Article 1, Section 8 - Question for Conservatives

I should be more grateful our Founding Fathers left a rationale and doctrine for the federal Cause. It can be found in the Federalist Papers along with the federal doctrine.

 

In other words, that our Tax monies are to be raised, for the general welfare and common defense of the United States.

It seems to me, that it is a specifically enumerated and delegated power to do something, with our tax monies. Simply claiming it is only a power to tax seems disingenuous given our mission statement:

 

The power to tax is not the only power that the states granted to congress. That is only the first power in article I, section 8. There are several other powers granted, all of which serve to accomplish the goals set forth in the preamble, to wit:

 

If all those other powers are powers delegated, then why should we believe that they are only restrictions on the power to tax instead of specifically enumerated as powers delegated to our federal Congress.

If the subsequent and specifically enumerated specific powers are real powers delegated to our federal Congress, then the specifically enumerated general powers must be powers also which limit the scope of the power to tax and limit the scope of any specific powers which our federal Congress may feel are necessary and proper under our republican form of government.

 

It's funny how those who love this clauses use of the word welfare probably also love the constitutional amendment that subverted the second part of the clause you mentioned stating that "all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" It was obviously intended for the tax burden to be uniform for citizens of the country, everyone paid the same tariff on an imported good... everyone... heck I can't even think of another tax from that time period. Regardless of the constitutionality of the welfare state, one can at least conclude that our founders never intended for it to be this way, a way in which a minority pays the way for the majority; everyone was supposed to equally carry the tax burden, instead of some receiving much more while others pay much more. While I agree with the "legality" of the amendment that eliminated this need for uniform taxation, one is incapable of rationally arguing that this "progressive" income tax was the intention of our founding fathers.

In regards to the war issue, I agree that our federal government has stepped over the line as well. It was always intended for congress to be the declarer of war, and then the President carries out their wishes, it was never intended for the president to just go to war, and then congress being asked later if they are going to let them stay there. We have no business dictating the ways of the world and should focus our military might solely on our interests.

 

I'll make it really short and sweet Kicks. You cannot promote the general welfare by taking from A and giving to B.
If the action to be taken benefits only some while systematically penalizing others then it should not be done from a strictly constitutional perspective.

 

You may have noticed that the term Tax was not used but, "Duties, Imposts, and Excises".

Why should anyone have a problem with economic forms of discrimination in a political economy where it is both legal and socially acceptable?

 

I really don't understand you here. Is there any way you can rephrase this?

"If all those other powers are powers delegated, then why should we believe that they are only restrictions on the power to tax instead of specifically enumerated as powers delegated to our federal Congress." What is they?

"If the subsequent and specifically enumerated specific powers are real powers delegated to our federal Congress, then the specifically enumerated general powers must be powers also which limit the scope of the power to tax and limit the scope of any specific powers which our federal Congress may feel are necessary and proper under our republican form of government." What specifically enumerated general powers? Limit the scope of any specific powers? I'm not following.

 

Providing for the common defense and general welfare specifically implies taking from some and giving to others.

The power to Tax is specifically enumerated as delegated to our federal Congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

Any powers specifically enumerated as delegated to our federal Congress is "they". Taxation is merely the means for the for which the end of the powers are specifically enumerated.

In any case, your subscription to the republican doctrine is duly noted.

 

If I am understanding you correctly, then I agree with you. The power to tax is one important power. It is necessary, since the states delegated several other powers to the congress (such as raising an army, establishing a navy, etc) that require expenditures.

I'm not sure what you mean by "republican doctrine", but I do favor a republican form of government, in which the government is limited and the liberty of the people is guarded to the greatest extent possible.

 

ONe simple fact that many seem to miss is that Constitutional government are established base upon a social contract. It is "social" in that it is agreed upon by the "people" and it is established by written contract under the conditions of contract law.

State governments are the direct "contracted" entity of the People as we control that contract. The State Constitutions were established by a direct vote of the People and can be amended directly by the People of the state based upon a popular vote.

The federal government is a subcontracted entity created by the States to provide for the common needs of all of the States. For example, all States have a "contractual" requirement to provide for the mutual defense of the citizens of the State. In all State Constitutions are the provisions for the State government to create the officer corps and regulations for the State militia which unites the People of the State into a defensive force to repeal invasions or to suppress insurrections. Each State has this contracted responsibility directly delegated to it by the citizens of the State. The States, in turn, subcontracted a responsibility to the federal government when they created the federal government to provide for the unified defense of all of the States with the authorizations to provide for a Navy, an Army that was limited to two years (or less) and to call forth the State militias in defense of the nation and to suppress insurrections.

One point of contract law is that the contract must be specific in what authority and responsibilities it delegates to the contracted entity. There is the implied contractual provision that what is necessary to carry out that which is delegated is also authorized. I have used an example of this before and will use it again.

I can contract with an auto repair shop to fix the brakes on my car. That is the specific contractual requirement and I delegate the authority to that shop to spend money on my behalf to fix my brakes. I don't have to specifically authorize that brake fluid will be required because it could be necessary for the brakes to be fixed which I've authorized. I don't have to specifically authorize the turning of the rotors because that could also be required to fulfill the contract to fix my brakes.

