmen to beat-up.

My yards Campaign Sign proof just arrived..  Exciting..  Wish I could show you.. 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  Capital1 wrote:"I cannot

 

Capital1 wrote:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

Since he wrote it, I'll assume his finger is the most accurate.

Leaving aside the matter that he was referring to spending on HAITIANS not Americans.... I cannot find that quote in the Congressional Record. It seems to come from an account in

"The Annals of Congress, formally known as The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, cover the 1st Congress through the first session of the 18th Congress, from 1789 to 1824. The Annals were not published contemporaneously, but were compiled between 1834 and 1856, using the best records available, primarily newspaper accounts. Speeches are paraphrased rather than presented verbatim, but the record of debate is nonetheless fuller than that available from the House and Senate Journals. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwac.html

The report may be accurate but it's NOT an actual quote:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=004/llac004.db&recNum=82

 

Please do try and be more careful about tossing around fudged quotes.

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital1 wrote:Pierpont

Capital1 wrote:
Pierpont wrote:
It doesn't really matter since according to your theory Article 1 and/4 gives Congress the power to tax and spend WITHOUT regard for debt/defense/general welfare on federal property AND in US territories. Which ALSO seems to deal with your direct tax problem... which you swept under the rug rushing to find some other lame way to keep your dying theory alive.

Should I ask you to point to where I said this or just assume like most things, this is something you made up in your head.

I have pointed to all relevant passages that support my argument and you seemingly dismiss them.. Seems to me we are running into the enviable stalemate again. Where I laid out the facts and you dream up strawmen to beat-up.

No stalemate. The only one, as usual, that doesn't know he's lost is you. It's your desperate grab for ANY clause in the Constitution so not to refer to General Welfare that's the giveaway.  

Quote:
My yards Campaign Sign proof just arrived..  Exciting..  Wish I could show you.. 

You already gave away too much info. ;-)  BTW you should hire a new webmaster.... or did you do that hack job yourself?

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote: Please do try

Pierpont wrote:

Please do try and be more careful about tossing around fudged quotes.

 

Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 1st Session, page 170 (1794-01-10) [5]. The Annals summarize speeches in the third person, with the actual text of Madison's quote as follows: "Mr. Madison wished to relieve the sufferers, but was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes very different from those of charity. He acknowledged, for his own part, that he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." The expense in question was for French refugees from the Haitian Revolution.

 I think I'm good,  Thanks for the concern. 

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction.

Thanks for making me look it up..... 

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote: No stalemate.

Pierpont wrote:

No stalemate. The only one, as usual, that doesn't know he's lost is you. It's your desperate grab for ANY clause in the Constitution so not to refer to General Welfare that's the giveaway.  

So if it's not a Stalemate AND you can't point to the phrase..  

What you call a "desperate grab"  I call reading the Constitution..   Especially for those who believe government is restained to it's enumerated powers.    That anything NOT enumerated is by definition UNconstitutional.   Since I have already made the compelling constitutional argument for the    Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen  and you have NOT.  

That leave you nothing but the zelot belief that the Founder made the General Welfare qualifing words a Stand-alone power granting clause.    Despite all the evidence to the contray.

I call  that a stalemate.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  Oops, forgot to post

 

Oops, forgot to post this:

 

Capital1 wrote:

Pierpont wrote:

No... THAT'S YOUR CLAIM!

My claim is that you are ovethinking it.

Point to where I said "is free from ALL Constitutional restraints when administering federal property like a dockyard" I seem to recall only saying they have Full legislative control of Federal enclaves.

And since the issue here is Congress's ability to tax and spend… your claim is Congress is free to do what it wants as part of it's ADMINISTRATIVE powers OUTSIDE it's Article 1 powers to tax for debt, defense, and the general welfare.

 

Quote:
Since the Bill of Right Resticts Government.... I have little doubt they get to censor free speech, etc...
I already included that. I have no reason to distort your ridiculous claim when you always make such a fool of yourself. And now you move the goal post again!

