Conservatives in 1776......

[trapdoor]

From Article I, 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 defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Can you tell us what words you see there with regard to "general welfare"?

Can you define general welfare and how, for example, AFDC provides for the "general" welfare?

Madison define general welfare quite well, and said that it was attached to the detail of powers. Where, in that detail of powers, is the authority to provide retirement insurance for all?

 

[KnotaFrayed]

Can you define general welfare and how, for example, AFDC provides for the "general" welfare?

Madison define general welfare quite well, and said that it was attached to the detail of powers. Where, in that detail of powers, is the authority to provide retirement insurance for all?

If you had a bad heart, would that affect your overall and general health? Would fixing your bad heart as best as could be done within any one era with the evolutions in technology, would that benefit your overall and "general" health and "welfare"?

I'm not sure how efforts aimed at improving the general welfare of the nation by improving the health of portions of it that would contribute to the overall health and welfare of the nation is doing as some, like you, seem to be suggesting it is doing.

If you would like to debate the balance between bankrupting a nation to provide either of or both the common defense or the general welfare, lots more would agree. The same as with a bad heart, were you to have one. Would breaking the bank to fix your heart be helping your general welfare if you had a fixed heart, but no means to buy food or might your fixed heart make you more able to work and bring in income to buy food? If fixing your heart cost so much and put you in so much debt that the cost of the fix outweighed what the fix provided by your way of extra earning power (versus what you were able to do with a sick heart) the fix is not necessarily an overall benefit, but has simply shifted one problem you were having to give you another.

I think the concern here is regarding the balance of cost to improve, versus the benefit derived from doing so. We can just as easily overspend in defense as on the general welfare in the context of return on investment or the expense. I think the debate should be about where the balance is and where it could or might be tipped, not about big or small government because there are many factors that contribute to government "size" or "growth". We could still be just 13 states in order to keep government "small". We could have forgone things like the Louisiana Purchase, Seward's Folly and other "big" government expenditures, we could have stayed "small" and forgone an interstate highway system that contributed to both national security, commerce and transportation in general. We could have not built the Hoover Dam considering it as wasteful and deadend. We could ask children to move out onto the streets with their unemployed parents until those parents find a job which is scarce because some of the wealthy few saw them and low and middle wage Americans as making too much so they gave their jobs to people in other nations willing to take less than Amercians would, but more than willing to take more than their average neighbor makes in their country. When a thus unemployed American has no job, how do they pay taxes? How do they pay the rent? How do they buy food? In turn, how does the treasury, the people that would pay rent or a mortgage to or buy food from, stay employed when fewer, not more people are paying taxes, paying rent or mortgage payments and food?

Meanwhile, where the jobs have been moved to, the employed, at less pay than Americans, pay rent or mortgages, buy food and may pay taxes in their own nation.

The general welfare of which nation is improved? The general welfare of which nation is eroded? When those exporting jobs are solely interested in dollars, not what affect their action has on the general welfare of their nation, are they going to suddenly change? What other entity has the ability to mitigate the worst effects of those whose only loyalty is to maximized profits?

Most people realize the balance between inflow and outflow of cash and how that relates to the government. Greed often blinds people or makes then deny any ill effect of their actions because the equation of "making money" or "profits" in their mind is disassociated with things like long term, sustainabilty and general welfare. They are less or not interested in the "general welfare" or it's interconnection with their own welfare, they just think the only thing that matters is squeezing as much profit for themselves as they can out of anything they can, if that leaves a path of disabled or dead bodies, who cares, there's profit in it!!!

There are others, including Madison who saw the importance and the interconnection of the parts to the whole and thus the inclusion of the words and the intent behind "the general welfare". The words also make it clear that the intent of Government and all the Contitutional powers afforded it are not to "subdue the people" or look out for rich people above all others or promote one part of the nation and not others, but to do what is necessary to promote and provide for the GENERAL, not entire, welfare.

It is quite obvious that bankrupting the nation would not be "promoting" its "general welfare" It should also be quite obvious that allowing the activities of a few to bankrupt the nation would also not be promoting the "general welfare" or providing anything that would.

 

[KnotaFrayed]

Can you define general welfare and how, for example, AFDC provides for the "general" welfare?

Madison define general welfare quite well, and said that it was attached to the detail of powers. Where, in that detail of powers, is the authority to provide retirement insurance for all?

With regard to "the detail of the powers".

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"


Definition of the word "duty/duties"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/duty

Further as to the "power":
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

 

[fairsheet]

I would take issue with your second bullet. Conservative thinkers during that period supported authoritarian government. Hobbes and Burke argued for that more than most, but there were others.