Now, there are many auto repair shops and they can join together by contract for their common good to create a machine shop that can turn rotors because they all fix brakes and all need a machine shop to turn rotors. It's less expensive for them to share the machining work than for each of them to have their own internal machine shop. When I sign the contract with my specific auto repair shop I have, by the requirements of the contract, authorized them to send my brake rotors to the machine shop that is mutually owned by all of the auto repair shops to turn my brake rotors. My contract with the auto repair shop authorizes this.

Under my contract with the auto repair shop I have not authorized it to rebuild the motor of my car regardless of how bad that motor needs it. The machine shop has no authority to machine the engine block because the auto repair shop has not subcontracted that work to it nor have I authorized that work by the auto repair shop.

Our government is under the same constraints of contract. Our State government is the Auto Repair Shop and the Federal government is the Machine Shop and each is limited by the expressed conditions of the contract that I (we the People) have directly authorized in our State Constitution and which our combined State governments have delegated to the Federal government by sub-contract in the US Constitution. It's all based upon contract law.

 

You may be forgetting the hybrid nature of our social contract, it is both federal and/or national in some aspects.

 

The federal government is a subcontracted entity created by the states and there isn't a "hybrid" nature related to the contract. We, the People, delegate roles and responsibilities to our State government in our State Constitutions which, in turn, delegates some of those roles and responsibilities to the Federal government in the US Constitution.

By way of example:

The People have responsibilitiess A, B, C, and D and delegate a partial role and responsibility for A/2 and B/2 and C/2 to the State government (e.g. we have a role and responsibility to educate our children but we delegate 1/2 of that role to the State government) with our State Constitution.

The State, can in turn, delegate A/4 and B/4 to the Federal government in the US Constitution (e.g. we have a responsibility to defend ourself, our family, and our State from aggression and we delegate 1/2 of that to the State which, in turn, the States delegate 1/2 of their delegated responsibility to the Federal government to defend all of the States in the US Constitution).

It all cases there is a limitation because no one can delegate roles or responsibilities that they don't possess to another entity that they don't first possess. It is always a case of diminishing delegation of authority related to roles and responsibilities and it must be provided for in writing.

Here is where a flaw become apparent in such matters as "education" where the People have delegated a role and responsibility to the State government to provide for part of the education of the People's children in our State Constitutions but the State governments have never subcontracted any of that role and responsibility to the Federal government in the US Constitution. The Federal government is acting outside of it's authority to tax and spend for education because it doesn't have any contracted role or responsibility to provide for education.

 

Our federal Constitution is a hybrid. The Federalist Papers better describe its character:

 

I do not disagree with this at all as it is a compromise between a National Government and a Federal Government but it is still a contracted entity created by the states under contract law. The United States government is NOT a government of the People but instead is a government of the States as the People cannot legislate at the federal level nor do they have any power to amend the US Constitution or ratify Amendments to the Constitution.

 

How do you account for bankruptcy laws that affect the People on a national basis and not a federal basis?

I agree with you that our War on Drugs is nowhere enumerated as delegated as a power such as bankruptcy laws.

 

An advert for a new Atlas Shrugged movie had this line in it:

"The government takes what they want, and what it leaves behind, it taxes."

[video=youtube;hCEDSU6JQBs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCEDSU6JQBs[/video]

BTW some of you guys should read Lysander Spooner's Contitution of No Authority, 1867:

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man.

And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago.

And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts.




Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now.

http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm

 

Once again it is merely a matter of the States subcontracting a responsibility delegated to the State by the People to the Congress to provide for uniformity of the bankruptcy laws across State lines. Bankruptcy often entails contracts that cross state lines and an individual State does not have jurisdiction over contracts in a different State. It is an issue of establishing jurisdiction that crosses State lines as bankruptcy crosses State lines.

The same conditions exist for the coining of money from gold and silver as the money because the money is used in commerce that crosses State lines and for Patents and Copyrights which required enforcement across State lines. These provisions, although they touch the individual, related to establishing a jurisdiction that crosses the State lines. In all cases the States had this authority but their individual authority was limited to the jurisdiction of the State which is only within the State. The expanded jurisdiction under federal law was a benefit for the States which is why those powers we delegated by contract to the US Congress.

 

In other words, our federal Constitution is national in some regards and federal in other regards.

 

It is not the welfare . . . it is the abusers. Entitlement crowd. I go in houses every day and see little babies with nothing but a diaper on and big mama (or grandma) watching Springer on some big TV. Collectively collecting welfare, ie multiple recipients in the same household which is a no no. Jesus man, I could go on and on.

 

Easiest thing in the world. One does not promote the general welfare by taking from A and giving to B with the government keeping most of it in the exchange.

 

Use of the general welfare clause is a qualification on the preceding enumerated powers, much like the necessary and proper clause. It doesn't give Congress a blank cheque, or the power to issue entitlements.

Prior to the ratification, everyone was assured that such a clause would be strictly limited. After ratification men like Alexander Hamilton started arguing for a very broad interpretation. This is the real flaw of higher law systems - they never solve the problem of convention and interpretation becoming amendment powers.

Practically none of the constitutional change since ratification has occurred through the Article 5 amendment process. Why bother ratifying amendments when you can amend what the original ratification meant with far less effort?

 

The group of do-nothing GOP members we see and hear about today, are the epitome of "idealogues".

They are obsessed with 'clinging' to the status quo. I'm pretty certain that the American people will have to go right pass or around them. It is only a matter of time.

 

I have always felt the 14th Amendment freed no one. It enslaves all of us to the Fed Gov.