General Welfare

202 posts / 0 new
Last post

Comments

Capital1
Capital1's picture
drc2 wrote: Hey cap, give

drc2 wrote:

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.

You just did.   They are watching to see how this is going to play out.  If the Board has changed it's grossly intolerant past.  You might get to talk to him again. 

drc2
There are some rules of the

There are some rules of the road, and I have not made the cuts in participants even if I have been engaged in conversations at varying levels of civility and satisfaction.  I can appreciate why some of the cuts have been made, and I know that others have just gotten tired of the contention and sloganeering.

I am not interested in extensive debates about Libertarianism having been there and done it too many times already.  I am willing to engage anyone in discussions about the meaning and function of democracy and/or what it takes for a free people to govern themselves instead of being ruled over.

As soon as my personal trainer gets my frame straightened and I feel ready to play in public again, I hope the jazz fans will come out to Ron Steen's Sunday Night Jam at Clyde's Prime Rib on Sandy.  The other place I will be this coming week is with Janice Scroggins and Reggie Houston at Tapalaya on NE28th just off Burnside, 6-9 on Tuesday.  I have had friends with whom I have disagreed on important matters and have found a lot of other things to like, so I hope anyone who likes good music and good food and drink will come on out.

I think we ought to have a common grievance against Wall St. and the War Machine.  I can criticize Obama without a lot of help from the Right, and I wish honest conservatives were dealing with their own brand instead of escaping its corruptions to taunt liberals.  What is the conservative answer to Economic Royalism and Bankster Robber Baron fraud?  I hope you have a better answer than Milton Friedman or the Austrians because there is no "there" there.  I suggest David Korten as a better meeting point for discussion:  AGENDA FOR A NEW ECONOMY; OR WHY WE DON'T NEED WALL ST.

 

 

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital1 wrote: Pierpont

Capital1 wrote:

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.  

Yup, you're still Still STILL trying to divert attention from the real issue here: THE QUOTE ISN'T THE ISSUE... IT'S YOUR MISUSE OF IT.   Look. this quote has been going around in right wing emails and I think it's misuse has to stop. If you can't make a point without gross distortions... YOU HAVEN'T MADE A POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Capital1
Capital1's picture
drc2 wrote: As soon as my

drc2 wrote:

As soon as my personal trainer gets my frame straightened and I feel ready to play in public again, I hope the jazz fans will come out to Ron Steen's Sunday Night Jam at Clyde's Prime Rib on Sandy.  The other place I will be this coming week is with Janice Scroggins and Reggie Houston at Tapalaya on NE28th just off Burnside, 6-9 on Tuesday.  I have had friends with whom I have disagreed on important matters and have found a lot of other things to like, so I hope anyone who likes good music and good food and drink will come on out.

Well..  Isn't that interesting.  If you like local Jazz,  then you might Know Derek Simms.  Known him since grade school.  Plays with Mel Brown.

I'm free both those days.... 

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote:  Yup, you're

Pierpont wrote:

 Yup, you're still Still STILL trying to divert attention from the real issue here: THE QUOTE ISN'T THE ISSUE... IT'S YOUR MISUSE OF IT.   Look. this quote has been going around in right wing emails and I think it's misuse has to stop. If you can't make a point without gross distortions... YOU HAVEN'T MADE A POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm diverting.....  you can't seem to talk about anything else,  but I'M diverting.... 

Feel free to move on trying to prove that the words "General Welfare" are a power granting clause and not just a mere qualifier to the Tax & Spend clause. 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital1 wrote:Pierpont

Capital1 wrote:
Pierpont wrote:

 Yup, you're still Still STILL trying to divert attention from the real issue here: THE QUOTE ISN'T THE ISSUE... IT'S YOUR MISUSE OF IT.   Look. this quote has been going around in right wing emails and I think it's misuse has to stop. If you can't make a point without gross distortions... YOU HAVEN'T MADE A POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm diverting.....  you can't seem to talk about anything else,  but I'M diverting.... 

Feel free to move on trying to prove that the words "General Welfare" are a power granting clause and not just a mere qualifier to the Tax & Spend clause. 

So you're retracting your posting of that Madison "quote" as an error or are you still trying to claim it proves something about Madison's beliefs on "general welfare"? How many more posts do we have to go through to tie up this loose end?    

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote: So

Pierpont wrote:

So you're retracting your posting of that Madison "quote" as an error or are you still trying to claim it proves something about Madison's beliefs on "general welfare"? How many more posts do we have to go through to tie up this loose end?    

Does your entire argument rest upon my retraction? 

Let's hope not.... 