It is true, however, that many Conservatives opposed the American System (what we would call infrastructure building today) although they were not consistent. Jefferson Davis was a supporter of Clay's proposals.

I otherwise appreciate you post.

God Speed,
David

David,

I'll take issue with your issue with #2! As I see it, #2 is the very definition of "conservatism", in that it calls for leaving things just as they are. A conservative might oppose some proposal to lessen authority, but neither would he advocate for increasing authority.

It's "conservatism's" fault more than anyone else's, but it's pretty much gone off the rails over the last 3-4 decades, because people perceive at some sort of fixed point on a spectrcum, that we must strive for. What it's really about, it trying to maintain our current place on the spectrum, whatever that place may be.

I don't mean to oversimplify this one though. For instance if "taxes rates" were at 25% for 25 years, and our politic increased them to 50%, I'm not suggesting that at least in the near term, the conservative must accept that as his new normal. On the flipside, if "tax rates" were at 50% for 25-years, the conservative would NOT advocate some radical scheme to lower them to 25%.....whether or NOT 25% represented some sort of historical figure.

 

[fairsheet]

If you had a bad heart, would that affect your overall and general health? Would fixing your bad heart as best as could be done within any one era with the evolutions in technology, would that benefit your overall and "general" health and "welfare"?

I'm not sure how efforts aimed at improving the general welfare of the nation by improving the health of portions of it that would contribute to the overall health and welfare of the nation is doing as some, like you, seem to be suggesting it is doing.

If you would like to debate the balance between bankrupting a nation to provide either of or both the common defense or the general welfare, lots more would agree. The same as with a bad heart, were you to have one. Would breaking the bank to fix your heart be helping your general welfare if you had a fixed heart, but no means to buy food or might your fixed heart make you more able to work and bring in income to buy food? If fixing your heart cost so much and put you in so much debt that the cost of the fix outweighed what the fix provided by your way of extra earning power (versus what you were able to do with a sick heart) the fix is not necessarily an overall benefit, but has simply shifted one problem you were having to give you another.

I think the concern here is regarding the balance of cost to improve, versus the benefit derived from doing so. We can just as easily overspend in defense as on the general welfare in the context of return on investment or the expense. I think the debate should be about where the balance is and where it could or might be tipped, not about big or small government because there are many factors that contribute to government "size" or "growth". We could still be just 13 states in order to keep government "small". We could have forgone things like the Louisiana Purchase, Seward's Folly and other "big" government expenditures, we could have stayed "small" and forgone an interstate highway system that contributed to both national security, commerce and transportation in general. We could have not built the Hoover Dam considering it as wasteful and deadend. We could ask children to move out onto the streets with their unemployed parents until those parents find a job which is scarce because some of the wealthy few saw them and low and middle wage Americans as making too much so they gave their jobs to people in other nations willing to take less than Amercians would, but more than willing to take more than their average neighbor makes in their country. When a thus unemployed American has no job, how do they pay taxes? How do they pay the rent? How do they buy food? In turn, how does the treasury, the people that would pay rent or a mortgage to or buy food from, stay employed when fewer, not more people are paying taxes, paying rent or mortgage payments and food?

Meanwhile, where the jobs have been moved to, the employed, at less pay than Americans, pay rent or mortgages, buy food and may pay taxes in their own nation.

The general welfare of which nation is improved? The general welfare of which nation is eroded? When those exporting jobs are solely interested in dollars, not what affect their action has on the general welfare of their nation, are they going to suddenly change? What other entity has the ability to mitigate the worst effects of those whose only loyalty is to maximized profits?

Most people realize the balance between inflow and outflow of cash and how that relates to the government. Greed often blinds people or makes then deny any ill effect of their actions because the equation of "making money" or "profits" in their mind is disassociated with things like long term, sustainabilty and general welfare. They are less or not interested in the "general welfare" or it's interconnection with their own welfare, they just think the only thing that matters is squeezing as much profit for themselves as they can out of anything they can, if that leaves a path of disabled or dead bodies, who cares, there's profit in it!!!

There are others, including Madison who saw the importance and the interconnection of the parts to the whole and thus the inclusion of the words and the intent behind "the general welfare". The words also make it clear that the intent of Government and all the Contitutional powers afforded it are not to "subdue the people" or look out for rich people above all others or promote one part of the nation and not others, but to do what is necessary to promote and provide for the GENERAL, not entire, welfare.

