These maroons don't have a clue. It's a last gasp to pull put a win. It's the death of the Democrat party. It'll split now that so many have embraced socialism which doesn't fit under the constitution.
Someone hasn't read the general welfare clause.
Someone thinks if they let their ignorance and stupidity marinate for a few months after the last time you trotted out this bullshit it will somehow make it better.
This makes about the 3rd time I've seen you spout this idiocy Hondo. For over 150 years of our history the "general welfare" clause was never interpreted as providing "welfare" and assistance to individuals. It was always seen as something like building a road or maintaining a harbor or building a canal. Something that didn't help a single individual but promoted the "general welfare" of everyone. Because you're a fucking moron you believe that because they used the word "welfare" they were talking about Food Stamps.
They had healthcare and doctors at the time when the Constitution was written Hondo, if they intended for the Federal government to pay for peoples medical care why didn't they say so and why did it take over 150 years before the government ever did so if the "general welfare" clause already established that right?
Paying for grandma's hip replacement is a great deal for grandma but it does nothing for the "general welfare" of the country.
Historical debate and pre-1936 rulings Edit In one letter, Thomas Jefferson asserted that “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”[14][15]
In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall described in an obiter dictum a further view on the limits on the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."[16]
The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."
The two primary authors of The Federalist essays set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:[Note 1]
James Madison explained his "narrow" construction of the clause in Federalist No. 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." Madison also advocated for the ratification of the Constitution at the Virginia ratifying convention with this narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[17][18]
Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified,[19] argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[20] This debate surfaced in Congress in 1790, when Madison strongly criticized Hamilton's Report on Manufacturing and industry on the grounds that Hamilton was construing his broad interpretation of the clause as a legal basis for his extensive economic programs.[21]
While Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, historians argue that his view of the General Welfare Clause was repudiated in the election of 1800, and helped establish the primacy of the Democratic-Republican Party for the subsequent 24 years.[22]
These maroons don't have a clue. It's a last gasp to pull put a win. It's the death of the Democrat party. It'll split now that so many have embraced socialism which doesn't fit under the constitution.
Someone hasn't read the general welfare clause.
Someone thinks if they let their ignorance and stupidity marinate for a few months after the last time you trotted out this bullshit it will somehow make it better.
This makes about the 3rd time I've seen you spout this idiocy Hondo. For over 150 years of our history the "general welfare" clause was never interpreted as providing "welfare" and assistance to individuals. It was always seen as something like building a road or maintaining a harbor or building a canal. Something that didn't help a single individual but promoted the "general welfare" of everyone. Because you're a fucking moron you believe that because they used the word "welfare" they were talking about Food Stamps.
They had healthcare and doctors at the time when the Constitution was written Hondo, if they intended for the Federal government to pay for peoples medical care why didn't they say so and why did it take over 150 years before the government ever did so if the "general welfare" clause already established that right?
Paying for grandma's hip replacement is a great deal for grandma but it does nothing for the "general welfare" of the country.
Historical debate and pre-1936 rulings Edit In one letter, Thomas Jefferson asserted that “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”[14][15]
In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall described in an obiter dictum a further view on the limits on the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."[16]
The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."
The two primary authors of The Federalist essays set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:[Note 1]
James Madison explained his "narrow" construction of the clause in Federalist No. 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." Madison also advocated for the ratification of the Constitution at the Virginia ratifying convention with this narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[17][18]
Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified,[19] argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[20] This debate surfaced in Congress in 1790, when Madison strongly criticized Hamilton's Report on Manufacturing and industry on the grounds that Hamilton was construing his broad interpretation of the clause as a legal basis for his extensive economic programs.[21]
While Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, historians argue that his view of the General Welfare Clause was repudiated in the election of 1800, and helped establish the primacy of the Democratic-Republican Party for the subsequent 24 years.[22]
Translation: I'm dumb as dog shit so let me cut and paste something that actually supports what you said but because I'm a fucking moron who didn't read this I feel it supports my stupidity.
These maroons don't have a clue. It's a last gasp to pull put a win. It's the death of the Democrat party. It'll split now that so many have embraced socialism which doesn't fit under the constitution.
Someone hasn't read the general welfare clause.
Be easy on sled. He’s never read the constitution and he’s too dumb to understand it.
Shocking you got this dumbfuck to go along with you Hondo.
Lou Dobbs!!!
So do you agree with sled that a national healthcare system is somehow unconstitutional?
There is little Constitutional basis for almost all welfare spending and the "general welfare" clause didn't establish a Constitutional basis for Federal spending that assists an individual.
There's a reason why it took 150 years before that type of spending was ever allowed by the courts.
Paying for grandma's hip replacement doesn't promote any "general welfare" for the country.
Hondo was taking a selfie in the mirror in his Mom's basement when he wrote this. Food stamps for drunks to buy frozen pizza at the 7-11 is right there in the Constitution. But Hondo feels that my right for free speech and to bear arms isn't.
These maroons don't have a clue. It's a last gasp to pull put a win. It's the death of the Democrat party. It'll split now that so many have embraced socialism which doesn't fit under the constitution.
Someone hasn't read the general welfare clause.
Be easy on sled. He’s never read the constitution and he’s too dumb to understand it.
Shocking you got this dumbfuck to go along with you Hondo.
Lou Dobbs!!!
So do you agree with sled that a national healthcare system is somehow unconstitutional?
There is little Constitutional basis for almost all welfare spending and the "general welfare" clause didn't establish a Constitutional basis for Federal spending that assists an individual.