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital1 wrote:Pierpont

Capital1 wrote:
Pierpont wrote:

So you're retracting your posting of that Madison "quote" as an error or are you still trying to claim it proves something about Madison's beliefs on "general welfare"? How many more posts do we have to go through to tie up this loose end?

Does your entire argument rest upon my retraction?

Let's hope not....

Actually it seems YOU are the one desperate to hang onto that "quote" as if YOUR entire argument depends on it… otherwise you would have long ago admitted the Madison "quote" was completely IRRELEVANT to the discussion to any reference to "General Welfare" in the Constitution and Madison ONLY was concerned there was nothing in the Constitution that permitted aid TO FOREIGNERS. But if you're feeling more intellectually dishonest than usual you can still pretend it somehow applies to the Disabled Sailors Act.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
mjolnir wrote: @Dr. Econ   ?

mjolnir wrote:

@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.[...]

Is there a difference? Who cares?

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
mjolnir wrote:Pierpont

mjolnir wrote:
Pierpont wrote:
[...]The point being that if Madison proposed this in the First Congress, he must have been pretty sure it was consistent with Original Intent.
Possibly, but not, IMO, as a generalized "right" to "promote the General Welfare" by doing a transfer of wealth from the collective whole to a specific group. Else, why this: "In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “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, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)"

Sorry Cap... this wasn't you who posted this "quote" first? Either way it comes as no surprise that another right winger would post this quote since the Right can't help but use it to make a dishonest case hoping to undermine the General Welfare provisions of the Constitution. Madison was referring to the use of public funds to help FOREIGNERS.

mjolnir
mjolnir's picture
@Pierpont I wondered when you

@Pierpont I wondered when you would stop (figuratively) the incessant flapping of your lips in your belligerent attacks on Cap long enough to actually read some posts and realize that I had also posted a link, that you convieniently cut out, that referenced Madison. In addition I linked to a supportive quote from Jefferson both from 3rd party sources and I in no way suggested that they were DIRECT quotes.

PARAPHRASING from the link YOU provided in the sentence before the quote in question the clerk writes "Mr. Madison wished to relieve the sufferers, but was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent,

mjolnir wrote:
How right he was!
which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes very different from those of charity."

I am reasonably sure that Madison knew how to spell foreigner and would have said that instead of "objects of benevolence" had that been what he meant.

mjolnir
mjolnir's picture
Dr. Econ wrote: mjolnir

Dr. Econ wrote:

mjolnir wrote:

@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.[...]

Is there a difference? Who cares?

 

Dr. Econ wrote:
[...]We have debated this before, and I find your argument impossible to understand. Could you restate it in a logical form?[...]

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

Then why did you ask? 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Let's try this again since my

Let's try this again since my internet connection died the first time:

mjolnir wrote:
@Pierpont I wondered when you would stop (figuratively) the incessant flapping of your lips in your belligerent attacks on Cap long enough to actually read some posts and realize that I had also posted a link, that you convieniently cut out, that referenced Madison. In addition I linked to a supportive quote from Jefferson both from 3rd party sources and I in no way suggested that they were DIRECT quotes.
Please stop the mindless partisan cheerleading. Cap and I go way back and he's probably abused me more than the reverse.  

Quote:
I am reasonably sure that Madison knew how to spell foreigner and would have said that instead of "objects of benevolence" had that been what he meant.
It really doesn't matter what YOU think Madison meant... the semblance of the historical record is clear that he was ONLY referring to aid to foreigners. The Right's attempt to hijack that "quote" by taking it out of context is the sort of intellectual dishonesty I expect from the Right.

Anyone can play the "quote" game… given enough historical material anyone can "prove" anything they want if they are selective enough... and the low information Rightists cheer and approve those who try to mislead them.

Now have any RELEVANT quotes on the "General Welfare" provisions we might "evaluate"? What are we to think when they contradict actual approved LEGISLATION?  

 

mjolnir
mjolnir's picture
No one is argueing that this

No one is argueing that this isn't settled law, for now, in exactly the same way that sCOTUS, for now, sees an individual right to keep and bare in the 2nd, decisions by the supremes allow the flagrum of the commerce act and the "cat-of-nine tails" of the "neccessary and proper" interpretations to IMO gut this country.

I can dislike it, you can dislike it but in the end there isn't a damned thing we can do about it except to keep voting for people that someday may be able to effect change. Again PARAPHASING from the link YOU provided there were people (Mr. Boudinot) on the floor THAT day argueing that the Legislative branch had the power, derived from "the exigencies regarding the general welfare", to extend aid to the Frenchmen.

