Alright Constitutional Scholars...

[Sofiyya 1,687]

This thread was started because I challenged Bat Guano's reasoning re the issue of "general welfare" in the context of the US Constitution on another thread.

What was the issue regarding General Welfare in the context of the US Constitution?

Check it out here and here.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Barza Woman

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This thread was started because I challenged Bat Guano's reasoning re the issue of "general welfare" in the context of the US Constitution on another thread.

What was the issue regarding General Welfare in the context of the US Constitution?

Check it out here and here.

Article 1 § 8 of the Constitution: (Supreme Court Ruling from United States v. Butler)

After comparing expansive vs. restrictive interpretations of the Spending Clause, the Court adopted the philosophy that:

The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and

Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

… It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Butler

Edited May 25, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[scandal 951]

What was the issue regarding General Welfare in the context of the US Constitution?

Pete,

You may want to have a look at http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2952607 here in this thread.

Also, on other recent threads that dealt with Constitutional matters, you may want to look at http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=196150

And who can forget this great debate http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=196625 ?

And in particular, it got very Constitutional right around here: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2924376

that discussion then spilled over into this thread http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2927765

where the General Welfare clause came up quite specifically with regard to the legality of SSA.

I'm curious to know your views. From the Thailand/Sawasee threads I know you as a reasonable and well-thought person, so I look forward to your thoughts on domestic matters here in this country.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

This thread was started because I challenged Bat Guano's reasoning re the issue of "general welfare" in the context of the US Constitution on another thread.

What was the issue regarding General Welfare in the context of the US Constitution?

Check it out here and here.

Article 1 § 8 of the Constitution: (Supreme Court Ruling from United States v. Butler)

After comparing expansive vs. restrictive interpretations of the Spending Clause, the Court adopted the philosophy that:

The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and

Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

… It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Butler

Explain that ruling for us, Steven, coz I can tell that you still don't know what that means to your argument, or that it provides only a snippet of the ruling and the rationale behind it.

[Heracles 417]

If you guys didn't want to discuss the Constitution, why didn't you start another thread?

Well it is being discussed but not in the manner preferred by some. For myself, ambiguity and its incorrect context is the issue. For others it clearly is about determining what it does or does not mean. Whether a period here means one thing or a comma there means something else. The biggest ambiguity is the separation of church and state.

But anyway, why not just put the Constitution into a referendum? This way people can list the various definitions of the amendments and then have the citizens of the United States of America vote on what they believe is correct. Or do you guys just not do that sort of thing on a federal level here. Voting on laws is a fundamental aspect of a democracy.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Constellation

[Sofiyya 1,687]

What was the issue regarding General Welfare in the context of the US Constitution?

Pete,

You may want to have a look at http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2952607 here in this thread.

Also, on other recent threads that dealt with Constitutional matters, you may want to look at http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=196150

And who can forget this great debate http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=196625 ?

And in particular, it got very Constitutional right around here: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2924376

that discussion then spilled over into this thread http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2927765

where the General Welfare clause came up quite specifically with regard to the legality of SSA.

I'm curious to know your views. From the Thailand/Sawasee threads I know you as a reasonable and well-thought person, so I look forward to your thoughts on domestic matters here in this country.

What I get from that is that Pete should wait for GaryC to come by

If you guys didn't want to discuss the Constitution, why didn't you start another thread?

Well it is being discussed but not in the manner preferred by some. For myself, ambiguity and its incorrect context is the issue. For others it clearly is about determining what it does or does not mean. Whether a period here means one thing or a comma here means something else. The biggest ambiguity is the separation of church and state.

But anyway, why not just put the Constitution into a referendum? This way people can list the various definitions of the amendments and then have the citizens of the United States of America vote on what they believe is correct. Or do you guys just no do that sort of thing on a federal level here.

The direction of the topic you were discussing goes toward comparative government. That's a solid topic, but different from this one.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Article 1 § 8 of the Constitution: (Supreme Court Ruling from United States v. Butler)

After comparing expansive vs. restrictive interpretations of the Spending Clause, the Court adopted the philosophy that:

The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and

Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

… It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Butler

Explain that ruling for us, Steven, coz I can tell that you still don't know what that means to your argument, or that it provides only a snippet of the ruling and the rationale behind it.

The highlighted in red part above, BW - makes it reasonably clear that such programs like the SSA and Medicare are well within the powers of Congress to legislate.

IMO (and I'm not pretending to be a constitutional scholar), the only reasonable way to measure the limit of the Federal Government is that the Legislative Branch cannot legislate in ways that conflict with the other parts of the Constitution. Any concept of limited government beyond that is ambiguous and impossible to clearly define as which types of legislation are over-reaching and which ones are not. That would be my conclusion, sweetheart, but I know that I'm only a peon compared to your vast knowledge and you will shoot me down the way Cheney shot that quail. But please, I wait with baited breath for your scorn.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[Heracles 417]

The direction of the topic you were discussing goes toward comparative government. That's a solid topic, but different from this one.

Yep you're right.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Article 1 § 8 of the Constitution: (Supreme Court Ruling from United States v. Butler)

After comparing expansive vs. restrictive interpretations of the Spending Clause, the Court adopted the philosophy that:

The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and

Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

… It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Butler

Explain that ruling for us, Steven, coz I can tell that you still don't know what that means to your argument, or that it provides only a snippet of the ruling and the rationale behind it.

The highlighted in red part above, BW - makes it reasonably clear that such programs like the SSA and Medicare are well within the powers of Congress to legislate.