 

Quote:
YOU are the one claiming a hospital is outside Section 8. When I see several passages it can easly provide the power.
SHOW US! Show us where Congresses ADMINISTRATIVE powers allow it to tax sailors at federal dockyards for hospitals! Of course that ignores why Congress was even building these hospitals to begin with. So your NEWEST claim is

 

Quote:
CLEARLY, Military hospitals are "necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers" BINGO was his nameo... Commerce, Dockyards are foregoing powers.... Marine Hospitals are nessesary and Proper for the execution of thier duties.
ROTF Hittin' the noonday sauce again? I love it when you plunge into deeper and deeper pits of desperation as you look for ANY reason NOT to acknowledge the obvious: that Congress acted under the general welfare clause. Congress has the power to "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" and is limited: "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

 

So pray tell, how is building hospitals for disabled seamen related to either? IT'S NOT. Nor are these hospital for sailors necessary for Congress to run federal dockyards… that is if there even were any such federal dockyards when the proposal for such hospitals was first made in 1789. This is, after all, the FIRST Congress and if one searches the records for the House and Senate in 1789 the references to ports and harbors are mostly to confirm appointments and call for studies on regulating harbors. Hell, in June 1789 the House was just starting to look into creating the departments of War, of Foreign Affairs, and Treasury.  And yet Madison comes up with a proposal for such hospitals. The first reference I find for this is in July 1789… BEFORE mention of ANY appropriation for constructing federal docks. They're still too busy appointing SURVEYORS for the harbors.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital1 wrote:Pierpont

Capital1 wrote:
Pierpont wrote:
Please do try and be more careful about tossing around fudged quotes.

with the actual text of Madison's quote as follows: "Mr. Madison wished to relieve the sufferers, but was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes very different from those of charity.

SO your idea of a "direct quote" is Madison saying "Mr Madison wished…."????  My God Cap you are so clueless. IT'S THIRD PERSON LIKE THE LOC SAID http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwac.html And your source is NOT from the original source which I ALREADY GAVE YOU: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=004/llac004.db&recNum=82

It's been TAMPERED WITH!!!

Quote:
I think I'm good, Thanks for the concern.
Yup... like I said CLUELESS... and WTF was the point if "quoting" Madison if he was NOT talking about spending on AMERICANS?????? We ARE talking about AMERICANS, right… specifically those disabled seamen? But heaven forbid you have ANY sense of what's even relevant to "prove" your claims. As usually, you just throw sh*t around hoping something sticks to something other than your face.

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote:  And since

Pierpont wrote:

 And since the issue here is Congress's ability to tax and spend… your claim is Congress is free to do what it wants as part of it's ADMINISTRATIVE powers OUTSIDE it's Article 1 powers to tax for debt, defense, and the general welfare.

The term you are grasping for is Nessesary and Proper

Quote:
 SHOW US! Show us where Congresses ADMINISTRATIVE powers allow it to tax sailors at federal dockyards for hospitals! Of course that ignores why Congress was even building these hospitals to begin with. So your NEWEST claim is 

Hospitals:

Step one:  To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

Step two: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers

Step three: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations

Step four: 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

So...  in short Constitution requires Dock-yards, The problem of Foriegn ships dumping sick people at our harbors disrupts dock-yards,  Nessessary/Proper allows for Hospitals to maintain proper Dock functions.  Spending is allowed for enumerated functions.  Dock provide International/domestic commerce which eaily qualifies under the qualifications of Common Defense and General Welfare.  For Docks helps everyone equally.

I don't feel like hitting up the Tax issue again,  look on page 2.  Essentially an indirect impost tax.  and the spending clause allows them to direct it to the above enumerated expentiture. 

Quote:
 you look for ANY reason NOT to acknowledge the obvious: that Congress acted under the general welfare clause

How can I acknowledge that which DOES NOT EXIST.     Even if you were to assume the power magically existed,  like unicorns,  A Marine Hospital that ONLY serves Seaman can't be construed as "General" Welfare spending in the loosest Drunk Bar defintions. 

 

 

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote: SO your idea

Pierpont wrote:

SO your idea of a "direct quote" is Madison saying "Mr Madison wished…."????  

Where did I claim it to be a Direct Qoute...  You have really got to tell the voices in your head to shhhhhh... 