It is quite obvious that bankrupting the nation would not be "promoting" its "general welfare" It should also be quite obvious that allowing the activities of a few to bankrupt the nation would also not be promoting the "general welfare" or providing anything that would.

How Madison may've circumscribed "general welfare" back in the day, is largely irellevant. He specifically gave us the broadest of broad terms - "general welfare". If I had written it, I may've gone with something like, "all things good". And in giving us that all-purpose phrase, he left it up to US to define general welfare for ourselves.

As an aside, advocates for the 2nd Amendent make their case the exact opposite of the way 10th-ers do. So, it's odd that so many of these advocates are one and the same.

 

[wobblies]

David,

I'll take issue with your issue with #2! As I see it, #2 is the very definition of "conservatism", in that it calls for leaving things just as they are. A conservative might oppose some proposal to lessen authority, but neither would he advocate for increasing authority.

It's "conservatism's" fault more than anyone else's, but it's pretty much gone off the rails over the last 3-4 decades, because people perceive at some sort of fixed point on a spectrcum, that we must strive for. What it's really about, it trying to maintain our current place on the spectrum, whatever that place may be.

I don't mean to oversimplify this one though. For instance if "taxes rates" were at 25% for 25 years, and our politic increased them to 50%, I'm not suggesting that at least in the near term, the conservative must accept that as his new normal. On the flipside, if "tax rates" were at 50% for 25-years, the conservative would NOT advocate some radical scheme to lower them to 25%.....whether or NOT 25% represented some sort of historical figure.

I believe that I failed to put Conservatism in historical context. Conservatives opposed the revolution and supported the Monarchy and authoritarian government in 1776. Another basic tenet of their Conservatism was a belief that average people aren’t capable of governing themselves. They believed that a powerful authority should lead and others should be submissive to that authority. Their ideological leaders, Hobbes & Burke, were the leading advocates of these beliefs. Conservatism also supported Mercantilism; Conservative citizens, especially those with wealth, benefitted from the awards of land and trading rights by the Monarch under Mercantilism: that was authoritarian government and control of the economy. Decentralized government was an alien and threatening concept for them. It was Liberals, Radicals, and Revolutionaries that supported independence, a decentralized Democratic Republic, and a free market.

After the revolution, Conservatives were primarily concerned with the status quo of the existing class structure, and they supported efforts to reduce the influence of those Revolutionary warriors that fought for a new, more equal society that included opportunity for all and a Democratic republic. This was a very difficult period for Conservatives because society was in such flux. You are probably right, however, that their base of power was limited state government. Actually, they didn’t have much influence over any branch of government, having been on the losing end of things. The power that they did exercise was economic. They were not particularly concerned about the threat from big government, however, because their class controlled it.

 

[KnotaFrayed]

I believe that I failed to put Conservatism in historical context. Conservatives opposed the revolution and supported the Monarchy and authoritarian government in 1776. Another basic tenet of their Conservatism was a belief that average people aren’t capable of governing themselves. They believed that a powerful authority should lead and others should be submissive to that authority. Their ideological leaders, Hobbes & Burke, were the leading advocates of these beliefs. Conservatism also supported Mercantilism; Conservative citizens, especially those with wealth, benefitted from the awards of land and trading rights by the Monarch under Mercantilism: that was authoritarian government and control of the economy. Decentralized government was an alien and threatening concept for them. It was Liberals, Radicals, and Revolutionaries that supported independence, a decentralized Democratic Republic, and a free market.

After the revolution, Conservatives were primarily concerned with the status quo of the existing class structure, and they supported efforts to reduce the influence of those Revolutionary warriors that fought for a new, more equal society that included opportunity for all and a Democratic republic. This was a very difficult period for Conservatives because society was in such flux. You are probably right, however, that their base of power was limited state government. Actually, they didn’t have much influence over any branch of government, having been on the losing end of things. The power that they did exercise was economic. They were not particularly concerned about the threat from big government, however, because their class controlled it.

Thanks very much Wobblies, you have provided what some seem to want to ignore or seem ignorant of (in a literal, not derogatory sense).

Within all parties there are polar extremes as well, some at the very liberal end of the pole, some moderate and some radical. Throughout our history there have always been the more radical ends of those parties considered "conservative" just as those radical ends are mirrored in all other parties. At times the more moderate of any parties seem to rise to prominence and for the Republcan Party, it has not appeared to be the radical end of that party until more recently with what is often referred to as the "new" or "neo" conservative branch, position or philosophy which may not be so much new as more the radical end of the pole within the party. Moderates or pragmatists seem to have risen to the top of some of the most admired at least where presidents go. Even Lincoln, who was the first president under the direct relational root of the current Republican Party was progressive and revolutionary and had the more radical faction of his party upset with a number of his "progressive" moves.