Madison had already lamented the fact that even though common decency demanded action he couldn't see a way to authorize it. He even went so far as to suggest deferring the question for a short time.

You can believe anything you want but I for one think he saw any of these "acts of benevolence" as unconstitutional. I wonder if he could fathom a 16T dollar debt. I know I can't.

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote: Sorry Cap...

Pierpont wrote:

Sorry Cap... this wasn't you who posted this "quote" first? Either way it comes as no surprise that another right winger would post this quote since the Right can't help but use it to make a dishonest case hoping to undermine the General Welfare provisions of the Constitution. Madison was referring to the use of public funds to help FOREIGNERS.

It's a good quote or papaphrasing of a good quote.  whichever you perfer. 

And your wrong about Madison intentions.  He was against acts by the Treasury for benevalence (charity).   For it violated the General welfare spending clause requirement. 

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote:  Please stop

Pierpont wrote:

 Please stop the mindless partisan cheerleading. Cap and I go way back and he's probably abused me more than the reverse.  

I don't recall crossing paths with you from the old days.   I was generally locked in a cage match with Sunrise, Ren, Common-man.   But if we did...  I almost sure there was abuse being done.   This place was pretty rough and tumble back then.   This place is like a box of kittens in comparison. 

Quote:
 Now have any RELEVANT quotes on the "General Welfare" provisions we might "evaluate"? What are we to think when they contradict actual approved LEGISLATION?  

"With respect to the words general welfare,
I have always regarded them as qualified
by the detail of powers connected with them.
To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be
a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which
there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

James Madison letter to James Robertson

----------------------

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.
...
[W]ere the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."

James MadisonOn the Cod Fishery Bill, granting BountiesFebruary 7, 1792 -------------------------------------------------------------- 

"It has however been often asserted, that the power given to congress to lay taxes is amplified by the words 'to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.' This construction is obviously erroneous. These words refer to the destination of the taxes, and are only a reason for the power of taxation. If they convey and power over persons and things, internally or externally, they convey all power over all objects; and under a construction of the latitude contended for the power of taxation, and all the subsequent powers bestowed in the same section, would have been quite superfluous. For, if these words comprise a grant of power to congress, the power is unlimited, and includes both all the specified powers, and also every other power, which in their opinion may be necessary and proper to provide for the common defence and general welfare."

John TaylorProtecting Duties and BountiesConstruction Construed and Constitutions VindicatedShepherd and Pollard1820 ------------------------------------------- 

"But, suppose we detach the phrase 'to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States' from the power of taxation, and consider it as an isolated and distinct grant of power; it will then be necessary to ascertain whose defence and welfare was to be provided for; the defence and welfare of the individuals composing the states, or of the political individuals called states. I think the letter and tenour of the constitution correspond upon this point with perfect perspicuity. 'The United States' are specified as the objects or individuals, whose common defence and general welfare was to be provided for. In the first clause of the constitution the same phrase is used: 'The people of the United States to provide for the common defence and promote the general welfare establish this constitution for the United States of America.' It was not, therefore, a constitution for the government of persons or things generally existing in these United States, but for the government of the states themselves, and in order to promote their common defence and general welfare. The words common and general refer to the objects or political beings, whose defence and welfare was to be provided for, as being in a state of union. And as no state of union or any species of social compact existed among the persons composing the states, inclusively, these words cannot be made to refer to them. They therefore restrain the power of congress to the defence and welfare of the states themselves, instead of enlarging it to include the defence and welfare of private persons."

John TaylorProtecting Duties and BountiesConstruction Construed and Constitutions VindicatedShepherd and Pollard1820 --------------------------------------------   

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  mjolnir wrote:Madison had

 

mjolnir wrote:
Madison had already lamented the fact that even though common decency demanded action he couldn't see a way to authorize it. He even went so far as to suggest deferring the question for a short time.
AGAIN, he could not find any authority in the Constitution to spend on FOREIGNERS. That you conflate Madison not wanting to spend on foreigners to mean he also would not want to spend on AMERICANS is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

Quote:
You can believe anything you want but I for one think he saw any of these "acts of benevolence" as unconstitutional. I wonder if he could fathom a 16T dollar debt. I know I can't.

WTF does the General Welfare have to do with debt? How much of that debt was run up because the GOP sabotaged revenues with irresponsible tax cuts or both parties overspent to maintain a global military empire? Where in the Constitution is there ANY authority to go beyond common defense? The Right sweeps this under the rug and neocons believe the US MUST be the world's preeminent military power. Outspending nearly all the other nations combined isn't good enough for them.

mjolnir
mjolnir's picture
Do you even read the links

Do you even read the links that you point to or do you just rely on bold text, curse words, obfuscation and sheer volume of posts to support your viewpoints?

