Charity: Not in the Constitution

[PLC1]

Nonsense. The cons was written in broad language meant to stand the test of time.

Airplanes were not created then but the const. authorizes a military and therefore the use of airplanes in a military.

The congress can make laws about airplanes, space shuttles and modern health care as long as it has authority to do so to protect the rights of citizens or some other enumerated clause.

The Constitution was, indeed, written in broad language meant to stand the test of time, and it has done so very well.

If we have the right to watch rockets blast into space, and the right to fly across the country in relative safety, why don't we have the right to have affordable and available health care?

 

[Little-Acorn]

depending on ones interpretation of the general welfare clause you have more or less grant permission to assist citizens in whatever fashion Congress can agree on and have the President sign it.

This is a classic misinterpretation of the so-called "Welfare Clause".

The "Welfare Clause" is:

(Art.1, Sec. 8) The Congress shall have the 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.......

It says, in fact, that the Fed govt can collect taxes for certain purposes: paying debts and providing for defense and "the general Welfare".

And for no other reason.

Moreover, back when it was written and ratified, there were two kinds of "Welfare": "general Welfare" and "particular Welfare".

"Particular Welfare" meant the welfare of certain individuals or groups (what we might call "special interests" today); and NOT the welfare of the country as a whole.

"General Welfare" meant the welfare of the country as a whole. In other words, things that will benefit ALL Americans *equally*.

In fact, the so-called "Welfare Clause" is a limitation on what the Fed govt can do, not a broad permission. It says that the govt can spend tax money only on projects that benefit all Americans equally. (And on defense and paying national debts.) It was the Founders' way of forbidding special-interest spending: Building a school in Poughkeepsie, a bridge in Alabama, draining a swamp in Minnesota, building a pretty beach in California. The states could do these things, but the Fed govt can't.

As others have pointed out here, if the Welfare Clause meant the govt could spend money on anything that would help anybody, then 3/4 (or more) of the Constitution becomes redundant.

The so-called "Welfare Clause" is one of the most-abused parts of the Constitution. It should more rightly be called the "spending restrictions clause" since, along with language about defense and paying debts, that's exactly what it is.

The basic premise of the Constitution - that it creates the Fed govt and gives it its powers; and any powers it doesn't explicitly list, the Fed cannot have - remains unblemished by the Welfare Clause, despite the wishful thinking of various big-govt liberals, on and off the bench. Most of what those liberals want, is unconstitutional. Misinterpreting the Welfare Clause (or Commerce Clause) doesn't change that.

 

[PLC1]

"General Welfare" meant the welfare of the country as a whole. In other words, things that will benefit ALL Americans *equally*.

Now, that's an interesting interpretation. I suppose the interstate highway system could be said to benefit all Americans, but equally? The FAA is certainly more of a benefit to frequent fliers than to the rest of us. NASA could be said to be a benefit to all of us, as it has led to scientific progress. A national health care that covered everyone equally would, of course, qualify as benefiting all Americans equally.

I'm surprised you are in favor of benefiting all equally, especially since the funds to do the benefiting come disproportionally from the wealthy. Are you in favor of income redistribution, then?

 

[top gun]

The preamble to the Constitution clearly recognizes that there would be many things that the new government would have to have a hand in. They spoke in broad terms but those broad terms can and do cover a lot.

“ We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ”

 

[Little-Acorn]

The preamble to the Constitution clearly recognizes that there would be many things that the new government would have to have a hand in. They spoke in broad terms but those broad terms can and do cover a lot.

“ We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ”

The Preamble is an explanation of why they were writing the Constitution, not a command that govt do this or not do that. It has no legal effect.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Now, that's an interesting interpretation.

More than just interesting, it's also correct.

I suppose the interstate highway system could be said to benefit all Americans, but equally?

Nope, not equally. Which Ike well knew, so he slipped it in under the guise of pretending it was part of a defense system. One of the requirements for it was that it have straight stretches every 10 (or whatever the number is) miles so that military planes could land on it during wars. Quite a stretch, at best.