 

Are you claiming Madison DIDN"T say it,  paraphrased or otherwised? 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital1 wrote:So... in short

Capital1 wrote:
So... in short Constitution requires Dock-yards, The problem of Foriegn ships dumping sick people at our harbors disrupts dock-yards, Nessessary/Proper allows for Hospitals to maintain proper Dock functions. Spending is allowed for enumerated functions. Dock provide International/domestic commerce which eaily qualifies under the qualifications of Common Defense and General Welfare. For Docks helps everyone equally.
Blah blah... what will be your next evolving theory? This one falls apart on so many levels already mentioned.

Quote:
I don't feel like hitting up the Tax issue again, look on page 2. Essentially an indirect impost tax. and the spending clause allows them to direct it to the above enumerated expentiture.
Last time you said it was a DIRECT tax and you urged me to look at the 16th. But as could be expected you're sweeping that under the rug without really conceding the point Congress was free to tax seamen's wages.

Quote:
Quote:
you look for ANY reason NOT to acknowledge the obvious: that Congress acted under the general welfare clause

How can I acknowledge that which DOES NOT EXIST.

Yup... just like with the Ninth... as proof of how much you respect the Constitution you just deny all those parts of the Constitution YOU disagree exist....

Quote:
Even if you were to assume the power magically existed, like unicorns, A Marine Hospital that ONLY serves Seaman can't be construed as "General" Welfare spending in the loosest Drunk Bar defintions.
Madison was following a British tradition in creating these hospitals. Just because YOU don't think building them is covered by the general welfare provision doesn't mean the First (or 4th) Congress didn't. Again, the hospitals were proposed BEFORE any consideration of federal docks was. You're AGAIN ignoring what authority the Constitution gave Congress to EVEN CONSIDER BUILDING THEM. You have a chicken and egg problem. You want to sweep under the carpet HOW they were to built, but instead just rush on to what power Congress had AFTER they were built. No, it's not the commerce clauses since NEITHER applies. As for "necessary and proper" the goal was to create THE HOSPITALS and the 1798 legislation WAS that necessary and proper enabling legislation. But thanks for even another laughable "theory".

  

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital1 wrote:Pierpont

Capital1 wrote:
Pierpont wrote:

SO your idea of a "direct quote" is Madison saying "Mr Madison wished…."????

Where did I claim it to be a Direct Qoute... You have really got to tell the voices in your head to shhhhhh...

Gee Cap, you're so into rewriting history you can't even remember what YOU wrote in post 110:

 

Quote:
They clearly meant General welfare to include Roads, Post office and other vast vast expeditures to be enjoyed my everyone and not specfic welfare that benefit the few.

 

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

 

>>>>>>>>>>Since he wrote it, I'll assume his finger is the most accurate. <<<<<<<<<<

 

Then YOU posted another source that claimed it was a DIRECT QUOTE...

Quote:
Are you claiming Madison DIDN"T say it, paraphrased or otherwised?

MORE rewriting of history? Grow TF up Cap. I already addressed this point by posting the ORIGINAL source before someone at YOUR site tampered with the historical record.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
sheep4thom wrote:... I am

sheep4thom wrote:
... I am suggesting reducing the power and money available to the federal government.   You take away money and power, and it will automatically reduce the corruption. 

Government programs were in response to the sick and dying elderly and poor.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
  Pierpont wrote:  Ask

 

Pierpont wrote:
  Ask Madison. It was called the Lighthouse Act of 1789. http://www.uscg.mil/history/docs/1789_LH_Act.pdf

mjolnir wrote:
.. The Lighthouse Act of 1789 was concerned almost exclusively with the cedeing of the power to regulate commerce in ports and riverways from the States to the Fed's...Any connection between this act and "the General Welfare" is tenuous at best.

We have debated this before, and I find your argument impossible to understand. Could you restate it in a logical form? I mean private citizens were mandated to purchase health insurance, and the government built hospitals. It sounds more socialist than Obamacare does. The fact these citizens may become soldiers in the future seems idiotic - all young men could also be in the armed services in the future as well. Plus, the idea that it is 'commerce among the states' also seems strange - were there no seamen that sailed the high seas? Was there some secret requirement that only ships sailing among the states were covered?