From the link YOU provided: "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 to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. And if once they broke the line laid down before them, for the direction of their conduct, it was impossible to say to what lengths they might go, or to what extremetities this practise might be carried." 

1. "dangerous precedent"

2. " perverted to the countenance of purposes very different from those of charity "

3. " it was impossible to say to what lengths they might go, or to what extremetities this practise might be carried "

You like to make claims of intellectual dishonesty well I say to you that no one with a shred of honesty can read the paragraph above and say that Madison was ONLY concerned with the fact that the people in need were French.

He is reported as saying "objects of benevolence" [plural] not foreigners, not Frenchmen, not those scum who have been oppressing the slaves of Haiti. I reiterate, I am reasonably sure he knew the difference.   

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Am I gettig the sense that

Am I gettig the sense that your position on the Genral Welfare Clause is that it was written vague...   So it's thier fault. 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  Seemingly incapable of

 

Seemingly incapable of learning how to use the QUOTE feature mjolnir wrote:
He is reported as saying "objects of benevolence" [plural] not foreigners, not Frenchmen, not those scum who have been oppressing the slaves of Haiti. I reiterate, I am reasonably sure he knew the difference.

Sorry, for delay, my internet service has been intermittent.

I'm well aware of the Madison "quote" and read it several times and even posted original links to the original source. You make such a big deal that the "objects" of benevolence could not mean those refugee and therefore MUST mean ANY charity including to Americans. WHY??? It's just YOUR interpretation. Yes Madison is warning not to let the cat out of the bag. But in this case HE'S STILL REFERRING TO FOREIGN REFUGEES THROUGHOUT HIS "SPEECH".

 

The problem here is the actual Constitution does NOT have limits on such spending, though the Senate and president could stop excesses. Madison seems stuck between a rock and a hard place. He oversaw the writing of the Constitution that included NO actual limits on General Welfare except what Madison says in later on in Cap's second quote was some customary understanding of the terms. Yet it would have been EASY to add such restrictions if the Constitutional Convention or the ratifying states thought it necessary. Art 1/8 could have simply read

 

"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 as limited to the following powers;" 


If the Constitutional Convention HAD been written more clearly, then such problems might not have arisen… where Madison could push for hospitals for disabled seamen in the First Congress yet decry expanding General Welfare spending to other areas. If this were so clear, there would not be so much disagreement about it within a few years after the Constitution was ratified.  

 
BTW, Madison's view of aid to foreigners also changed when Congress approved aid to Venezuela after an earthquake in 1812. That doesn't even fit into General Welfare of the US.

 

drc2
Yes Cap, I have known Derek

Yes Cap, I have known Derek from before he became Mel Brown's trumpet player.  He shows up at Steen's fairly often.

As to the ambiguity, rather than blame them, I give them credit.  A charter is not a straightjacket.  The "intent" included a lot of concerns, real and imagined.  I think they intended that we rework it as needed to get the bigger mission of self-government by a free people accomplished and continuing.

Macro coordination and support to local roots is not about big or little.  That is a diversion and a preoccupation with a concern we can address where it matters.  Central command and control is a bad idea in commerce or politics.  Common rights, culture and sense of community can be assured by recognized rights and civil and personal responsibility.  The Macro unites the diversity and insures that citizenship and rights are not foreclosed by local or regional prejudices or discrimination.  It also helps smooth out the regional and state social conditions and maintain the diversity/unity natioinal identity.

The General Welfare is bigger than specific legislation.  It is such an obvious matter for government concern and investment as to beg asking why.  It is what governing is about and for.  Otherwise, we could just let the rulers do their thing.  For many in the elite, that sounds like a great deal.  They will take care of themselves, their family and loved ones, and maybe a few friends.  Very Randian.  Let the flushing process proceed.  They are so blind to reality that they cannot believe that we don't just shut up and take it.  They think they are ordained by whatever power that be's, so screw others.

The very cautious assertion of healthcare as a central matter of the General Welfare brings such tortured arguments in opposition.  We pay more to the privteers than we will for a national healthcare program like Medicare for All.  It will cover everyone and bring about better health practices and attendant savings.  It will be a great moral improvement in our perception of one another, and it will be a great investment of our common treasure in terms of value and cost/effective benefit.

It is cheaper to own our own energy and to distribute it where it is needed more efficiently.  We could go Green without being held up by the PetroPirates.  Pretty directly in the General Welfare as far as I can see it.  Why do we have to pay these criminal corporations for our natural resources?  We could nationalize the industry, hire the workers and let them do their jobs with safety on their agenda instead of corporate profits.  Check Greg Palast for more on the cynicism about safety in oil.