The FAA is certainly more of a benefit to frequent fliers than to the rest of us.

Don't know what justification they used for this one. Regulation of interstate commerce, maybe? So planes flying state to state didn't have to worry about 50 different sets of rules?

NASA could be said to be a benefit to all of us, as it has led to scientific progress.

Not good enough. Did they call the space program a "defense system" too? I don't know. Again, that would be quite a stretch.

A national health care that covered everyone equally would, of course, qualify as benefiting all Americans equally.

Not even close. People who have good health care now (that's most Americans) would wind up with worse, while others would have somewhat better. Even liberals can't stretch the usual clauses enough to get away with that one.

As the title of the thread indicates, the Fed govt gets its powers from their being explicitly listed in the Constitution. Charity isn't among them... and neither is Health Care, nor a lot of other things the Fed govt has been doing.

The govt should have spent its time passing a few Constitutional amendments for the things the people would want to see added to Federal powers (Air and Space forces, maybe a limited EPA), rather than passing flagrantly unconstitutional programs, twisting phrases in the Constitution beyond all recognition, and hoping nobody had enough court muscle to force them to obey that document instead.

And leaving all other programs (including "charity", health care, etc.) to the states if they wanted to dabble in them.

 

[PLC1]

More than just interesting, it's also correct.


Nope, not equally. Which Ike well knew, so he slipped it in under the guise of pretending it was part of a defense system. One of the requirements for it was that it have straight stretches every 10 (or whatever the number is) miles so that military planes could land on it during wars. Quite a stretch, at best.


Don't know what justification they used for this one. Regulation of interstate commerce, maybe? So planes flying state to state didn't have to worry about 50 different sets of rules?


Not good enough. Did they call the space program a "defense system" too? I don't know. Again, that would be quite a stretch.


Not even close. People who have good health care now (that's most Americans) would wind up with worse, while others would have somewhat better. Even liberals can't stretch the usual clauses enough to get away with that one.

As the title of the thread indicates, the Fed govt gets its powers from their being explicitly listed in the Constitution. Charity isn't among them... and neither is Health Care, nor a lot of other things the Fed govt has been doing.

The govt should have spent its time passing a few Constitutional amendments for the things the people would want to see added to Federal powers (Air and Space forces, maybe a limited EPA), rather than passing flagrantly unconstitutional programs, twisting phrases in the Constitution beyond all recognition, and hoping nobody had enough court muscle to force them to obey that document instead.

And leaving all other programs (including "charity", health care, etc.) to the states if they wanted to dabble in them.

You didn't take my bait about income redistribution, which shows a lot of self restraint, no doubt.

As for the rest of it, I admit you are consistent. You really do think that such as NASA, the FAA, and the like are unconstitutional.

You might even be right.


But, what would happen if all of those programs were to be suddenly ended?

 

[Dr.Who]

The Constitution was, indeed, written in broad language meant to stand the test of time, and it has done so very well.

If we have the right to watch rockets blast into space, and the right to fly across the country in relative safety, why don't we have the right to have affordable and available health care?

You most definitely have the right to watch the rockets and the right to fly and the right to buy health insurance.

What cannot be is that congress cannot tax some people to pay for rockets going into space or to provide health care for all; they don't have the authority. In fact, even if they could produce the funds out of thin air they would still not have the authority to do it. The moment they take any step past the boundaries described in the constitution they have moved us one step closer to despotism. The present administration may not be the one that produces a despot but the precedence will be set and some day another administration will produce a despot.

They do have the authority to make sure that when you exercise your right to fly (on your own) that it will be safe. They do have the duty to make sure that the nation is so just and to protect your rights so diligently that a lack of justice and a loss of rights are never an impediment to you achieving the`most you can. Imagine that all the massive amounts of effort and the tons of money that now go into trying to advance non-constitutional pursuits were to go into promoting liberty and justice instead! How much better off would every citizen be? How much more wealth would exist in the hands of all? The number of people who could not afford health insurance would probably be halved if not reduced even more.

