Article 1, Section 8 - Question for Conservatives

I have read several good posts on this but one aspect seems to be missing. In that let is return to exactly what the authors of the Constitution stated as well as understanding what the Constitution created.

The authors of the Constitution were very articulate individuals in what they wrote and each word or phrase has significant meaning. In Article I Section 8 it establishes that Congress is to provide for the general Welfare of the United States. The United States are not the People of the United States. Had the authors intended for the Congress to provide for the general Welfare of the People they would have said so.

As has been previously noted Article I Section 8 goes on to specifically enumerate those roles and responsiblities of Congress that are required both for providing the "common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" by specifically listing each one. The "progressive" argument that providing for the general Welfare of the People was unnecesary makes no sense because it would be stupid to create a list if it was unnecesary to do so.

Additionally, while some think otherwise, the federal government is not a government of the People. The authors of the US Constitution took poetic liberty when they opened the Preamble with the words, "We the People of the United States" because the Constitution was never a document of the People. There was never a popular vote to accept it nor can the People change or modify the US Constitution. This power ultimately rests with the States as only the States can ratify a Constitutional Amendment. The reality is that the Federal government is and has always been a contract between the states for a subordinate federal government. Even today, dispite many false beliefs, the States still hold supremacy over the Federal government based upon the Constitution. Article V of the Constitution allows the States to call for a Constitutional Convention at any time and at such a convention, with the concurrance of 3/4ths of the State, the entire United States government could be abolished. Those that control the very existance of an entity, like the federal government, are ultimately in control of that entity.

 

You are welcome to provide an actual rebuttal instead of resorting to fallacy by not arguing the subject under discussion.

 

Ameliorating poverty in our republic can be considered providing for the general welfare of the United States. It is definitely a promotion of the general welfare to actually solve poverty rather than merely pay for a War on Poverty for around a generation.

I also subscribe to the concept that ratification by the several States of our federal Constitution, constituted a quorum of the People and those citizens in those several States, for it to be binding as a "national" Constitution under our republican form of Government.

 

The word welfare was cherry picked from a document and used out of context to support a purposely incorrect premise whose only function was to exaggerate and distort.


You claim it, now prove that the writers of the document used that one word with the intent to give free things to people who didn't work.

 

We must first agree that the general welfare cannot also mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; and, that the common defense cannot mean the common offense. Do you agree with me on that?

 

Nonsense and doubletalk. You aren't fooling anyone.

 

Madison already covered that aspect of the federal doctrine:

 

Why are alleged conservatives so disingenuous to their republican Cause?

 

Your own source debunks your own (weak) premise.

 

Well, they aren't justifying it; they're doing what they want. Our only option is to PUSH radical, anti-middle-class politicians to the margins. That is our best option.

 

You are the one who claims I am misapplying terms. We must first agree that the general welfare cannot also mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; and, that the common defense cannot mean the common offense. Do you agree with me on that? If you don't have a rational argument, just say so and we can stop arguing and merely discuss the topic at hand.

 

In my opinion, a confusion may arise when people mistake a warfare-state for a welfare-state. Only one can provide for the general welfare since the other must make the hellish conditions of warfare on Earth true, for it to exist.

 

Article I, section 8 lists congress' powers. There are not many.

The first enumerated power is the power to tax. Please read the sentence. It says: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Congress has the power to tax in order to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the states.

This merely grants congress the power to tax. It does not say congress may do anything it please to provide for the general welfare, but it may only lay taxes for that purpose. All taxes must be used for the common defense or general welfare of the states.

Other specific powers are listed below. They are not examples, but real powers.

This list represents the totality of congress' powers.

 

I said what I meant.You're typing nonsense and doubletalk...and your own source proves you're wrong about cherry picking one word out of the entire constitution and purposely distorting it.

You can run around and around in circles by yourself. You aren't fooling anyone.

 

Here is what is delegated to our federal Congress:

Our federal Congress is only delegated the power to Tax, to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

Non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies. Why not get a rational argument instead?

In my opinion, a confusion may arise when people mistake a warfare-state for a welfare-state. Only one can provide for the general welfare since the other must make the hellish conditions of warfare on Earth true, for it to exist.

 

Correct it is granted the power to tax, but only in order to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the states.

Taxation is the power granted. But it is a limited power. They may not tax for any purpose. They may only tax to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the states in the union.

The power to tax, and a restriction on that power. No other power is granted in that clause.

 

I am of the liberal position that solving poverty is a promotion of the general welfare and market friendly means should be both necessary and proper to actually provide for such a social safety net that provides for the general prosperity and general welfare of our republic.

 

Full employment of resources in the market for labor could solve a simple form of poverty by providing the market based metric of a form of minimum wage that simply pays potential market participants to pursue opportunity costs, other than directly compete in the market for labor, especially during less favorable market conditions.

 

Not if the funds are given to the People. There is a remote argument, for example, that Medicaid is Constitutional because it's adminstered by the State government and not the federal government. Direct payments to the People do not provide for the welfare of the States but do provide for the welfare of the People.

This still ignores that the specific roles and responsibilities to provide for the "common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" are expressly itemized. It's the "grocery list" of what Congress is responsible for. If the list is unimportant then there is no logical reason for a list at all. The authors would not have included an itemized list if they didn't intend for Congress to be limited by it.

Ignoring history completely is not a very valid argument. The initial ratification of the Constitution was by State Consititution conventions were the delegates were selected by the State government, not the people. Ratification of all subsequent Amendments are by the State legislature, not the people. Even joining the United States as a State is determined by the "State" legislature and not by the People of the future state. Nothing in the US Constitution, except for the protections of our inalienable Rights, has anything really do do with the People. There isn't even a requirement for a popular vote for the President as the President is not elected by a vote of the People but instead by Electorial College members.

And remember that the States, without the consent of the People, can abolish the US government at any time.......
The States hold ultimate power over the federal government and not the people.

 

The states, when they established the constitution between themselves, did not grant congress the power to promote the general welfare.

 

No one is claiming the several States should not solve their own dilemma of poverty with existing laws and existing infrastructure, after all the general government is delegated the power to pay the debts of the several United States in providing for their general welfare especially if through federal Standards for that purpose.

 

another "fallacy" is not knowing what a non sequitur is.

For example..a non sequitur would be someone cherry picking one single word out of a document and then making up an entirely different meaning for it that has nothing to do with the context the word was originally used in.

I am not going to have a discussion with somebody who has no logical point to make, and doesn't stand for anything other than the sake of argument.

Look, son..you can clap and cheer and declare victory or whatever, but I'm not wasting any more time with you. Everyone who reads this thread sees through your juvenile nonsense.

 

It is in our social Contract and that is what we are always supposed to be about:

 

What part of these general powers is there to not understand?