Teddy Roosevelt was the same and Eisenhower did things that would be considered liberal by some republicans today and he had to finally tell Joe McCarthy that his march was out of control and out of line. Rockefeller who was not president, but served as VP, as a governor and in other political positions, was also progressive and a moderate and well respected by people of all parties. Still, all of them always had the more radical factions of their party hounding them and criticizing them. It's not much different today except the party is represented, if not by the totally radical and farthest right, a right that is much further in that direction than it ever was up until Reagan and the 80's with the exception of G. Bush the elder who was perhaps less radical than his son or Reagan or maybe less pushed around by the more radical in the party. Bush senior was said to have lost to Clinton in part because of this (see link) http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1992_Draft_Defense_Planning_Guidance

You may be familiar with all of this already, but Bush senior's stated public policy was to be muti-lateral with regard to military intervention and actions and not go it alone so much. His action in Kuwait and Iraq served to demonstrate that as there were a fair number of Arab states in that coalition. You have noted who drafted the 1992 DGP and who ended up in Bush jr's cabinet and who was a big advocate of expanding the powers of the president.

In any event, I believe Americans and many still Republicans have seen and still see the damage and failings left behind by moves toward the radical end of the politically "conservative" pole.

As we can see there are still some holdouts who hold out for any number of reasons. Sometimes our pride won't let us face reality and same with loyalty. Vanity too, it is very hard to admit defeat or backing the unsuccesful party or the reasons they may have been or remain unsucessful.

Although the idea that Mr. Obama is somehow perfect and a deity in the eyes of anyone who may support him, that notion is mostly floated by those that oppose him. There is obviously enough evidence to show that members of his own party have been displeased with what they feel are is overextensions of compromise or being moderate and not liberal or Democratic enough.

It would be interesting to see if there is any relationship between being a moderate of any political party and historical popularity in one's era or now. Were the more radical presidents more popular or the more moderate ones? What about some sort of way to measure pragmatism in presidencies? What really would be the criteria any of us use to measure the success and thus their popularity?

Take care,
Knot

 

[trapdoor]

With regard to "the detail of the powers" The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

]

Yes. And? You're ignoring the then-current meaning of "general welfare," again.

Definition of the word "duty/duties"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/duty

Yes, and?

Further as to the "power":
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Redundancy does not equal accurate reading. The "foregoing powers" are in Article 1, Sect. 8. "All other powers" are those in the sections regarding the powers of the executive and the judiciary. There are no powers outside those three branches.

 

[KnotaFrayed]

The "then-current meaning of general welfare" is what? Please provide us with quotes that articulate your allegations and opinion.

And what? Are you the one that keeps suggesting there is no Constitutional powers regarding the "general welfare" in relation to powers or details of powers or what the defintion of duty/duties is? Are you seriously having that much trouble with reading comprehension and basic relationships? If you are, that's OK, we're not all the same, but it seems difficult to try to assert something about the Constitution that something is not there, that is, if one can't make such relationships or appear to be able to comprehend what is said, back it up or naturally want to provide every piece of evidence you could to make your case and prove your point. Instead, you haven't refuted anything or presented your case with anything but your opinion or your repeat of what others told you to believe.

With regard to other powers, who said their were? Would you say the U.S. Code is Constitutional? Would you also say it IS the Constitution? The Constitution lays out both the purpose of the three branches and specific limitations of government and of people, with regard to discrimination/civil rights. It does not detail (for very practical reasons) how Congress is to achieve providing the common defense or the general welfare. It offers direction and limitation, but it does not detail how Congress is to provide the "common defense" beyond specific provisions in some cases, general provisions in other places. It does not direct Congress as to how to all the details with regard to how to "organize" militia, it gives them the power to come up with how to. It does not detail or define specifically what the "general welfare" is, it gives them power to promote and to lay duties to provide for it, leaving what defines it, up to them.

The U.S. Code as well as the Constitution itself is malleable and not cast in concrete for very practical reasons, times change and our founders, while not perfect, had the forethought to think of things that were universal and transcendent of time and that which would the equivalent of painting the Constitution and the nation into a corner, based on eras and time periods. They even thought of a means to amend the Constitution.

Could you see any legal and moral obligation to promote the general welfare of the nation as a means to a healthy nation in all ways possible and to do what is necessary in that direction?

