Why we oppose training requirements for firearm ownership

Well I'm not a Constitutional scholar, or a lawyer-- I was just giving you one for instance, because you'd intimated that you could find no language, that could apply. Is it not this concept of "general welfare," which is the basis of the Medicare system? It seems like a very prominent Constitutional concept, that one would expect to cover a lot of bases: not only is it listed as one of the prime purposes of the government, being described in the Constitution's Preamble, but the heading for Section eight, of Article One, listing the powers of Congress, is titled "General Welfare."


As for the unrestricted potential powers of Congress, that is my understanding of the reality. I think that, in at least many, if not even most cases, it is only the judgement of the Courts, and of Congress, which limits the powers of the federal government (not specifically some line or other, in the Constitution).

For a prompt reply, you will have to try to explain the legal doctrine, to which you refer, .

 

That does not answer the question-- the section of the Constitution which you had cited, specifies only a few uses for the tax revenue: U.S. Debts; common Defense; and the General Welfare of the country. In fact, the heading for this entire section, enumerating Congress's powers, is "General Welfare." Yet, you claim that Congress has no power to pass laws, for that General Welfare, the maintenance of which, in the Constitutional depiction, would require tax revenue, to fund? That makes no sense, at all.

 

Congress only has the power to pass laws for which it has been granted legislative authority. See article one, section eight.

 

The heading?

 

I did already see it, and quoted it to you. You have been unable to explain, if the Congress does not have the power to authorize expenditures, to promote the country's general welfare, why Article 1, Sec. 8, seems to assume that these expenses will exist. See citation, below.*

My mistake: I had assumed that Congress.gov was reproducing the original document, verbatim, but it turns out that these headings are their own annotations. Still, it says something, that the scholars in charge of the notations, summed up Clause 1, as "General Welfare."

<Snip>
Article I Legislative Branch

Section 8 Enumerated Powers

ArtI.S8.1 Overview of Congress's Enumerated Powers

Clause 1 General Welfare

*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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...
<End>

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/

That seems pretty freakin' clear, to me.

 

To collect taxes only for three purposes

 

And one of those 3, is: "(to) provide for the... general Welfare of the United States."

 

that doesn't allow taxes designed to infringe on constitutional rights. a poll tax could be justified using your misunderstanding of "general welfare" and it would be unconstitutional.

 

Yep. That is one of the reasons for which congress may collect taxes.

 

From your perspective, only.

I'm sure you are aware that there are heavyweight legal authorities, on the Left, who have a different view. Therefore, your reply only brings our debate to the point of: your opinion disagrees with mine. My argument, however, has not been limited to simply my opinion. My points have been:

1) The Constitution does not clearly state "no regulations allowed," on guns.

2) I've noted that the actual Amendment, uses the terminology "a well regulated militia."

3) I've pointed out, that no right, is absolute. There are restrictions on the First Amendment, as well. Why is #2, more special than all the others?

4) I've pointed out that, historically, we have seen gun regulations, which were completely accepted by courts, as constitutional ("unanimously," was the word, from my source-- in a post which you have answered). This new view of gun rights, has no historic precedent. It is a drastic change, from the traditional view. It is clearly, judicial activism, from our Conservative extremist Court.

5) And I've debunked the argument, that Congress is not granted the power to make laws, for the "general Welfare."


What arguments and sources have you cited, for your case? I think your argument, comes down to only your own opinion, on the matter-- did I miss something?

 

Congress isn't granted any plenary power to make any law it wishes. It's legislative powers are enumerated in article one, section eight.

 

what causes a right not to be unlimited.

 

can you remember any gun control law that was foisted upon us by the Democrats that cites "the general welfare clause" as supplying the jurisdiction?

 

And also, for which they may disperse those taxes, in payment. And-- unless you can stipulate any other source for the programs, incurring those costs, other than the legislature-- my argument remains that this makes it patently clear, that such "general Welfare" legislation, is within Congress's purview. I will add, that this has ever been the accepted view. So you are welcome to believe that Eisenhower's investment in our interstate highway system, was unconstitutional; or that all infrastructure investment, by the federal government, is; that Medicaid is; or that the ACA is. However, the fact remains, that you are making your ridiculously literalist argument, in the face of centuries of precedent. So knock yourself out.

 

Congress has only specifically enumerated legislative powers. None of those powers would allow congress to enact gun control legislation. The taxing clause permits congress to collect taxes so that it can provide for the general welfare of the states. This is not carte blanche to make any law it wishes. Otherwise, why would the rest of article one section eight exist?

 

many people who hope to get around the clear second and tenth amendment prohibitions on federal gun control, tend not to read the constitution in its entirety. That point of yours is rather damning destruction of the silly claim that the "general welfare" clause gives congress any power it wants

 

Yep. And it's not the "general welfare" clause. It's the taxing clause.

 

You are repeating yourself. Is there a specifically enumerated legislative power, to use funds to construct roads? Both fall within the context of being for "the general Welfare."
I have already listed numerous other examples, of the same thing. So your interpretation, contradicts conventional practice.

Funny, that you call it the "taxing" clause, when Congress.gov calls the clause: general Welfare.

