JWK
Clearly the scope of “general welfare” has extended beyond what you present above. What the “general welfare” covers has been argued since the early days of this nation. There has been a history of various welfare programs for many decades now that seem to have passed constitutional muster by the Supreme Court.
Since I support healthcare for all, my position is basically to work towards it and let it be fought in the courts if need be.
In other words don’t bother posting more quotes from people who were alive 200 years ago because its not going to alter my opinion.
The Republicans officially gave up the socialism boogeyman card with that tweet. Central government control of production/private business is socialism. Don’t get me wrong, I know they’ll still use an undefined “socialism” cry to scare their base, it’s just the hypocrisy will be at a new level.
and this one to make sure he was being perfectly clear
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1165111122510237696?s=20
1 Like
Hey, he declared a national emergency to fund a border wall. Why not follow it up by declaring a national emergency for his fancy trade war? A national emergency of his own making. It’s not socialism if it’s a national emergency, right?
1 Like
I can find no amendment to our federal Constitution extending Congress’ power to include the people’s healthcare. Article V is the only constitutional method to extend Congress’ powers.
You made the assertion the general welfare clause grants power to Congress to enter the states to tax for, spend on, and meddle in the people’s healthcare needs and choices. Your opinion is not in harmony with “Constitutional Law” which you previously referred to, nor in harmony with the meaning of “general welfare” as understood by the framers and those who ratified our constitution during its framing and ratification process. What do you base your opinion on which indicates the “general welfare” clause was intended to delegate this extraordinary power over the people of the United States?
JWK
Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court’s majority vote
My opinion will never be “in harmony” with your opinion on the welfare clause. I base my opinion in general on previous court cases involving the Welfare clause. In future healthcare system will no doubt be complicated and designed in ways to work with the Constitution and no doubt will be challenged in court.
The framers are dead.
My opinion regarding the “welfare clause.”?
I have offered documented historical facts concerning the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” . I have offered the meaning of the phrase as it was used and intended by those who framed our Constitution, and understood by the people who helped to ratify it. Additionally, I referred to “Constitutional Law” which you were quick to reference when it suited your purpose. You are the one who offered the unsubstantiated opinion that the clause in question grants power to Congress to enter the states and tax for, spend on, and meddle in the people’s choices and decisions regarding their healthcare needs.
And what is your snarky remark about, the “framers are dead”? You wrote that to suggest what? What does you remark have to do with the meaning of our Constitution, and the meaning of general welfare which is found in our Constitution? Are you suggesting our Constitution is not designed to control and limit the federal government it created, and provide specific protections against an odious federal government?
JWK
“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story
I’m not sure what you’re implying… Constitutional Law is obviously involved in this whole conversation.
Maybe it does… maybe it doesn’t. It seems to be a contested clause. Congress would need to create a law that works within the confines of our Constitution.
If you are curious, here are some of the sources regarding my opinion on the general welfare clause:
Health Care: Constitutional Rights and Legislative Powers
http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/legpowers.pdf
SPENDING FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE
New Deal Lessons for the Affordable Care Act: The General Welfare Clause
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=jcl_online
My point is that there have been many court cases (as outlined in those above references) since the Founders died that have given greater indication of what sorts of things Congress can do under the General Welfare clause. On top of that, they were speaking during a very different time about a very different looking country. Your 200 year old quotes aren’t the mic drop moments you think they are.
I was not implying anything. I was crystal clear when pointing out:
You are the one who offered the unsubstantiated opinion that the clause in question grants power to Congress to enter the states and tax for, spend on, and meddle in the people’s choices and decisions regarding their healthcare needs.
Unlike you, I offered documented historical facts concerning the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” . I have offered the meaning of the phrase as it was used and intended by those who framed our Constitution, and understood by the people who helped to ratify it.
In fact, I have presented evidence which conforms with the rules of constitutional construction. You have offered nothing but opinions, to support your opinion, and nothing which conforms to the rules of Constitutional Construction.