We all know what you would like for our founders to have done, but what they actually did seems plain and simple - nationalized health insurance and the government building of hospitals and sleeping accommodations for the people of the country. And how this is justified by the constitution - general welfare or not - little concerns me if the Founders thought things like this were in fact constitutional when they signed the document.

 

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  Capital1 wrote:Quote:My

 

Capital1 wrote:
Quote:
My yards Campaign Sign proof just arrived..  Exciting..  Wish I could show you.. 

You already gave away too much info. ;-)  

Meet Cap aka Loganthor: http://fairvieworegon.gov/index.aspx?NID=302 and be sure to contribute to his opponant!

polycarp2
Can it possibly be that I'm

Can it possibly be that I'm not the only one able to recognize individualized sentence structures and grammatical patterns on this board? LOL

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
polycarp2 wrote: Can it

polycarp2 wrote:

Can it possibly be that I'm not the only one able to recognize individualized sentence structures and grammatical patterns on this board? LOL

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

I was gone for over a year... other wise I would have picked up on how Loganthor and Cap were the same one-trick pony! I just happened to have some copies of old threads... and reading them.... Bingo! Tracking down the real person was a wee bit harder. It comes as no surprise that there's nothing listed for education.

LysanderSpooner
LysanderSpooner's picture
sheep4thom wrote: Seems every

sheep4thom wrote:

Seems every debate with someone from the left on the site reverts back to The General Welfare Clause as the justification for every power grab taken by federal government.   I think Wiki has a pretty good and basic description, and wanted to share this information.   The welfare clause in the preamble is worthless (legally speaking), and the one in the taxation clause is NOT a grant of new powers but a qualification on taxation.   Meaning taxes could only be levied for the general welfare of all.   You cant tax the rich for the poor, or tax California to give to red state.   Cant tax for the specific benefit of any ONE group, the tax can only be for general welfare of all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause

 

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."

 

Moreover, the Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.   Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,  but a qualification on the taxing power which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.  The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position", as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.

 

As such, these clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.

 

Sheep4Thom,

You have to understand that you are dealing with fundamentally dishonest people.  They know the Constitution, however imperfect, limits government.  So they work backwards.  They twist the English language and find justifications and rationalizations Constitution  Statist policies.  If they were honest, they would say that we want the government to have more power, and to this end we will agitate for a Constitutional Amendment.  But they would rather promote illegality;  by changing the Constitution through court rulings and statutes.

Even if socialist and fascism were superior economic systems, they are forbidden by the Constitution. 

By the way, the SCOTUS does NOT have final say on Constitutionality.  There are the States through nullification and the juries.

mjolnir
mjolnir's picture
@Dr. Econ   ? Did you mean:

@Dr. Econ   ? Did you mean: "The act for disabled seamen was passed in 1798 and was called An Act For The Relief Of Sick And Disabled Seamen. " this act or the Light House act?

Dr. Econ wrote:
[...]I mean private citizens were mandated to purchase health insurance, and the government built hospitals.[...]

mjolnir
mjolnir's picture
mjolnir wrote: Pierpont

mjolnir wrote:

Pierpont wrote:

polycarp2 wrote:
The Founding Fathers were well aware, that when governments don't do that, they tend to disappear from power. They had just vanquished one for not providing for the general welfare, (the well-being of the population), didn't they?

From the Senate's May 16, 1789 response to Washington's address to Congerss: "We are conscious that the prosperity of each state is inseparably connected with the welfare of all, and that, in promoting the latter, we shall effectually advance the former." 

If you read further it seems to me that this response from the Senate deals with Washington's admonition  against parties and fractional divides,
at his first inaugural address George Washington wrote:
"In these honorable qualifications I behold the surest pledges that as on one side no local prejudices or attachments, no separate views nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests, so, on another, that the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world."
, not as an homage to wealth redistribution via promoting "the General Welfare".

     http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres13.html

From

     http://ahp.gatech.edu/senate_to_wash_1789.html

We, the Senate of the United States wrote:
[...]We are conscious that the prosperity of each State is inseparably connected with the welfare of all; and that, in promoting the latter, we shall effectually advance the former. In full persuasion of this truth, it shall be our invariable aim to divest ourselves of local prejudices and attachments, and to view the great assemblage of communities and interests committed to our charge with an equal eye. [...]