Secondly, for such a literalist, it is notable that you misstated the clause, despite my having recently produced the short clause for you, at least twice. The wording does not say, that Congress can provide tax funds, "for the general Welfare of the (individual) States." Once again, it says that Congress can collect taxes, for the purpose of providing for " the general Welfare of the United States. It is actually part of the same phrase, which begins with "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." So the "general Welfare" expenditures, are for the same entity, as those for common Defence, that is, for the nation as a whole-- not being considered in piecemeal fashion.

Of course it is not: the law would have to be for the "general Welfare," not deprive anyone of other rights (which requiring training and a license, do not do), and be thought judicious by both chambers of Congress, as well as by the President (or else, by two thirds majorities, of both Congressional chambers).

*There is no more to Article 1, Section 8, than what I have posted. It ends at the semi-colon, after the words "but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Then it goes on to "Clause 2 (Borrowing),
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

"Clause 3 (Commerce)
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

and Clause 4, is about the uniformity of various laws/practices, and so on. There are all manner of other details, in a section 8, besides Congress's ability to tax, and the purposes to which it could devote those funds.

 

Congress's legislative powers are limited. If one interprets the taxing clause as a legislative power to enact any law to promote the general welfare, well then the rest of article one section eight is literally superfuous. I don't really think that the delegates debated about the post office if it was already permitted by the ridiculously named "general welfare clause".

 

As I've said, you are free to "think," whatever you wish, about the original writers' thoughts, behind why the Constitution was organized, as it was. For my part, instead of basing my argument just on what I think, I will found my position on the actual practice of our Congress, over these past two & a half centuries; base my opinion-- that Congress is permitted, in the Constitution, to make laws to "promote the general Welfare," and then pay the expense for that legislation, with collected taxes-- on all the times Congress has done just that, and never had their action overturned by the Courts.

Seems like a pretty strong argument, to me; but perhaps you regard your own thoughts as being more important than what has been shown, by actual experience.

I did not say that it was necessarily Section 8, which gives Congress this power, only that it is clear, in Section 8, that they must have it, for there to be "general Welfare of the United States" expenditures, for them to pay, with the tax revenue.

 

Okay, so I guess we'll agree that you can't cite any language. And yes, I realize that the US gov't has been acting illigally for many generations.

 

Rather, we should agree that you are not good at interpreting language. What makes you think that I would agree with your conclusion? I remind you, that you had cited a particular part of the Constitution, which I read, and saw it to clearly indicate that Congress did have the power to pass spending bills for the country's general Welfare-- logical thinking compelled that understanding. Yet, that logic escaped you, or you were actively trying to evade it. I called your objection, being ridiculously literal. And your takeaway from that, is that I would agree with you, that I can't cite any language?

FYI, I already have cited language, even if you don't accept it. Congress.gov, by the way, as well as the Supreme Court, have seen it the same way as me: here is the footnote for the Clause we've been discussing:

<Snip>
3. Article I Section 8 Clause 1
ArtI.S8.C1.2.7 General Welfare, Relatedness, and Independent Constitutional Bars
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . . Beyond the clear-notice. . .

Footnotes:
South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 (1987). Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 90 (1976) (It is for Congress to decide which expenditures will promote the general welfare.), superseded by statute, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81; cf. Lyng v. Intl Union, 485 U.S. 360, 373 (198 (explaining that the discretion about how best to spend money to improve the. . .
<End>

https://constitution.congress.gov/search/detence soending

So I will offer a compromise: I guess we'll agree that I won't find language that will satisfy you, since you are not willing to interpret the clear meaning, if it is not phrased, the way you want it to be. I think it is clearly stated in the Preamble, that one of the primary powers of the government, is promoting "the general Welfare."

That said, the notes also address, that the language did lead people to question it, from the beginning**:

<Snip>

Under the Articles of Confederation, the Confederation Congress had authority to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses.1 All charges of war, and all other expenses that were incurred for the common defense or general welfare were paid out of a common treasury.2

**...What was far from plain, both before and after ratification, was the authority that the Spending Clause conferred on Congress to authorize expenditures.8

One collection of views, commonly associated with James Madison, argued that the Constitution was structured so that the general language of the Spending Clause was followed by a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms.9 The Madisonian view judged the validity of a particular spending measure by asking whether the spending addressed a subject within one of Congress’s other enumerated powers.10 Another set of viewpoints, commonly associated with Alexander Hamilton, took a broader view.11 Hamilton argued that the phrase the general welfare was as comprehensive as any that could have been used.12 The phrase embraced subject matter of such wide variety that it defied further specification or definition.13
<End>


But see the next post, in which I demolish your argument.

 

@Turtledude and @Chickpea

Here is the problem, with your argument. You are saying that, although the text's implication is clear (IMO), it is illegitimate for Congress to pass spending bills for the "general Welfare" unless it specifically says those words, in that way. Yet, if you take that view, you must likewise contend that the Constitution does not give Congress the power to fund the military. The text does not use that wording you are demanding, for common Defence spending, either. In fact, the sentence which is taken to give Congress this power, is the exact same line, which also mentions the general Welfare.

<Snip>
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . .
<End>

But would it be reasonable to conclude that Congress was not meant to be able to authorize Defence spending? If not, then the text gives you no rational excuse, to not feel the same way about general Welfare spending.

 

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;"

Oh, and Hamilton was a counter-revolutionary and a traitor.