I find it interesting or perhaps not that surprising, that folks that seem to see no problems with promoting and doing all they can to maximize profits for themselves and investors (the general health and welfare of their companies and thus their incomes) somehow want to suggest the government should have no such goal as promoting its own general welfare and doing all its elected representatives see fit, within their powers to do so for its investors, the taxpayers.

 

[fairsheet]

I believe that I failed to put Conservatism in historical context. Conservatives opposed the revolution and supported the Monarchy and authoritarian government in 1776. Another basic tenet of their Conservatism was a belief that average people aren’t capable of governing themselves. They believed that a powerful authority should lead and others should be submissive to that authority. Their ideological leaders, Hobbes & Burke, were the leading advocates of these beliefs. Conservatism also supported Mercantilism; Conservative citizens, especially those with wealth, benefitted from the awards of land and trading rights by the Monarch under Mercantilism: that was authoritarian government and control of the economy. Decentralized government was an alien and threatening concept for them. It was Liberals, Radicals, and Revolutionaries that supported independence, a decentralized Democratic Republic, and a free market.

After the revolution, Conservatives were primarily concerned with the status quo of the existing class structure, and they supported efforts to reduce the influence of those Revolutionary warriors that fought for a new, more equal society that included opportunity for all and a Democratic republic. This was a very difficult period for Conservatives because society was in such flux. You are probably right, however, that their base of power was limited state government. Actually, they didn’t have much influence over any branch of government, having been on the losing end of things. The power that they did exercise was economic. They were not particularly concerned about the threat from big government, however, because their class controlled it.

You are mistaken as to Burke. He wrote dismissively of the French Revolution and argued in FAVOR of the American Revolution. The reason he did so, was because by the mid-18th Century, Americans had been for all practical purposes, governing themselves for almost a century.

Burke, the quintessential "conservative" did NOT argue for a return to the
British Monarchy in the contest of the colonies. Instead, he argued for the "status quo", as I say.

 

[wobblies]

You are mistaken as to Burke. He wrote dismissively of the French Revolution and argued in FAVOR of the American Revolution. The reason he did so, was because by the mid-18th Century, Americans had been for all practical purposes, governing themselves for almost a century.

Burke, the quintessential "conservative" did NOT argue for a return to the
British Monarchy in the contest of the colonies. Instead, he argued for the "status quo", as I say.

You correct about Burke; I intended to add that caveat but failed to do so. Thank you for the correction. You may also know that many American Conservatives like Russell Kirk believed that change should happen cautiously and slowly.

 

[trapdoor]

The "then-current meaning of general welfare" is what? Please provide us with quotes that articulate your allegations and opinion.

I did, above, with the citation of Madison. The "general welfare" clause is a hold-over from the Articles of Confederation where it referred to things the confederation could do for the states, generally, and not individuals specifically.

And what? Are you the one that keeps suggesting there is no Constitutional powers regarding the "general welfare" in relation to powers or details of powers or what the defintion of duty/duties is?

I'm suggesting that many government programs are aimed at the welfare of specific populations and not the general welfare -- meaning that such programs are outside the constitutional authority provided by the general welfare clause.

With regard to other powers, who said their were? Would you say the U.S. Code is Constitutional? Would you also say it IS the Constitution?

Insofar as the U.S. Code promulgates the delegated authorities, it is of course constitutional -- but you would seem to imply that any action taken by Congress and written into the U.S. code is therefore constitutional, and that simply is not the case.

The Constitution lays out both the purpose of the three branches and specific limitations of government and of people, with regard to discrimination/civil rights. It does not detail (for very practical reasons) how Congress is to achieve providing the common defense or the general welfare. It offers direction and limitation, but it does not detail how Congress is to provide the "common defense" beyond specific provisions in some cases, general provisions in other places. It does not direct Congress as to how to all the details with regard to how to "organize" militia, it gives them the power to come up with how to. It does not detail or define specifically what the "general welfare" is, it gives them power to promote and to lay duties to provide for it, leaving what defines it, up to them

No, but it assigns certain authorities and authorizes only powers necessary and proper to those authorities. As Madison wrote, "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." (Emphasis added).

The U.S. Code as well as the Constitution itself is malleable and not cast in concrete for very practical reasons, times change and our founders, while not perfect, had the forethought to think of things that were universal and transcendent of time and that which would the equivalent of painting the Constitution and the nation into a corner, based on eras and time periods. They even thought of a means to amend the Constitution.

The Constitution is malleable only in the sense that it can be amended. It cannot mean one thing today and somethign else tomorrow or it is useless for assigning the government it's authorities as it was designed to do.