You may fear that the General Welfare clause might be open to too broad an interpretation.  If that happens, it will take a lot to move the needle from its present far too narrow argumentation as you post it.  The idea that we have to pay corrupters and looters to get what we need is absurd and contrary to everything about having a government to serve the General Welfare.

Capital1
Capital1's picture
drc2 wrote: Yes Cap, I have

drc2 wrote:

Yes Cap, I have known Derek from before he became Mel Brown's trumpet player.  He shows up at Steen's fairly often.

Small world

mjolnir
mjolnir's picture
@ Pierpont Two can play your

@ Pierpont Two can play your silly games. From here: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/08/general-welfare?page=3#comment...

fumbling, bungling perpetually blinded by his own quasi-logic Pierpont wrote:
[...]You make such a big deal that the "objects" of benevolence could not mean those refugee and therefore MUST mean ANY charity including to Americans. WHY???[...]
Because of the sentences that preceded the original quote.
  http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=004/llac004.db...

The clerk wrote:
[...]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 to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. And if once they broke the line laid down before them, for the direction of their conduct, it was impossible to say to what lengths they might go, or to what extremetities this practise might be carried.[...]

It's clear that Madison was concerned with the much maligned "slippery slope". Unfortunately, IMO, history has proven that concern justified.

In the matter of Venezualen aid it's my unproven but impossible to disprove OPINION that PRESIDENT Madison may have felt it the Executive's duty to sign a bill that had such overwhelming support in Congress. I'm not sure what the Senate vote was but I believe the House vote was unanimous. Unanimous of course only after "flour" was striken for "goods" so that everybody got a slice of the pie.

Madison was also fighting the political machinations of the Embargo Act and the run-up to the War of 1812 so I doubt he would have spent any political capital to veto a popular "feel good" act even if he were inclined to do so.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
mjolnir wrote: Dr. Econ

mjolnir wrote:

Dr. Econ wrote:

mjolnir wrote:

@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.[...]

Is there a difference? Who cares?

 

Dr. Econ wrote:
[...]We have debated this before, and I find your argument impossible to understand. Could you restate it in a logical form?[...]

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

Then why did you ask? 

What do you mean, 'why did I ask'? The point is that some legislation had what amounts to health insurance mandates. I don't care who exactly passed it or not - it was close enough to the founders that t meant such a plan was constitutional.

So, can you state your arguement with a few logical sentences? I think if you do that, you will see what is obvious to the rest of us - that you have no arguement.

mjolnir
mjolnir's picture
@Dr. Econ My confusion was

@Dr. Econ My confusion was that you appeared to be talking about two seperate acts as if they were one. Not to put words in your mouth but I am going to assume that you see both bills as manifestations of the extension of the powers of the Federal government through use of the mandate to "promote the general Welfare"? If that's not correct please advise.

What parts of these sentences do you consider "illogical"?

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/08/general-welfare#comment-158461

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. The Federal gov. used the shcism between the N. and S. states, even at this early date, to extend its power. The N. needed lighthouses and harbor pilots for it's treacherous ports, the South didn't need them. Any connection between this act and "the General Welfare" is tenuous at best.

The "Act For The Relief Of Sick And Disabled Seamen", as far as I've been able to find, took dues from the seaman's OWN wages, collected by the Captain and then sent to the Federal gov. If a seaman became sick he used tokens to pay for medical care. If he died with a surplus "banked" up the balance was used by the government to build hospitals, etc. This bill is often pointed out as an implementation of the Government's obligation to provide for the General Welfare but I don't see it myself.

Clear (early) examples of that supposed obligation are hard to document.

I think the Light House Act was an early use of the power of the Commerce clause. Here is a link that I think supports that contention. http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/199

mjolnir
mjolnir's picture
I missed this one somehow. in

I missed this one somehow.

in one of those ever increasing moments of paranoia Pierpont wrote:
[...]Why am I beginning to suspect you're a paid right wing plant?

Hey nutso, forget sheep4thom get me a job as a paid right wing plant. I could use a little extra income. :-)

polycarp2
Probably, Capital, you should

Probably, Capital, you should put your vote where your mouth is on the City Council.

If a function of government isn't to provide for the general welfare, get rid of the street lighting, street cleaning and parks in your city...and see how long you stay in office.

if people want light at night, let them put up their own street light or walk around with a flashlight.

