3 ms·

Given that in Article 1 Section 8 is the following: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and

by pierat 3y ago

Given that in Article 1 Section 8 is the following: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" highlight: "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare" Seems to strongly indicate that clean water, clean food, medical, etc, are part of the "general welfare".

ackfoobar 3y ago
Looking at the thread I don't think he objects to government ensuring clean water, but Democrats' taxing policies.
- pierat 3y ago
  Perhaps, but arguing who's political sportsball team is better is a losing strategy in a discussion, no matter who plays. I prefer to go back to the primary topic and discuss from there. It more often than not provides a different path forward, rather than devolving into talking past each other. And they do have a good point to re-scope government appropriately. And frankly, I believe this clause calls for single payer medical, amongst other things. In some ways, the framers of the constitution did a damned good job in the forward language they chose. Other areas, no so much.
phpisthebest 3y ago
Authoritarians for decades have attempting to expand "general welfare" far beyond its original remit In Federalist 41,Madison clearly states that the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere “synonym” for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content. From this answer, it follows that the primary meaning of the national dimension of the federal Constitution is limited government, understood as a government with a limited number of powers or means. In short it is about the General Welfare *of the United States* on the whole, to provide means for Congress to have revenue to enforce and discharge the powers granted therein. It is NOT.. I repeat NOT a general statement of power to provide all individuals all people "general welfare" like people attempt to conflate it to mean in modern day and as your comment asserts.
- ROTMetro 3y ago
  To be fair Madison personally owned around a hundred slaves and the Constitution in Article 1 Section 2 counted slaves as three-fifths of a free individual, but please tell me again that this guy is the patron saint of defining personal freedom and the Constitution some kind of twelve commandments of freedom "Thou shalt count Black people that you hold in bondages as three fifths human". And of course let's ignore the law AS WRITTEN and instead talk about slave owner Madison's feelz on inalienable freedom (◔_◔).
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    This is so profoundly ignorant that I am surprised it continues to come up. Under your premise you would have wanted all Slaves to be counted as whole persons. This is exactly what many slave owners wanted, they wanted to have the slaves counted as whole persons so their states would have more power. The Abolitionists wanted the slaves not to be counted at all 3/5ths was a compromise and directly lead to the eventual abolishment of slavery completely.
- tedivm 3y ago
  The Federalist wasn't an actual legal document, it was just the opinion of a few people (not even all of the founding fathers). You might as well be pointing to the NYT Opinion section as your source. You can't be a strict constitutionalist and also use the words of the Federalist as a way to enhance or modify the constitution. These are contradictory viewpoints.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    >>The Federalist wasn't an actual legal document, it was just the opinion of a few people (not even all of the founding fathers) What??? While sure it is not legally binding the Federalist are looked to by historians and even the courts to understand the original context and intent of the constitution, No different than when courts look to the debate around a given law when they are attempting to understand what Congress meant when they passed the law. Further in this case Federalist 41 was written by Madison the person that wrote the general welfare statement, to say that is the same as citing a NYT Opinion is the height of idiocy Further still I am strict *orginalist*. meaning I do not engage in the idea of "living document" and that the words should be interpenetrated as they mean today instead they should be used in the context of 1776. I and other orginalist do this by citing sources for that time period such as the Federalist papers to understand what the ORIGINAL MEANING of "General Welfare" was at the time it was written.

by pierat 3y ago

ackfoobar 3y ago

Looking at the thread I don't think he objects to government ensuring clean water, but Democrats' taxing policies.

pierat 3y ago
Perhaps, but arguing who's political sportsball team is better is a losing strategy in a discussion, no matter who plays. I prefer to go back to the primary topic and discuss from there. It more often than not provides a different path forward, rather than devolving into talking past each other. And they do have a good point to re-scope government appropriately. And frankly, I believe this clause calls for single payer medical, amongst other things. In some ways, the framers of the constitution did a damned good job in the forward language they chose. Other areas, no so much.

phpisthebest 3y ago

Authoritarians for decades have attempting to expand "general welfare" far beyond its original remit In Federalist 41,Madison clearly states that the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere “synonym” for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content. From this answer, it follows that the primary meaning of the national dimension of the federal Constitution is limited government, understood as a government with a limited number of powers or means. In short it is about the General Welfare *of the United States* on the whole, to provide means for Congress to have revenue to enforce and discharge the powers granted therein. It is NOT.. I repeat NOT a general statement of power to provide all individuals all people "general welfare" like people attempt to conflate it to mean in modern day and as your comment asserts.

ROTMetro 3y ago
To be fair Madison personally owned around a hundred slaves and the Constitution in Article 1 Section 2 counted slaves as three-fifths of a free individual, but please tell me again that this guy is the patron saint of defining personal freedom and the Constitution some kind of twelve commandments of freedom "Thou shalt count Black people that you hold in bondages as three fifths human". And of course let's ignore the law AS WRITTEN and instead talk about slave owner Madison's feelz on inalienable freedom (◔_◔).
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  This is so profoundly ignorant that I am surprised it continues to come up. Under your premise you would have wanted all Slaves to be counted as whole persons. This is exactly what many slave owners wanted, they wanted to have the slaves counted as whole persons so their states would have more power. The Abolitionists wanted the slaves not to be counted at all 3/5ths was a compromise and directly lead to the eventual abolishment of slavery completely.
tedivm 3y ago
The Federalist wasn't an actual legal document, it was just the opinion of a few people (not even all of the founding fathers). You might as well be pointing to the NYT Opinion section as your source. You can't be a strict constitutionalist and also use the words of the Federalist as a way to enhance or modify the constitution. These are contradictory viewpoints.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >>The Federalist wasn't an actual legal document, it was just the opinion of a few people (not even all of the founding fathers) What??? While sure it is not legally binding the Federalist are looked to by historians and even the courts to understand the original context and intent of the constitution, No different than when courts look to the debate around a given law when they are attempting to understand what Congress meant when they passed the law. Further in this case Federalist 41 was written by Madison the person that wrote the general welfare statement, to say that is the same as citing a NYT Opinion is the height of idiocy Further still I am strict *orginalist*. meaning I do not engage in the idea of "living document" and that the words should be interpenetrated as they mean today instead they should be used in the context of 1776. I and other orginalist do this by citing sources for that time period such as the Federalist papers to understand what the ORIGINAL MEANING of "General Welfare" was at the time it was written.