Could you see any legal and moral obligation to promote the general welfare of the nation as a means to a healthy nation in all ways possible and to do what is necessary in that direction?

I see no authority for the government to provide health care (that is separate from the fact that I do not want my government to be an interlocutor between myself and my physician. I do not want health care run by those nice people that brought me the IRS, CIA and NSA.

 

[wobblies]

You are rehashing an issue that has been debated since soon after our founding but that is now settled law. Hamilton’s view prevailed over that of Madison in United States v. Butler and Helvering vs. Davis.

Hamilton wrote this in his report on manufacturing:

“A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper.”

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s21.html

Madison wrote this in Federalist Papers #41

“Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.”

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm

You might note where the Preamble (look up the definition of Preamble) of the Constitution contains these words "promote the general welfare" You might also note in your same Art.1, Sect. 8 the powers of the legislative body to lay taxes and duties and what for. Making all laws necessary for carrying into execution the foregoing powers does not describe the laws. Such wording provides the flexibility to do what is necessary to uphold the Constitution, inclusive of the "general welfare".

Tell us where there is a limitation on how to execute the power to lay taxes, duties and imposts (look up the definition of each of the words)

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

As to Amendment X, I believe it is in part an omissions cover, meaning that anything not covered in or by the Constitution goes to the states that comprise the united states as a federal republic.......the states also being the next level of divisions of government below the federal level. Below that are the various divisions of government, like counties and municipalities etc. which vary state by state and as such and being divisions under state governments, are decribed as "the people", "the people" being collective as in 'the people vs. Trapdoor'. Since the hierarchy of government divisions is federal over state and state over their varyng smaller divisions, "the people" is used to me collective of those under state government or descending levels of division. What is not covered by the federal government, falls to the state and what is not covered under state government falls to divisions under them.
You can read more here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt10_user.html#amdt10_hd7

A universal health care law would seem to fit under "the general welfare" and the power to lay uniform duties to provide for the general welfare seems to be in place in the Constitution.

You also appeared to have left off a portion of the whole clause your "emphasis" was placed on, that being ...."and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Funny that some people seem to have a knack for leaving out parts of Constitutional clauses that don't seem to work well with or get in the way of what they are trying to assert.

 

[trapdoor]

You are rehashing an issue that has been debated since soon after our founding but that is now settled law. Hamilton’s view prevailed over that of Madison in United States v. Butler and Helvering vs. Davis.

Here on this forum I am regularly required to rehash the decisions in Heller v. District Columbia and in Citizens United. I'm told these were "bad" decisions and that "they were only 5-4 decisions." Well, the same is true of U.S. v Butler and Helvering v. Davis and Wickard v. Filburn. All were bad decisions decided on a 5-4 margin.

Hamilton wrote this in his report on manufacturing:
These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare."

The trouble with this quote is that it (and I'm referring to the entire quote, I only pulled it apart to save space), is that it reflect Hamilton's view only after Hamilton was a ranking government official. Before he was in office, when he was trying to get the Constitution ratified, he said there was no need for a Bill of Rights preventing government interference with freedom of the press, etc., because there was no need to ban the government from exercising powers it had not been delegated. It was certainly possible to gin-up opposition to the press sufficient to convince Congress that restricting the press would benefit the general welfare -- the same Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Act attempting to do just that. The broad reading of the general welfare clause espoused by Hamiltion here would seem to make unnecessary the rest of the Constitution -- Congress can decide for itself that something benefits the general welfare, pass a law in support of said benefit, and declare for itself that it was behaving constitutionally in so doing.

Madison wrote this in Federalist Papers #41

“Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

And you are ignoring that in making this statement, Madison is as I quoted him above, assuming that the "general welfare" consists of matters to the collection of states, not the general welfare of various populations within the states such as the elderly, the indigent and those unable to afford health insurance. Each of those population is a subset of the whole, and anything that benefits only the subset, and not the whole, is not a provision of "general" welfare.[/quote]

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Who were they and what did they want?

They undoubtedly were a bunch of racists who hate women, homosexuals, and poor people...

LOL

 

[KnotaFrayed]

North America was not officially governing it self for 50 years prior to its independence otherwise independence would have no meaning, thus the "Status quo" would have been to remain as is, regardless of some semblence "self-rule" that was not official, was to remain under official status as a part of the Kingdom. The Boston Tea Party was not protesting America's self-governance and the Tea Party took place in 1773.