The Feds simply provide on the national level what localities can't do on the local level. I should alter that....they used to.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Dr. Econ wrote:I mean private

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

Another example of an early mandate was in the Militia Acts of 1792 which required all militia members to procure a suitible weapon and ammo... whether they wanted a weapon or not. Which brings up a question already raised in other threads... where's the individual "right" to own a weapon in the Second Amendment when militia members were forced to own a gun.

DynoDon
I think we found Scalia's

I think we found Scalia's love child!

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  Pierpont wrote:mjolnir

 

Pierpont wrote:
mjolnir wrote:
@ Pierpont Two can play your silly games. From here: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/08/general-welfare?page=3#comment-159447

You make such a big deal that the "objects" of benevolence could not mean those refugee and therefore MUST mean ANY charity including to Americans. WHY??

Because of the sentences that preceded the original quote.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=004/llac004.db&recNum=82
The clerk wrote:
[...]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 to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. And if once they broke the line laid down before them, for the direction of their conduct, it was impossible to say to what lengths they might go, or to what extremetities this practise might be carried.[...]

Of course the difference here could easily just be that when Madison proposed building hospitals for disabled seamen he knew that would be funded with TAXES hence falling clearly under Art1/sec8. That is different than spending on charity from general funds which I'd agree I find no specific authority to do... but COULD fall under General Welfare if the money were spent in the US for Americans.

Quote:
It's clear that Madison was concerned with the much maligned "slippery slope". Unfortunately, IMO, history has proven that concern justified.

And yet Madison is complaining about a the failure of the Constitution to be more specific. I think a better look at Madison's thoughts are from one of Cap's quotes at http://www.constitution.org/je/je4_cong_deb_12.htm

Now this discussion isn't about aid to refugees, it's about bounties… which was the term used for a direct government subsidy to X, Y, or Z. Hamilton in his 1791 Report on the Subject of Manufactures proposes such direct subsidies to some American industries.

Madison is obviously against using public money for direct subsidies in the Fisheries case. But in this case like with the Haitian refugees, his two objections so far don't seem to preclude Madison's own proposal to use government's power of taxation to build hospitals for seamen. As far as I can see, Madison seems to believe taxation for a project is constitutional… what he believes is an excess is some general use of funds for ANYTHING that could be construed as the "general welfare". Madison also seems to admit that the Constitution is NOT that clear about limits on "common defense" and "general welfare".

Quote:

 

"It is to be recollected that the terms "common defence and general welfare," as here used, are not novel terms, first introduced into this Constitution. They are terms familiar in their construction, and well known to the people of America. They are repeatedly found in the old Articles of Confederation, where, although they are susceptible of as great a latitude as can be given them by the context here, it was never supposed or pretended that they conveyed any such power as is now assigned to them."


If this were clear, there would not be so many questions about it as early as 1791-1792. What Madison seems most concerned about is whether there is a power for direct government subsidies… something Congress also rejects in Hamilton's economic plan. NEITHER objection raised so far... charity for foreign refugees or direct federal subsidies, calls into question whether Madison used the general welfare provisions for his proposal to tax the wages of seamen to build hospitals... which I believe was the core of this discussion some 100 posts ago.

 

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Another overdue

Another overdue response...

Capital1 wrote:
In the sentence is says "Congress shall have the Power" Thereby making taxing a Power granting clause. For what purpose "to pay the debts AND " provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States" Where in that sentence structure do you see ”provides that the governing body empowered by the document may enact laws to promote the general welfare of the people” Where does General welfare get it’s enumerated power?
So what are you trying to say? Congress has the power to tax, but NOT the power to spend on debt paydown, defense, or the general welfare? Or is your theory that Congress can't act to promote the general welfare… UNLESS they have taxed for it?

 

It would seem under the Preamble the Constitution gives the entire new government the mission to "promote" the general welfare… with Congress having the power to actually provide for 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.

 

Capital1
Capital1's picture
polycarp2 wrote: Probably,

polycarp2 wrote:

Probably, Capital, you should put your vote where your mouth is on the City Council.

If a function of government isn't to provide for the general welfare, get rid of the street lighting, street cleaning and parks in your city...and see how long you stay in office.

if people want light at night, let them put up their own street light or walk around with a flashlight.

The Feds simply provide on the national level what localities can't do on the local level. I should alter that....they used to.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

For a person who claims Ideology is a disease.... that is a very idealist statement.

The City Charter Doesn't ever mentions the words "general welfare". Ironically, Doesn't say we have to do anything really..
Role of government is to do what can't be done individually.   No state can maintain it own Military.  As to speaking to the Constitution.   "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So...  Not listed,  NOT thier job. 

