6 ms·

Because a military is one of the few things that the United States government has the constitutional authority to do (the list is extremely limited: https://en.

by zeveb 6y ago

Because a military is one of the few things that the United States government has the constitutional authority to do (the list is extremely limited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat...).

tgflynn 6y ago
> ... to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States Right after "common defence" comes "general warfare" but for some reason that's something most Americans (or at least their politicians) seem to prefer to ignore.
- svieira 6y ago
  Most Americans agree that "the welfare of others" ought to be cared for, they just disagree who ought to be primarily responsible for the care. With too broad an understanding of "general welfare" you'd wind up with a 10th amendment that means nothing, because "the general welfare" includes everything, so the Federal government is the only government. I would hate to make Federal lawmakers spend brainpower making laws regarding snow removal that worked equally well in LA and AK.
  - tgflynn 6y ago
    Yes, unfortunately as long as you have humans making laws they'll be full of contradictions and unintended consequences.
- zeveb 6y ago
  The 'common defence and welfare' provide the reasons for taxation, and are enumerated in the following items. Note that James Madison — who wrote much of the Constitution — vetoed a federal works bill because he found it unconstitutional. The Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause#General_Welfare_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause#Gen... is pretty good. I think it's pretty obvious that the narrow view is the only defensible one.
  - tgflynn 6y ago
    I'm not an historian or a lawyer so I'm not sure exactly what the founding fathers had in mind or if they even held a consistent view of the question. However two things seem clear to me. 1) In practice in the US today the "general welfare" clause is interpreted expansively when it suits the purposes of the politicians. This is also supported by the article you link: "To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law. ". 2) I think that most people throughout the developed world believe that ensuring the general welfare of a country's citizens is an essential function of government. Outside of the US, especially in Europe and democratic Asia this is probably an extremely dominant view. In the US you hear a lot of very vocal people, apparently such as yourself, argue against it, but I think that's a minority view even here.
    - zeveb 6y ago
      > I think that most people throughout the developed world believe that ensuring the general welfare of a country's citizens is an essential function of government. State governments are sovereign, too, and have far fewer constitutional restrictions on what they may do. I may not agree with the social-welfare schemes dreamt up by Texans, Michiganders or Californians, but they do not effect me, so it's not really my business. OTOH a federal social-welfare scheme effects me and is patently unconstitutional.

by zeveb 6y ago

tgflynn 6y ago

> ... to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States Right after "common defence" comes "general warfare" but for some reason that's something most Americans (or at least their politicians) seem to prefer to ignore.

svieira 6y ago
Most Americans agree that "the welfare of others" ought to be cared for, they just disagree who ought to be primarily responsible for the care. With too broad an understanding of "general welfare" you'd wind up with a 10th amendment that means nothing, because "the general welfare" includes everything, so the Federal government is the only government. I would hate to make Federal lawmakers spend brainpower making laws regarding snow removal that worked equally well in LA and AK.
- tgflynn 6y ago
  Yes, unfortunately as long as you have humans making laws they'll be full of contradictions and unintended consequences.
zeveb 6y ago
The 'common defence and welfare' provide the reasons for taxation, and are enumerated in the following items. Note that James Madison — who wrote much of the Constitution — vetoed a federal works bill because he found it unconstitutional. The Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause#General_Welfare_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause#Gen... is pretty good. I think it's pretty obvious that the narrow view is the only defensible one.
- tgflynn 6y ago
  I'm not an historian or a lawyer so I'm not sure exactly what the founding fathers had in mind or if they even held a consistent view of the question. However two things seem clear to me. 1) In practice in the US today the "general welfare" clause is interpreted expansively when it suits the purposes of the politicians. This is also supported by the article you link: "To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law. ". 2) I think that most people throughout the developed world believe that ensuring the general welfare of a country's citizens is an essential function of government. Outside of the US, especially in Europe and democratic Asia this is probably an extremely dominant view. In the US you hear a lot of very vocal people, apparently such as yourself, argue against it, but I think that's a minority view even here.
  - zeveb 6y ago
    > I think that most people throughout the developed world believe that ensuring the general welfare of a country's citizens is an essential function of government. State governments are sovereign, too, and have far fewer constitutional restrictions on what they may do. I may not agree with the social-welfare schemes dreamt up by Texans, Michiganders or Californians, but they do not effect me, so it's not really my business. OTOH a federal social-welfare scheme effects me and is patently unconstitutional.