Madison wrote a lot of things and contradicted himself in some, but if you read a lot of what he said, rather than snippets, one gets a better picture of where he was coming from and that some of what he says, is like what many others say is in discussion and weighing of both sides of issues and concerns in the effort to come up with what became the final draft of the Constitution. In many ways, in their discussions and debates, they were essentially saying, 'on one hand you have these things to consider and they must be weighed against all these things in the other hand. They came to their conclusions which was a compromise of the issues debated. Unlike much of what we see now, they had to decide to fish ot cut bait, stay a part of the KofGB or become their own nation with distinct differences in government and the role of "the people". Instead of sticking with the ways of the monarchy they chose to become independent. Conseravatives of the day who benefitted from the British governence did not want to see any changes that would take away from any advantage they gained from British, rather than independent/new, governance.

The Constitution does not tell Congress how to achieve the charges/purposes the Constitution lays out for them. It lays out parameters, but it does not get into details which would paint Congress into a corner and render it stuck. It says Congress must provide, promote...etc. A,B,C,D...........I says Congress and other branches are free to come up with how to do all of the former, but here are some limitations. (things they and others cannot do, things they can.) . If someone says you must promote the general welfare, you decide how to do that, (because it changes in different eras and under different circumstances), but here's what you can and cannot do. It's like there is no one sitting in the back seat of your car watching over and directing every little detail of what you can or cannot do, but society and their government of the people, by the people and for the people can pass laws, based on what is in the interest of the general (not specific individual or group) welfare which might mean you need a valid driver's license, to register your vehicle etc. (those are on the state level, but there are federal transportation regulations) . As some may have noted, we now drive vehicles rather than ride horses. If the Constitution was all about rules specific to a specific era in time and not about generalities for most things specifics or "inalienable" type things, whether they are or needed to be (women/slavery/etc.). The founders were looking for balance. How do you provide the most freedom for people without anarchy and provide government without taking away too much freedom. They recognized a need for government and why (read my signature, by Madison at the bottom of my posts). They wanted a malleable government that wasn't so mallebale it had no structure or strength, but one they thought was the best balance between "might makes right" anarchy and dictaorial rule or rule by specific interest groups who would use wealth or military strength to keep themselves in power. Their answer was a system whereby "the people" decide at minimum who will represent them, thus what their government is, is what they chose and the only way to decide that best is to say the most people who want something get the preference, EXCEPT as specifically provided, also in the Constitution.

Their fear was that without caveats to freedoms, there would be domination, not freedom, of some groups over others. They wanted a means to tear down those walls and give "the people" power, but a means to shift power back and forth as society changed and saw fit and a means for society to change power if they saw fit, but not by means like wealth, religion and later race and gender and now, gender preference.

The irony is, that the design of our government was to create a means by which a greater portion of "the people" gain power, otherwise the less wealthy and minorities would be constantly suppressed and oppressed by those who used their wealth or laws based on superfucial prejudices to retain perpetual power.

While government should never be thought of as sacred and uncorruptable, it should also be recognized that those who want to corrupt it will use the usual means by which our founders wanted to prevent. There is no doubt in their mind about the corrupting powers of wealth or the basis of wealth. At the same time, they, like most people currently, did not hate wealth, many of the founders were some of the wealthiest in America, they just wanted to provide a means for the people who were not wealthy to not be oppressed or suppresses by those that were. The best way for that to happen is let the people choose who will make their laws and provide them with a means to redress any of their choices, but through a system of doing so and one that requires something more than not liking who was elected because they're of an opposing political party.

 

[wobblies]

Point taken about settled law. Regarding the quotes, the Federalist Papers seem to be written to convince people of the need for approving the constitution. Hamilton's reports seem to be his agenda for economic development and not rhetoric. I had the distinct impression that Hamilton was leading Washington on the issue. Do you disagree?

Here on this forum I am regularly required to rehash the decisions in Heller v. District Columbia and in Citizens United. I'm told these were "bad" decisions and that "they were only 5-4 decisions." Well, the same is true of U.S. v Butler and Helvering v. Davis and Wickard v. Filburn. All were bad decisions decided on a 5-4 margin.




The trouble with this quote is that it (and I'm referring to the entire quote, I only pulled it apart to save space), is that it reflect Hamilton's view only after Hamilton was a ranking government official. Before he was in office, when he was trying to get the Constitution ratified, he said there was no need for a Bill of Rights preventing government interference with freedom of the press, etc., because there was no need to ban the government from exercising powers it had not been delegated. It was certainly possible to gin-up opposition to the press sufficient to convince Congress that restricting the press would benefit the general welfare -- the same Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Act attempting to do just that. The broad reading of the general welfare clause espoused by Hamiltion here would seem to make unnecessary the rest of the Constitution -- Congress can decide for itself that something benefits the general welfare, pass a law in support of said benefit, and declare for itself that it was behaving constitutionally in so doing.