 

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote: blah blah

Pierpont wrote:

blah blah blah...

Define General? 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital1 wrote: Pierpont

Capital1 wrote:

Pierpont wrote:

blah blah blah...

Define General?

Why should I have do explain the term? YOU posted a quote by Madison where he "says" the terms common defense and general welfare "are terms familiar in their construction, and well known to the people of America."

It's amusing you disparage Madison when he says the Constitution doesn't need a bill of rights since its very construction protects those rights YOU don't want Americans to have... but you now cling to Madison when you think he backs you up on the narrowest definition of general welfare. Yet so far all we know about Madison from some select quotes is he favored taxes on seamen's wages to build hospitals for them, didn't want public monies used for Haitian refugees, and didn't want to use public monies to subsidize fisheries. He also admits the general welfare clause is "susceptible of as great a latitude" but implicit in his argument is the Constitution does not set EXPLICIT limits. And without them, it's difficult to argue the Constitution MANDATES your narrow definition of "general welfare".

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote: Why should I

Pierpont wrote:

Why should I have do explain the term? YOU posted a quote by Madison where he "says" the terms common defense and general welfare "are terms familiar in their construction, and well known to the people of America."

Because I am starting to doubt you are "people of America"

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  Capital1 wrote: Pierpont

 

Capital1 wrote:

Pierpont wrote:

Why should I have do explain the term? YOU posted a quote by Madison where he "says" the terms common defense and general welfare "are terms familiar in their construction, and well known to the people of America."

Because I am starting to doubt you are "people of America"

Gettin' pretty lazy in your responses there Cap... sure you haven't been taken over by the ghost of CS?

And have you given up your claim Madison's proposal to tax seamen's wages to build hospitals was NOT done under the General Welfare provision? So far neither objection from Madison's other quotes on charity for foreigners or direct subsidies to business covers direct taxation of a group to fund services for that group… and your claim it was done under the Commerce clause was laughable. That was a desperate gambit which you've, of course, not retracted as absurd.  

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote:Gettin' pretty

Pierpont wrote:
Gettin' pretty lazy in your responses there Cap... sure you haven't been taken over by the ghost of CS?

I asked you to define General, and you plagiarize Madison. All while NOT answering a fairly simple question.

Define General?

Quote:
And have you given up your claim Madison's proposal to tax seamen's wages to build hospitals was NOT done under the General Welfare provision

That would depend on whether you think spending money on a SPECFIC group of people qualifies a "general"

Do you think that is what they meant by General?

Quote:
and your claim it was done under the Commerce clause was laughable

Why do you think the Section 1 of the Bill itself specifically says "arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States"

The constitution itself say "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

Laugh all you want, seems you enjoy abstract concepts than the facts in front of your face

 

 

 

 

polycarp2
Capital1 wrote: polycarp2

Capital1 wrote:

polycarp2 wrote:

Probably, Capital, you should put your vote where your mouth is on the City Council.

If a function of government isn't to provide for the general welfare, get rid of the street lighting, street cleaning and parks in your city...and see how long you stay in office.

if people want light at night, let them put up their own street light or walk around with a flashlight.

The Feds simply provide on the national level what localities can't do on the local level. I should alter that....they used to.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

For a person who claims Ideology is a disease.... that is a very idealist statement.

The City Charter Doesn't ever mentions the words "general welfare". Ironically, Doesn't say we have to do anything really..
Role of government is to do what can't be done individually.   No state can maintain it own Military.  As to speaking to the Constitution.   "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So...  Not listed,  NOT thier job. 

 

Then you are right back to ignoring the intent of the Constitution as to providing for the general welfare stated in the preamble, and to once again rejecting the general welfare clause in Secion 18. It was the general welfare that enabled the federal government to provide electric power for rural America (Tenn. Valley Authority an example),, build Hoover dam to power cities of the west, provide them with water,etc.  The state of Nevada wouldn't have had the financial means to build the dam.It never would. 

Without the "general welfare", America's farms would still be lite with kerosene lamps and refrigeration to maintain produce/dairy products until refrigerated trucks could pick them up would be non-existent. It wasn't profitable for private industry to build the infrastructure to service them.

Without the general welfare clause, government would probably have been overthrown in the Great Depression. There were no policies in place to relieve an increasingly  desperate population. FDR implimented them. The interpretation you advocate would have set the stage for the 2nd American Revolution....just as they would now.

When governments don't look after the well-being of the populations they are put in place to serve, they tend to disappear, or haven't you noticed? The Founders overthrew a government that didn't do that. Not likely they'd replace it with another that didn't do it.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital1 wrote: Pierpont

Capital1 wrote:

Pierpont wrote:
Gettin' pretty lazy in your responses there Cap... sure you haven't been taken over by the ghost of CS?