 

[Dr.Who]

Now, that's an interesting interpretation. I suppose the interstate highway system could be said to benefit all Americans, but equally? The FAA is certainly more of a benefit to frequent fliers than to the rest of us. NASA could be said to be a benefit to all of us, as it has led to scientific progress. A national health care that covered everyone equally would, of course, qualify as benefiting all Americans equally.

I'm surprised you are in favor of benefiting all equally, especially since the funds to do the benefiting come disproportionally from the wealthy. Are you in favor of income redistribution, then?

You are right that a interstate highway system could not be supported with the general welfare clause. I suppose that is why the const authorizes the creation of post roads in a competely different and enumerated section.

Regulating flight to the extent that it protects ones rights would be permitted.

Flying to the moon - I can't find any authority for this in the Const.

A national health care would benefit all, but that is not enough to say that the gen wel clause allows it. The gen wel clause does not add to the list of enumerated powers it just reiterates that the enumerated powers are for the general welfare. As Madison said:

[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.
-- James Madison

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions." James Madison, "Letter to Edmund Pendleton,"
-- James Madison

Regarding the taxes: originally the constitution forbid any direct tax (head tax). So they would not have considered that to be an issue.

 

[PLC1]

You most definitely have the right to watch the rockets and the right to fly and the right to buy health insurance.

What cannot be is that congress cannot tax some people to pay for rockets going into space or to provide health care for all; they don't have the authority. In fact, even if they could produce the funds out of thin air they would still not have the authority to do it. The moment they take any step past the boundaries described in the constitution they have moved us one step closer to despotism. The present administration may not be the one that produces a despot but the precedence will be set and some day another administration will produce a despot.

They do have the authority to make sure that when you exercise your right to fly (on your own) that it will be safe. They do have the duty to make sure that the nation is so just and to protect your rights so diligently that a lack of justice and a loss of rights are never an impediment to you achieving the`most you can. Imagine that all the massive amounts of effort and the tons of money that now go into trying to advance non-constitutional pursuits were to go into promoting liberty and justice instead! How much better off would every citizen be? How much more wealth would exist in the hands of all? The number of people who could not afford health insurance would probably be halved if not reduced even more.

I don't have the right to buy health insurance. No one would sell me health insurance, not without a big incentive from the government. Were I 40 years younger, then of course they would.

It's not a matter of being able to afford insurance, nor is it a desire for "free" medical care. What has to be done, and rather soon, is to devise a plan by which all of us can afford to buy into a system that will protect our assets should we fall ill or suffer an accident.

Wouldn't taking the burden off of the employers promote the general welfare by making those enterprises more profitable? Imagine how much wealth would be left in the hands of the people if we were spending, say, 10% of our GDP on health care, like Canada, instead of 17%, like the US, and how much more money would be available if we were able to compete with businesses in Canada, or in Europe, without having that economic drag? Sure, other nations might pay a little more in taxes, but, if you add up the cost of government at 20% + 17% for health care, + whatever percent is taken by whichever state you are in, and we're paying more in all than practically anyone else.

It is not a matter of a welfare system for people who can't afford insurance on their own, but a matter of a national system to replace what we have now, which is no system at all and is costing us far too much.

Cutting back the size of the federal government isn't going to help if the money is just going out the other window.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Modern liberalism (in both parties) is based on the tactic of government forcibly taking money from Peter to pay Paul, on grounds that Paul needs it more. It's also known as "buying Paul's vote with Peter's money" - a tactic that works as long as Paul outnumbers Peter by enough votes.

As Elder points out, this makes modern liberalism basically unconstitutional.

....As-long-as you buy-into that Whiner-description of liberalism.

I guess you'd have to fall for WorldNutzDaily's Trust Us-pitch, to believe much of anything they print.