And you are ignoring that in making this statement, Madison is as I quoted him above, assuming that the "general welfare" consists of matters to the collection of states, not the general welfare of various populations within the states such as the elderly, the indigent and those unable to afford health insurance. Each of those population is a subset of the whole, and anything that benefits only the subset, and not the whole, is not a provision of "general" welfare.

[/quote]

 

[wobblies]

Would you clarify your comment on the 2nd and 10th? Thank you.

How Madison may've circumscribed "general welfare" back in the day, is largely irellevant. He specifically gave us the broadest of broad terms - "general welfare". If I had written it, I may've gone with something like, "all things good". And in giving us that all-purpose phrase, he left it up to US to define general welfare for ourselves.

As an aside, advocates for the 2nd Amendent make their case the exact opposite of the way 10th-ers do. So, it's odd that so many of these advocates are one and the same.

 

[fairsheet]

Would you clarify your comment on the 2nd and 10th? Thank you.

In terms of the 10th, they tend to suggest that the only thing we should consider, is what was in the heads of the founders at the time of our founding. But in terms of the 2nd, they insist that we have a "right" to modern weapons.

 

[wobblies]

I have only known about him from the description of others who described his work, but you have piqued my interest. I am struggling to define Moderation in our age and find him to be of the Greek mold on the subject. Do you agree?

Thank you wobblies, I appreciate your too kind words. I think most of our founders found lots of influence for the design of our government and their philosophies behind it in a Frenchman and Aristocrat himself....Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu

I'm not sure how many people are familiar with him and his influence on our founders or what his philosophies were. He spoke a lot to the importance of virtue and the comparisons of different forms of government or rule. He also was a wary of too much "equality" as too little, advocating in many ways moderation without becoming a mediocre state or society. All appeared to recognize, speak to and offer solutions to the downsides of aristocracies and fears about their designs for government to become avenues for aristocrats to suppress others with their wealth by using it to purchase power. The idea of multiple chambers of legislative bodies was to dilute and divide a means for the wealthy to completely dominate. It is interesting to read their views on the subject for several reasons, one because of their own backgrounds and positons and two, the way they somewhat gently pose their fears of people of their own status using their wealth to buy themselves power and a means to suppress those without wealth and any reasonable power or rights they should legitimately have.

The current subject and divisiveness caused by disparity of wealth and the widening income gap in this nation is not a new concern, just a rehashed one with some examples of the very things our founders feared with regard to the connections between wealth, power, influence and suppression of the many, by the few.

I would venture if we saw, what the WWII and post WWII type economic expansion which differed than the pre-depression era which also had great wealth/poor disparity and was more inclusive in opportunities for all, especially GI's coming home from war, we'd see a lot less devisiveness and less concern about the "size" of government or it's intrusion. It seems we hear a lot of it now from those who profit greatly by firing Americans and giving their jobs to people they'll pay a lot less so the few here can have a lot more. It's kind of like getting a blood transfusion from yourself with a leak in the IV tube. The transfusion makes you feel good, but the leak is meaning you're essentially bleeding at the same time.

While the few might be making more in the short term from paying less for labor, if you've put Americans out of work and are paying their replacements less, you're bleeding off consumers because employees are not just expenses. People with less money buy less, not more and if it is only a few that the labor savings go to, they aren't going to make the quantity of purchases needed to support businessess that need those quantity of sales just to maintain, much less grow.

With regard to wealth there are plenty of wealthy people who are as aware as the founders of their potential to buy influence and power and suppression of others and instead of following that path, they go out of their way to lessen income disparity and instead of lavishing themselves with their wealth and using their wealth to buy power, influence and suppression of the many so they (the few) can have more, do all they can to help the many out.

The more virtuous we are as a society, the less government we'll need. There have been eras in this nation where the general demeanor was more about fair and square deals than making "killings" off the many to become one of the few fat cats that like to think of greed, gluttony and vanity as human virtues, not the opposite. As mentioned, there are wealthy people who seem to believe human virtues are human virtues and they are not only grateful for their good fortune, but use it to help others instead of lavish it upon themselves and complain about giving up more to improve the condition of their own nation, especially the debt some keep whining about after supporting the deficit spending that caused the debt and the tax cuts that meant less revenue to cover the bills.

Have a great evening. Very best, Knot