The bottom line is, when questions arise as to the meaning of the text of our Constitution, we are not free to supplant our personal interpretations within its meaning, but are limited to discovering its meaning as stated during the framing and ratification debates. See:
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis)
Also see, par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings
“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )
But note that comments made after the ratification of the Constitution, including those of the founders which are not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs expressed during the framing and ratification of our Constitution, carry very little weight if any, in legal proceedings regarding the legislative intent of our Constitution.
Also see Par. 88–Proceedings of conventions and debates.
“Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.” (numerous citations omitted )
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
Yes, I should have never given a simple answer to that question because it was way too loaded with words like “enter the states” and “meddle”. I don’t know exactly what you’re describing there. In the most general of senses, I believe healthcare is an issue that affects the whole country and its welfare and therefore falls under the general welfare clause.
My opinion is substantiated with the links added to this post: The lies of our Socialists running for office will now take center stage - #371 by fallenturtle
You would have a point if history had shown only one specific interpretation of the Constitution used through our country’s history, but instead there have been various types of judicial interpretation applied to the Constitution. I’m not a Constitutional scholar, a judge, or a lawyer… so all I can do is base what I’ve said on what I’ve read and what I’ve read is that our Supreme Court has let stand several social welfare related programs, like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, so clearly there’s precedent that there is a probably a way to have universal healthcare in the USA and have it pass constitutional muster.
You can quote founding fathers until you’re blue in the face… I’m basing my opinions on our current reality and history.
So, once again you deflect and refuse to post your evidence as I have done. Instead, you post opinions of others, to support your opinion, and nothing from the framing and ratification debates to substantiate the meaning of “general welfare” as found in our Constitution.
You totally ignore some of the most fundamental rules of Constitutional Construction which I took the time to post for you. It would appear you believe our Constitution is akin to a rubber ruler, and can be stretched to mean whatever one wishes it to mean.
BTW when you post a link, quote from the link that which is to be taken note of. Without such a quote, the link is meaningless.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
Excuse you. Just because what I posted doesn’t meet your made-up goalposts doesn’t mean I refused to post evidence. What’s in those links I shared are well annotated.
This is a internet forum and I have a job and a family, so I don’t have time to write you a personalized term paper. You are perfectly capable of clicking in those links and reading them.
But we both know that’s pointless because I’m simply presenting you with information you already know exists and have already written off. Apparently the decisions of the Supreme Court only count when they support your opinion.
It is funny that you accused me of posting the opinions of others when you’ve mostly done the same thing. All those quotes from the Framers and their contemporaries are also opinions.
That’s on you if you decided to spend time on that. I’m not sure why you did when you can just link to something like the Principles of Constitutional Construction: https://www.constitution.org/cons/prin_cons.htm
It’s also somewhat irrelevant because the courts have already spent the last 200+ years doing that and they seem to in general take a more liberal view of the general welfare clause.
From the US Constitution Annotated (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/spending-for-the-general-welfare):
Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.”
By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the “general welfare.” The Court accords great deference to Congress’s decision that a spending program advances the general welfare, and has even questioned whether the restriction is judicially enforceable. Dispute, such as it is, turns on the conditioning of funds.
“Promote the general welfare” has come to be reinterpreted as “generally promote welfare.” This means to Congress, “Whatever gets us reelected.”
You have not posted any evidence from the framing and ratification debates.
When you post a link, quote from the link that which is to be taken note of. Without providing specific quotations the link is meaningless and nothing more than a ruse suggesting you have evidence documenting the framers, and those who ratified the Constitution, intended the phrase “general welfare” to be a grant of power to allow the federal government to enter the states to tax for, spend on and meddle in the people’s inalienable right to make their own decisions and choices regarding their healthcare needs.
Unlike you, I have posted evidence which conforms to the rules of constitutional construction:
The “general welfare’ clause, our Founder’s meaning.