Joe Farah's rag has ZERO-credibility.......

​

 

[Little-Acorn]

(more irrelevant lies about what I think deleted)

But, what would happen if all of those programs were to be suddenly ended?

As I said, the government should have thought of that before they started enacting unconstitutional programs.

It's a typical tactic to get people hooked on your product, especially an illegal one, and then point out the traumatic consequences if they try to kick the habit. Dope dealers do it, loansharks do it... and as you point out, the Federal government is right in their with them, doing it too.

Does that mean we shouldn't kick the habit, but should let the illegal and destructive acts keep going instead?

 

[PLC1]

As I said, the government should have thought of that before they started enacting unconstitutional programs.

It's a typical tactic to get people hooked on your product, especially an illegal one, and then point out the traumatic consequences if they try to kick the habit. Dope dealers do it, loansharks do it... and as you point out, the Federal government is right in their with them, doing it too.

Does that mean we shouldn't kick the habit, but should let the illegal and destructive acts keep going instead?

Hmm.. the irrelevant lies about what you think were as follows:

As for the rest of it, I admit you are consistent. You really do think that such as NASA, the FAA, and the like are unconstitutional.

You might even be right.

Then, you don't think that such as NASA, the FAA, and the like are unconstitutional.

Then, what "illegal and destructive acts" are you talking about?

Now, I'm not sure just what your position is. Maybe it's not as consistent as I thought.

 

[Little-Acorn]

As I said, the government should have thought of that before they started enacting unconstitutional programs.

It's a typical tactic to get people hooked on your product, especially an illegal one, and then point out the traumatic consequences if they try to kick the habit. Dope dealers do it, loansharks do it... and as you point out, the Federal government is right in their with them, doing it too.

Does that mean we shouldn't kick the habit, but should let the illegal and destructive acts keep going instead?

Given that the government HAS enacted a number of unconstitutional programs, what do we do about it? End them all, tomorrow, as some people say? The government HAS made promises to a number of people, who have then gone and structured their lives around those promises in good faith, however misplaced. Should we tell retirees on Social Security, "Sorry, but these govt payments are illegal, so you're not getting any more, too bad you trusted govt for your retirement instead of investing in a private retirement fund, have a nice life."? Or people on Medicare, "Sorry, the payments for your infirmity are illegal, they stop today, good luck with that dialysis that no insurance company will take you on for, too bad you didn't contract for private insurance before you had kidney failure but trusted government instead!"?

A program to gradually ease the public off illegal programs, would be just as unconstitutional as the original programs were. Yet can we do anything else?

Unscrupulous govt officials who persuaded people to enter their unconstitutional programs, didn't worry about what would happen to those people if they (the officials) got caught.

So, now that the unconstitutionality of so many programs is being revealed, what do we do now?

 

[PLC1]

Given that the government HAS enacted a number of unconstitutional programs, what do we do about it? End them all, tomorrow, as some people say? The government HAS made promises to a number of people, who have then gone and structured their lives around those promises in good faith, however misplaced. Should we tell retirees on Social Security, "Sorry, but these govt payments are illegal, so you're not getting any more, too bad you trusted govt for your retirement instead of investing in a private retirement fund, have a nice life."? Or people on Medicare, "Sorry, the payments for your infirmity are illegal, they stop today, good luck with that dialysis that no insurance company will take you on for, too bad you didn't contract for private insurance before you had kidney failure but trusted government instead!"?

A program to gradually ease the public off illegal programs, would be just as unconstitutional as the original programs were. Yet can we do anything else?

Unscrupulous govt officials who persuaded people to enter their unconstitutional programs, didn't worry about what would happen to those people if they (the officials) got caught.

So, now that the unconstitutionality of so many programs is being revealed, what do we do now?

I suppose that the first step would be for the Supreme Court to determine that these programs are unconstitutional. Until that happens, their constitutionality is merely a matter of opinion and conjecture.