 From:

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/08/general-welfare?page=2#comment...

Pierpont wrote:
That worked like a charm, didn't it.

Not quite sure what you mean.

 

mjolnir
mjolnir's picture
Pierpont wrote:   Capital1

Pierpont wrote:

 

Capital1 wrote:
Quote:
My yards Campaign Sign proof just arrived..  Exciting..  Wish I could show you.. 

You already gave away too much info. ;-)  

Meet Cap aka Loganthor: http://fairvieworegon.gov/index.aspx?NID=302 and be sure to contribute to his opponant!

@Pierpont  You clearly have a bit of knowledge of how the internet works. It's also clear you have no discretion in how you choose to use those skills. Posting personal info about someone who uses an avatar and has clearly demonstrated a wish to remain anonymous:

       http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/07/how-did-we-get-be-nation-gun-nuts?page=4#comment-158472

Capital 1 wrote:
I launched my election website last night, I don't think I will share the address with you.
    is not only petty but SHOULD be a violation of this forum's rules. Later in the same thread, paraphasing: he says these personal attacks are "starting to creep me out". Your personal insults and asking others to donate to his opponent COULD be seen as intimidation.

I doubt Cap sees your bumbling attacks as more than a distraction but still there should be boundarys. 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
mjolnir wrote:@Pierpont  You

mjolnir wrote:
@Pierpont  You clearly have a bit of knowledge of how the internet works.
Nah, it's just that Cap isn't that bright. 
Quote:
Posting personal info about someone who uses an avatar and has clearly demonstrated a wish to remain anonymous:
Like I said Cap isn't that bright. Cap not only gave away enough crumbs to follow he already gave away his real identity

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2010/04/freepers-birthers-morons-all-stripe-you-didnt-get-mad

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
LysanderSpooner wrote: They

LysanderSpooner wrote:
They know the Constitution, however imperfect, limits government.
Are you denying that Constitution... as a stronger central government compared to your precious Articles, didn't also enlarge and empower that stronger government with some key provisions like the open ended nation of the General Welfare provision, the necessary and proper clause, and the supremacy clause?

Quote:
They twist the English language and find justifications and rationalizations Constitution Statist policies. If they were honest, they would say that we want the government to have more power.....,
If YOU were honest you'd simply recognize this is NOTHING NEW. From the beginning there's been a tradition in this nation for a stronger federal government. Al Hamilton comes to mind.  

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote:   Capital1

Pierpont wrote:

 

Capital1 wrote:
Quote:
My yards Campaign Sign proof just arrived..  Exciting..  Wish I could show you.. 

You already gave away too much info. ;-)  

Meet Cap aka Loganthor: http://fairvieworegon.gov/index.aspx?NID=302 and be sure to contribute to his opponant!

I'm not taking contributions,  I doubt she is either.  But that is democracy in action.  By all means engage in the political process.  Not enough people truely ever engage.  That is why it's been such a fasinating experience for me.  I've been complaining about politics for years, Now I am walking in thier shoes. 

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote:   Then YOU

Pierpont wrote:

 

Then YOU posted another source that claimed it was a DIRECT QUOTE... 

I asked where I claimed it was a Direct qoute and you failed to provide the said claim.   Can I assume at this moment in time your accusation is false.. 

Quote:
 Cap. I already addressed this point by posting the ORIGINAL source before someone at YOUR site tampered with the historical record. 

ok...  then... 

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Capital1 is hear for the

Capital1 is hear for the purpose of debating the issues whether you agree with him or not.  That's what this forum is for.  I don't see where disclosing his real world identity has any purpose in that.  That should be up to the individual to disclose if they so choose.  Doing so without their permission is crossing the line IMO.

 

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote:  I was gone

Pierpont wrote:

 I was gone for over a year... other wise I would have picked up on how Loganthor and Cap were the same one-trick pony! I just happened to have some copies of old threads... and reading them.... Bingo! Tracking down the real person was a wee bit harder. It comes as no surprise that there's nothing listed for education.