There's a reason why it took 150 years before that type of spending was ever allowed by the courts.
Paying for grandma's hip replacement doesn't promote any "general welfare" for the country.
I don’t think the general welfare clause mandates a national healthcare system I’m just saying that such a system isn’t unconstitutional which is what sled was saying.
These maroons don't have a clue. It's a last gasp to pull put a win. It's the death of the Democrat party. It'll split now that so many have embraced socialism which doesn't fit under the constitution.
Someone hasn't read the general welfare clause.
Be easy on sled. He’s never read the constitution and he’s too dumb to understand it.
Shocking you got this dumbfuck to go along with you Hondo.
Lou Dobbs!!!
So do you agree with sled that a national healthcare system is somehow unconstitutional?
There is little Constitutional basis for almost all welfare spending and the "general welfare" clause didn't establish a Constitutional basis for Federal spending that assists an individual.
There's a reason why it took 150 years before that type of spending was ever allowed by the courts.
Paying for grandma's hip replacement doesn't promote any "general welfare" for the country.
I don’t think the general welfare clause mandates a national healthcare system I’m just saying that such a system isn’t unconstitutional which is what sled was saying.
These maroons don't have a clue. It's a last gasp to pull put a win. It's the death of the Democrat party. It'll split now that so many have embraced socialism which doesn't fit under the constitution.
Someone hasn't read the general welfare clause.
Someone thinks if they let their ignorance and stupidity marinate for a few months after the last time you trotted out this bullshit it will somehow make it better.
This makes about the 3rd time I've seen you spout this idiocy Hondo. For over 150 years of our history the "general welfare" clause was never interpreted as providing "welfare" and assistance to individuals. It was always seen as something like building a road or maintaining a harbor or building a canal. Something that didn't help a single individual but promoted the "general welfare" of everyone. Because you're a fucking moron you believe that because they used the word "welfare" they were talking about Food Stamps.
They had healthcare and doctors at the time when the Constitution was written Hondo, if they intended for the Federal government to pay for peoples medical care why didn't they say so and why did it take over 150 years before the government ever did so if the "general welfare" clause already established that right?
Paying for grandma's hip replacement is a great deal for grandma but it does nothing for the "general welfare" of the country.
They have to stop reading the constitution with red tinted glasses.
These maroons don't have a clue. It's a last gasp to pull put a win. It's the death of the Democrat party. It'll split now that so many have embraced socialism which doesn't fit under the constitution.
Someone hasn't read the general welfare clause.
Be easy on sled. He’s never read the constitution and he’s too dumb to understand it.
Shocking you got this dumbfuck to go along with you Hondo.
Lou Dobbs!!!
So do you agree with sled that a national healthcare system is somehow unconstitutional?
Notice how Hondo has nothing on this topic other than his cut and paste response that doesn't even support his position.
Read the founders comments. If you don't think health Care could be included in the term "general welfare" as prescribed by the founders comments, that I linked, then you are dumber than I thought.
Notice how Hondo has nothing on this topic other than his cut and paste response that doesn't even support his position.
Read the founders comments. If you don't think health Care could be included in the term "general welfare" as prescribed by the founders comments, that I linked, then you are dumber than I thought.
Yeah, read what's not there and what directly contradicts the absolute bullshit I was a claiming, fuck you Hondo.
Notice how Hondo has nothing on this topic other than his cut and paste response that doesn't even support his position.
Read the founders comments. If you don't think health Care could be included in the term "general welfare" as prescribed by the founders comments, that I linked, then you are dumber than I thought.
Notice how Hondo has nothing on this topic other than his cut and paste response that doesn't even support his position.
Read the founders comments. If you don't think health Care could be included in the term "general welfare" as prescribed by the founders comments, that I linked, then you are dumber than I thought.
Notice how Hondo has nothing on this topic other than his cut and paste response that doesn't even support his position.
Read the founders comments. If you don't think health Care could be included in the term "general welfare" as prescribed by the founders comments, that I linked, then you are dumber than I thought.
Notice how Hondo has nothing on this topic other than his cut and paste response that doesn't even support his position.
Read the founders comments. If you don't think health Care could be included in the term "general welfare" as prescribed by the founders comments, that I linked, then you are dumber than I thought.
Go ahead dumbfuck, quote the part that supports paying for an individual's healthcare. Tell us how paying for Grandma's hip replacement provided for the "General Welfare" of everyone. There's nothing in what you cut and pasted that supports your fucking stupidity.
Comments
In one letter, Thomas Jefferson asserted that “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”[14][15]
In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall described in an obiter dictum a further view on the limits on the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."[16]
The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."
The two primary authors of The Federalist essays set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:[Note 1]
James Madison explained his "narrow" construction of the clause in Federalist No. 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."
Madison also advocated for the ratification of the Constitution at the Virginia ratifying convention with this narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[17][18]
Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified,[19] argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[20]
This debate surfaced in Congress in 1790, when Madison strongly criticized Hamilton's Report on Manufacturing and industry on the grounds that Hamilton was construing his broad interpretation of the clause as a legal basis for his extensive economic programs.[21]
While Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, historians argue that his view of the General Welfare Clause was repudiated in the election of 1800, and helped establish the primacy of the Democratic-Republican Party for the subsequent 24 years.[22]
There's a reason why it took 150 years before that type of spending was ever allowed by the courts.
Paying for grandma's hip replacement doesn't promote any "general welfare" for the country.