IMO (and I'm not pretending to be a constitutional scholar), the only reasonable way to measure the limit of the Federal Government is that the Legislative Branch cannot legislate in ways that conflict with the other parts of the Constitution. Any concept of limited government beyond that is ambiguous and impossible to clearly define as which types of legislation are over-reaching and which ones are not. That would be my conclusion, sweetheart, but I know that I'm only a peon compared to your vast knowledge and you will shoot me down the way Cheney shot that quail. But please, I wait with baited breath for your scorn.

No scorn involved, just a desire to keep the record straight. The red part doesn't make it clear that SSA and Medicare are within Congressional purview. Butler addressed a question between states rights and limitations of federal tax authority, ruling against a federal tax on agricultural production because of the intent of the tax. Your original assertion was that the feds, by instituting universal health care, had the power to do so because the general welfare clause grants the feds a responsibility to the individual. Butler in no way establishes that.

Brief summary:

United States v. Butler, U.S. Supreme Court decision that was handed down in 1936 and concerned a New Deal policy of using federal taxing powers to regulate the economy. The challenge was brought against the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), which taxed food processing to pay for farm subsidies, thereby discouraging the planting of certain crops. The Supreme Court ruled the AAA invalid on the grounds that it taxed with the purpose of regulating agricultural production.

I know you will keep trying, and that's a good thing. May you learn as you do.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Article 1 § 8 of the Constitution: (Supreme Court Ruling from United States v. Butler)

After comparing expansive vs. restrictive interpretations of the Spending Clause, the Court adopted the philosophy that:

The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and

Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

… It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Butler

Explain that ruling for us, Steven, coz I can tell that you still don't know what that means to your argument, or that it provides only a snippet of the ruling and the rationale behind it.

The highlighted in red part above, BW - makes it reasonably clear that such programs like the SSA and Medicare are well within the powers of Congress to legislate.

IMO (and I'm not pretending to be a constitutional scholar), the only reasonable way to measure the limit of the Federal Government is that the Legislative Branch cannot legislate in ways that conflict with the other parts of the Constitution. Any concept of limited government beyond that is ambiguous and impossible to clearly define as which types of legislation are over-reaching and which ones are not. That would be my conclusion, sweetheart, but I know that I'm only a peon compared to your vast knowledge and you will shoot me down the way Cheney shot that quail. But please, I wait with baited breath for your scorn.

No scorn involved, just a desire to keep the record straight. The red part doesn't make it clear that SSA and Medicare are within Congressional purview. Butler addressed a question between states rights and limitations of federal tax authority, ruling against a federal tax on agricultural production because of the intent of the tax. Your original assertion was that the feds, by instituting universal health care, had the power to do so because the general welfare clause grants the feds a responsibility to the individual. Butler in no way establishes that.

Brief summary:

United States v. Butler, U.S. Supreme Court decision that was handed down in 1936 and concerned a New Deal policy of using federal taxing powers to regulate the economy. The challenge was brought against the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), which taxed food processing to pay for farm subsidies, thereby discouraging the planting of certain crops. The Supreme Court ruled the AAA invalid on the grounds that it taxed with the purpose of regulating agricultural production.

I know you will keep trying, and that's a good thing. May you learn as you do.

BW, correct me if I'm wrong - but basically, your argument is that any act by Congress that involves insuring Americans would be unconstitutional, yes?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Article 1 § 8 of the Constitution: (Supreme Court Ruling from United States v. Butler)

After comparing expansive vs. restrictive interpretations of the Spending Clause, the Court adopted the philosophy that:

The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and

Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

… It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Butler

Explain that ruling for us, Steven, coz I can tell that you still don't know what that means to your argument, or that it provides only a snippet of the ruling and the rationale behind it.

The highlighted in red part above, BW - makes it reasonably clear that such programs like the SSA and Medicare are well within the powers of Congress to legislate.

IMO (and I'm not pretending to be a constitutional scholar), the only reasonable way to measure the limit of the Federal Government is that the Legislative Branch cannot legislate in ways that conflict with the other parts of the Constitution. Any concept of limited government beyond that is ambiguous and impossible to clearly define as which types of legislation are over-reaching and which ones are not. That would be my conclusion, sweetheart, but I know that I'm only a peon compared to your vast knowledge and you will shoot me down the way Cheney shot that quail. But please, I wait with baited breath for your scorn.

No scorn involved, just a desire to keep the record straight. The red part doesn't make it clear that SSA and Medicare are within Congressional purview. Butler addressed a question between states rights and limitations of federal tax authority, ruling against a federal tax on agricultural production because of the intent of the tax. Your original assertion was that the feds, by instituting universal health care, had the power to do so because the general welfare clause grants the feds a responsibility to the individual. Butler in no way establishes that.

Brief summary:

United States v. Butler, U.S. Supreme Court decision that was handed down in 1936 and concerned a New Deal policy of using federal taxing powers to regulate the economy. The challenge was brought against the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), which taxed food processing to pay for farm subsidies, thereby discouraging the planting of certain crops. The Supreme Court ruled the AAA invalid on the grounds that it taxed with the purpose of regulating agricultural production.

I know you will keep trying, and that's a good thing. May you learn as you do.

BW, correct me if I'm wrong - but basically, your argument is that any act by Congress that involves insuring Americans would be unconstitutional, yes?

Primarily, it depends on how it would be done. I would have said that the transfer of private property for the purpose of turning it over to private businesses in order to generate higher tax revnue for the governmental venue was unconstitutional, but the Supremes didn't think so. What I think I can enjoy sharing with others, but it makes no difference to the Court.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Let me ask you this, Steven. If universal health care was implemented, which part of the private sector would benefit, and would they benefit by virtue of cronyism? If so, would that be ok with you? One has to understand that in politics, as in advertising, a need is created, a solution sold, in order to benefit someone financially. Follow the money is always the first thing to do.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Barza Woman