You didn't pick that up Pier, did you.  Poly has always known who I was,  just as I'm sure a few other long timers.  I don't change who I am,  never have. 

Education:  three years of college.   Never finished.  1992 my father had a massive heart attack.  (survived)  I dropped out of school and took over the daily operations of the family business where I am currently sitting right now typing this.

You need only to ask. 

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital1 wrote: Pierpont

Capital1 wrote:

Pierpont wrote:
Then YOU posted another source that claimed it was a DIRECT QUOTE... 

I asked where I claimed it was a Direct qoute and you failed to provide the said claim.   Can I assume at this moment in time your accusation is false.. 

Quote:
 Cap. I already addressed this point by posting the ORIGINAL source before someone at YOUR site tampered with the historical record. 

ok...  then... 

Grow up Cap... if you can. I followed up in post 123.  

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital1 wrote:Pierpont

Capital1 wrote:
Pierpont wrote:

 I was gone for over a year... other wise I would have picked up on how Loganthor and Cap were the same one-trick pony! I just happened to have some copies of old threads... and reading them.... Bingo! Tracking down the real person was a wee bit harder. It comes as no surprise that there's nothing listed for education.

You didn't pick that up Pier, did you.  Poly has always known who I was,  just as I'm sure a few other long timers.  I don't change who I am,  never have. 
Sure I picked that up as I would too if I were a longtime mod. But I was gone for over a year... so I didn't bother giving you any thought until you said you remembered my old ulTRAX user name.

Quote:
Education:  three years of college.   Never finished.  1992 my father had a massive heart attack.  (survived)  I dropped out of school and took over the daily operations of the family business where I am currently sitting right now typing this.
It was deliberate dig. I knew you had to have had some post 9th grade education... LOL. As I said in the other thread... sorry to hear about your dad.  

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Bush_Wacker wrote:  Doing so

Bush_Wacker wrote:
  Doing so without their permission is crossing the line IMO.
Probably and I deleted the link in the other thread. I can't edit here for some reason... and I was going to post asking a mod to edit it out but then Cap reposted the link.

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote:Grow up

Pierpont wrote:
Grow up Cap... if you can. I followed up in post 123.  

Are you and I not on good terms today?  

You 123 post is nothing of interest.   You know Madison said it verbatium or paraphrasing It's doesn't really matter at this point.  Arguing the sematics of a 218 year old entry in the congressional record is pointless. 

By all means claim Madison didn't say it and the reason I beleive that is X. 

It is however on the public record

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=004/llac004.db&recNum=82

 

 

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote: Bush_Wacker

Pierpont wrote:

Bush_Wacker wrote:
  Doing so without their permission is crossing the line IMO.
Probably and I deleted the link in the other thread. I can't edit here for some reason... and I was going to post asking a mod to edit it out but then Cap reposted the link.

Frankly at this point...  don't bother...  this is the interent.  Nothing ever goes away.  And the you fine research is enough for anybody to follow up on.  Cat is out.    My bed... must lay in it. 

I would suggest not doing it to anybody else.   

drc2
Interesting bio piece, cap.

Interesting bio piece, cap.  We are all glad your Dad survived and hope he recovered enough to enjoy it.  We rarely get past the posts here to the people behind this form of expression and interchange.  In my work, as well as in my personal life, being able to distinguish between good people with bad ideas and the dangerous helps.  

You drop your college education to come to the aid of you family and take over the family business.  If that is a business you care about a lot, and if you were seeing that as your desirable future, I hope you have enjoyed your early promotion to adult life.  I hope the rewards have been up to the efforts invested and that those whom you love have benefitted from your work.  

How you have continued your education is not clear.  There is the obvious perspective of the manager/owner of the family business, there are your peers in the business community and there are various "educational forums" you have been free to choose from.  Thomas Franks gives a lot of credence to the way "Commerce" has been transformed culturally to make "small business" and Wall St. fellow victims of "government" and "regulation."  (PITY THE BILLIONAIRE)  

I hope that I have not implied that you are less than intelligent.  My review of your posts, not you as a person beyond what I meet here, is that they are a form of intelligent deflection and diversion from the core moral issues, or "sophistry."  Franks calls it the "muddle."  He means the way the grains of truth are strung into an emotionally satisfying and "coherent" to reverse the Depression understanding of Labor and The Man.  Now it is the poor bankster and businessguy together suffering from Government and "Liberals" who are jealous and lazy threats to everything decent.