I asked you to define General, and you plagiarize Madison. All while NOT answering a fairly simple question.

Define General?

You must be pretty desperate to resort to this amusing line. What's welfare?

 

 I didn't plagiarize Madison and you know that. I merely used his words to show there are no LEGAL limitations on general welfare. Madison seems to lament in these excepts that what he believed to be in the Constitution isn't actually there... ie limits on the concepts of common defense and general welfare. And in my mind this can be a good thing… because it leaves up to each generation to decide for themselves what each is. Of course, both can be taken too far. Does the Constitution authorize the US becoming a worldwide superpower? Defense like general welfare can become blackholes for budgets since it can be argued that a dollar extra in spending makes us that much more secure… or that much better off.

mjolnir
mjolnir's picture
I must have had too many

I must have had too many Budweisers this afternoon. Where exactly does Madison directly address the "Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”? Anybody have any good links where he EXPRESSLY talks about this Act?

anonymous green
mjolnir wrote: I must have

mjolnir wrote:

I must have had too many Budweisers this afternoon. Where exactly does Madison directly address the "Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”? Anybody have any good links where he EXPRESSLY talks about this Act?

"Why would that make a single bit of difference, anyway?"

From the Thesaurus of Useful Responses to Right Wingnuts

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote:  You must be

Pierpont wrote:

 You must be pretty desperate to resort to this amusing line. What's welfare?

Still nothing huh,... Just what I thought.  vacuous opinion.. 

1828 dictionary " Welfare: Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states."

Quote:
I didn't plagiarize Madison and you know that. I merely used his words to show there are no LEGAL limitations on general welfare 

If that is what you think... then answer the simple question...  OR  would you like me to answer it for you.. 

 

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital1 wrote:Quote: I

Capital1 wrote:
Quote:
I didn't plagiarize Madison and you know that. I merely used his words to show there are no LEGAL limitations on general welfare

If that is what you think... then answer the simple question... OR would you like me to answer it for you..

Gee, when did the discussion move from whether Madison used the general welfare clause to find the authority for his disabled seamen act... to your 20 Questions? Sorry Cap... no time for more of your nonsense.

mjolnir
mjolnir's picture
mjolnir wrote: I must have

mjolnir wrote:

I must have had too many Budweisers this afternoon. Where exactly does Madison directly address the "Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”? Anybody have any good links where he EXPRESSLY talks about this Act?

@Pierpont    Anything? 

anonymous green
"Sorry, I don't have time to

"Sorry, I don't have time to play philosophy roulette with you."

From the Thesaurus of Useful Responses to Right Wingnuts

 

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Pierpont wrote:   Gee, when

Pierpont wrote:

 

Gee, when did the discussion move from whether Madison used the general welfare clause to find the authority for his disabled seamen act... to your 20 Questions? Sorry Cap... no time for more of your nonsense.

I asked you a simple question.   Define General?

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital1 wrote: Pierpont

Capital1 wrote:

Pierpont wrote:

 

Gee, when did the discussion move from whether Madison used the general welfare clause to find the authority for his disabled seamen act... to your 20 Questions? Sorry Cap... no time for more of your nonsense.

I asked you a simple question.   Define General?

What part of my last response did you not understand? Try reading for comprehension...

Gee, when did the discussion move from whether Madison used the general welfare clause to find the authority for his disabled seamen act... to your 20 Questions? Sorry Cap... no time for more of your nonsense.

 

mjolnir
mjolnir's picture
mjolnir wrote: mjolnir

mjolnir wrote:

mjolnir wrote:

I must have had too many Budweisers this afternoon. Where exactly does Madison directly address the "Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”? Anybody have any good links where he EXPRESSLY talks about this Act?

@Pierpont    Anything? 

 

@Anybody   Anything? 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
mjolnir wrote:I must have had

mjolnir wrote:
I must have had too many Budweisers this afternoon. Where exactly does Madison directly address the "Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”? Anybody have any good links where he EXPRESSLY talks about this Act?


The LOC site isn't the easiest to search. There aren't many references to what in the Constitution is used as authority for certain legislation. I don't have the time to look.

mjolnir
mjolnir's picture
Pierpont wrote:[...] I don't

Pierpont wrote:
[...] I don't have the time to look.

Then I recommend we quit suggesting this:

Pierpont wrote:
[...]Madison used the general welfare clause to find the authority for his disabled seamen act[...]
 

until someone actually finds evidence to support it.