.
Constitutional Law.
According to 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, under “Meaning of Language” we find:
”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis)
So, what was the meaning of “general welfare” as understood during our Constitution’s framing and ratification?
In Federalist No. 83, which was written to explain the meaning of the Constitution as understood by its framers and to gain ratification, Hamilton, in crystal clear language, refers to a “specification of particulars” which he goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“.
Hamilton writes:
“…the power of Congress…shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended…”
The “specification of particulars” Hamilton is referring to are the enumerated grants of power listed beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.
This view, expressed by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers during the ratification debates is also in harmony with what Madison states in Federalist Paper No. 45:
“ The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
And, in No. 41 Federalist, Madison, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:
"It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes…to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the 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 [the anti-federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction…But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?..For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power…But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning…is an absurdity.”
Additionally, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution:“the 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.”[3 Elliots 95]
Also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out “was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes…”
Similarly, George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention cautions the convention
“The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.”. [3 Elliots 442]
For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
I’m not going to play your game, John. Either read the links I provided or don’t read them. What I quoted above and again below is from the Congressional Research Service in 2002.
From the US Constitution Annotated (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/spending-for-the-general-welfare):
Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.”
By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the “general welfare.” The Court accords great deference to Congress’s decision that a spending program advances the general welfare, and has even questioned whether the restriction is judicially enforceable. Dispute, such as it is, turns on the conditioning of funds.
There is no “game”. We are discussing the meaning of general welfare as it was understood during our Constitution’s framing and ratification debates. We are not talking about what you believe it means, or what I believe it means. We are talking about its actual meaning as understood during our Constitution’s framing and ratification debates.
One of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction is stated as follows:
”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis) 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law,
Meaning of Language
Unlike you, I have actually supplied a number of quotes from our founders, taken from the framing and ratification debates, which shed light on the meaning of “general welfare”. All you do is beat around the bush and fail to support your ludicrous claim that the “general welfare” wording was intended to allow Congress to enter the States and tax for, spend on and meddle in the people’s inalienable right to make their own decisions and choices regarding the healthcare needs.
The bottom line is, your opinion is not supported by the historical evidence found in the framing and ratification debates, and that is the apparent reason why you fail to provide any quotes.
Why do you insist in an attempt to make the constitution mean something never intended?
“In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it…A construction which would give the phrase…a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution.” Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),
JWK
There was no agreed to “actual” meaning then (Madison vs Hamilton) and there isn’t one now. Your insistence on judging all Constitutional issues as if the last 100-150 years never happened doesn’t mesh with reality because modern cases do factor in those years.
I’m not beating around the bush, I’ve provided you with several written pieces regarding the topic. Why are you unable to read them?
Again, read the links I posted. They even have quotes in them, because I know you’re into that sort of thing.
Why do you insist on ignoring the fact that we already have welfare programs that deal with healthcare, and have had them for a while, and they haven’t been struct down by Supreme Court?
I don’t why you guys continue to argue with this guy. All he has are his opinions which have been left behind in American jurisprudence(which he will never admit) but he still considers law of the land and will continually repeat as false dogma.
How do you argue with someone who’s base premises are all wrong but insist they are not, and will never admit otherwise.
Yes. You have provided several written pieces, none of which provides evidence from the framing and ratification debates to shed light on the meaning of “general welfare”. What you offer is totally useless In accordance with the rules of Constitutional Construction we must find the meaning of “general welfare” as it was used during the framing and ratification debates!
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis)
Also see, par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings
“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )
But note that comments made after the ratification of the Constitution, including those of the founders which are not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs expressed during the framing and ratification of our Constitution, carry very little weight if any, in legal proceedings regarding the legislative intent of our Constitution.
Also see Par. 88–Proceedings of conventions and debates.
“Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.” (numerous citations omitted )
Why do you ignore the fundamental rules of constitutional construction?
JWK