You have a lot of reason to resent "intellectuals" and "experts," and if running a business is anything like driving a car on the freeway, there are not only a lot of less than convenient rules and regs, there are a bunch of others who are not paying attention but who still get to be on the road with us.  I can see how you can see the world through that lens and have a lot of anecdotal evidence to support your view that government is not smart and that you could have done better on your own.

I am just commenting on what you have posted about yourself.  I am trying to find the human context for your posts, and I recognize that being in disagreement with the direction of your thinking, it is tempting to find "the flaw" in order to box you into a narrative role.  In real life, I perfer characters who write their own parts.  I wish that I could feel that the cons who come here are equally interested in expanding and revising their opinion of their opponents.  They seem to me to come with all the ideas and images preset and beyond revision.

Franks is also interested in why the banksters walk away with the loot and get incentives to do it again.  That "your side," the GOPimps, are totally in the Wall St. tank is obvious.  The two questions raised are why the Dems have not grabbed the Populist narrative and run against Wall St. and how the Tea Party has been able to use the same anger about 2008 to run against the cops and enable the mob.  He cites the Myth of the Free Market, sold so expertly under Reagan and following.

It seems to be one of your favorite myths.  It is a utopian fantasy, but it has a powerful hold on Americans.  It is taught by "intellectuals."  It provides an ideological escape route from reality, and it is a very well-financed fantasy highway.  CNBC and FOX Business preach it all the time.  It is taught in Schools of Business and Management, who are funded by the business world where the idea of being left alone to make money finds favor.  

Because it has been the "Gospel" of Commerce and taught at the most prestigious schools, I can appreciate how a lot of decent, hard-working and focused business folk think it is true.  Part of the function of the frame is to allow lots of creative and intelligent inside work arranging the sets and lighting within the narrtive.  You don't get to question the frame because it is set emotionally rather than in pure reason.  But, that's ok, "pure reason" is another myth akin to the free market.  What you do have to do is appreciate the difference between your narrative and the real world.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital1 wrote:Pierpont

Capital1 wrote:
Pierpont wrote:
Grow up Cap... if you can. I followed up in post 123.  

Are you and I not on good terms today?  

You 123 post is nothing of interest.   You know Madison said it verbatium or paraphrasing It's doesn't really matter at this point.  Arguing the sematics of a 218 year old entry in the congressional record is pointless. 

By all means claim Madison didn't say it and the reason I beleive that is X. 

It is however on the public record

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=004/llac004.db&recNum=82

Gee you REPOST the link I provided and that proves what? What did I say then:

Quote:
The report may be accurate but it's NOT an actual quote:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=004/llac004.db&recNum=82 

It's a THIRD PERSON PARAPHRASE of what he said written 40-50 years later... and your wiki source TURNED IT INTO A DIRECT QUOTE with quote marks which the original source DID NOT HAVE.

And you STILL EVADING the real issue that Madison was NOT talking about aid for Americans but for Haitians!!! So you're bringing up that quote OUT OF CONTEXT to "prove" it had something to do with the General Welfare of AMERICANS was dishonest. Given that I can see why you prefer this silly sideshow.

 

Capital1
Capital1's picture
drc2 wrote: Interesting bio

drc2 wrote:

Interesting bio piece, cap.  We are all glad your Dad survived and hope he recovered enough to enjoy it.  We rarely get past the posts here to the people behind this form of expression and interchange.  In my work, as well as in my personal life, being able to distinguish between good people with bad ideas and the dangerous helps.  

He past away in December,  Hence my current standing as a City councilor. 

Jay (slabmaster) says hi . 

Quote:
You drop your college education to come to the aid of you family and take over the family business. If that is a business you care about a lot, and if you were seeing that as your desirable future, I hope you have enjoyed your early promotion to adult life. I hope the rewards have been up to the efforts invested and that those whom you love have benefitted from your work

I am 4th generation of a business the started in 1917.  If you have ever worked in a family business...  My choice of occupation was limited.  I however do not intend to lock my child into a preordained future. 

Quote:
You have a lot of reason to resent "intellectuals" and "experts," 

LOL....  I don't.  Funny that you think I do. 

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote: Gee you

Pierpont wrote:

Gee you REPOST the link I provided and that proves what? What did I say then:

Just noting for my own interst the offical public record. 

Quote:
It's a THIRD PERSON PARAPHRASE of what he said written 40-50 years later... and your wiki source TURNED IT INTO A DIRECT QUOTE with quote marks which the original source DID NOT HAVE

Let nip this in the Butt.   Did Madison say it or not?  According to the congressional record he did.   

 

 

nimblecivet
nimblecivet's picture
http://action.workingamerica.

http://action.workingamerica.org/c/575/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=4785

re Roosevelt's "Second Bill of Rights"

This is a good idea to give form to the rights embodied and made absolutely mandatory for all libertarians to pay for in the Constitution.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital1 wrote:Pierpont

Capital1 wrote:
Pierpont wrote:

Gee you REPOST the link I provided and that proves what? What did I say then:

Just noting for my own interst the offical public record. 

Quote:
It's a THIRD PERSON PARAPHRASE of what he said written 40-50 years later... and your wiki source TURNED IT INTO A DIRECT QUOTE with quote marks which the original source DID NOT HAVE

Let nip this in the Butt.   Did Madison say it or not?  According to the congressional record he did.   

 Yup, you're STILL trying to divert attention from the issue YOU raised.... which was taking that "quote" out of context to make a dishonest point. Look Cupcake, I'm the one who posted the ORIGINAL source NOT YOU. I know YOUR source modified the historical record to turn it into a first person quote. Case closed. And the source was NOT the Congressional Record. How many MORE mistakes are you going to make on this simple issue.   

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote: Yup,

Pierpont wrote:

Yup, you're STILL trying to divert attention from the issue YOU raised.... which was taking that "quote" out of context to make a dishonest point. Look Cupcake, I'm the one who posted the ORIGINAL source NOT YOU. I know YOUR source modified the historical record to turn it into a first person quote. Case closed. And the source was NOT the Congressional Record. How many MORE mistakes are you going to make on this simple issue.   

As poster of the orginal material I hereby offical support the the qouted passage. Nothing I have seen supports the claim the Madison may NOT have said the the line whether directly or in paraphrasing      Done Case closed.     Moving on.  

drc2
Hey cap, give Slab a thumb's

Hey cap, give Slab a thumb's up.  We rarely agreed on much more than how to run a grill or cook over a fire.  But it was always good and free swinging.

I think you would enjoy the Thomas Frank book, PITY THE BILLIONAIRE.  I think he does a great job putting the conservative/libertarian narrative into perspective and why it sells.  From your posts, I think you fit the picture rather well, and it is not a slam or piece of contempt for those who disagree with us.  It is an attempt to see why they buy this line from their (your) real world experience.  The "moral" arguments are much clearer on the Right and the nuance and ambiguity far less.  I don't think that settles the case, but it does explain why people respond to stuff that I think requires a much deeper analysis.

Point being that few people have the time or inclination to do that kind of analysis, which is why ads do not appeal to our discriminating consumer choice calculations and go for the emotions.  It is also why you hate Obama for using a great ad campaign instead of being issue and program specific.  It made Progressive be disappointed that they did not get what they hoped would change; but it also allows his opponents to project and distort to satisfy their fears of what a Progressive or Socialist might bring from their "demon world."  My advice to Obama now would be to go for it because you are going to be accused of it anyway.  Hoping for bipartisan sanity is crazy.

I am not quite sure why foreclosing the vocational freedom of your children to insure the continuation of the "family business" is so important to you.  What if there were someone other than your children who loved what the business was about and itched to be the person running it to insure its future instead of cashing it in for money now?  If your own child dreamed of something else, why not 'adopt' the stranger who feels called to the business instead?

Anyway, I hope your public service is an education more than a frustration.  Work well with others.