On the elimination of the Federal Income Tax.

The general powers are listed as examples and qualifications of the specifically enumerated, specific powers.

 

LOL!
It just gets better and more hilarious!

 

What? What are you talking about?

e•nu•mer•ate
[ih-noo-muh-reyt, ih-nyoo-]

verb (used with object), e•nu•mer•at•ed, e•nu•mer•at•ing.
1. to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list: Let me enumerate the many flaws in your hypothesis.

2. to ascertain the number of; count.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enumerated?s=t​

The specifically listed or "enumerated" powers do not allow for a Democrat Welfare State for the purpose of distributing wealth to demanding Democrat voters. If it did Democrat FDR would not have had to threaten the Supreme Court so they would stop ruling his "New Deal" unconstitutional in 1937. Google the "Switch in Time that Saved Nine!"

 

Let's put it this way, if the general powers to tax to pay the debts and provide for the common defense are real powers, then so must too be the general power to provide for the general welfare.

 

Massive federal surpluses? There never was an actual surplus under clinton. The federal government spent more than it took in - that's why the debt increased every single year under Clinton.

1992 - 4.065
1993 - 4.411
1994 - 4.693
1995 - 4.974
1996 - 5.225
1997 - 5.413
1998 - 5.526
1999 - 5.656
2000 - 5.674
2001 - 5.807
2002 - 6.228

The debt increased under every year of Clinton. I'll give Clinton (and the Reublican controlled congress) credit for holding the deficit down during the last years of Clinton, so well that the total deficit wasn't triple digits anymore. Doing so caused the debt/GDP ratio to go down, but the debt still did go up. It's a fallacious claim that Clinton left a surplus.

 

Afraid not... If so, there would have been no need to list all those Powers to provide for the Common Defense as they would have been ASSUMED. Those Powers WERE NOT assumed since they actually WERE enumerated. Under your theory why did FDR have to threaten the Supreme Court in 1937 so they would stop ruling his "New Deal" unconstitutional?

 

No, Swamp Music is right. Provide for the common welfare isn't an enumerated power, nor is it an implied power. Democrats use to know this. That's why welfare is generally run by the state, with "reward money" doled out by the feds, though that may be on the way out with recent landmark cases. Like with welfare, the feds tried tying funds they give to states to their adherence to Obamacare, but the supreme court ruled that unconstitutional.

 

I if the general powers to tax to pay the debts and provide for the common defense are real powers, then so must too be the general power to provide for the general welfare.

 

Then why the need for the enumerated powers to provide for the common defense, and why did Democrat FDR have to threaten the Supreme Court in 1937 so they would stop ruling his “New Deal” unconstitutional?

 

Pushing back the frontiers of liberal ignorance is a daunting task. Remember, you are going against decades of liberal public 'education.'

 

Maybe they were avid republicans subscribing to Madison's, republican doctrine? In any case, no one is claiming that promoting the general welfare has had a negative effect on our political-economy; therefore, it must be promoting the general warfare or any given common offense that must be our current and fiscal problems.

 

The Anti-Federalists already had a persuasive argument in favor of specifically enumerating our privileges and immunities.

 

You say that like it was a bad thing.

The progressive aggenda that the enhanced revenue funds is the protection of the environment, the enhancement of our natural resources by preserving a strong labor force to exploit those resources, and a defense against ecconomic crashes caused when a few wealrthy buy it all out from under us and squander it all.

 

Because there will always be greedy bastards who refuse to pay for that which benefits them only indirectly, or for that which protects others from the vile and petty conduct.

 

Why does the right complain about taxes while prosecuting a warfare-state economy?

 

"Indirect benefits" in no way justifies forced coercion. As for the last part of your comment, if you are referring to protections of rights afforded citizens through the military, police and courts then that can be paid for through voluntary contractual transactions and not forced coercion. .

 

"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" — United States Constitution Article 1 - § 8 - Clause 1

 

Why do we have our wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; except for perceived indirect benefits?

 

It's not just semantics, there is a difference in providing for the general welfare and for the common welfare. But I do generally appreciate that you're quoting the constitution directly. I can't stand having constitutional discussions with people that won't even look at it.

 

And the point to your post would be?

e•nu•mer•ate
[ih-noo-muh-reyt, ih-nyoo-]

verb (used with object), e•nu•mer•at•ed, e•nu•mer•at•ing.
1. to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list: Let me enumerate the many flaws in your hypothesis.

2. to ascertain the number of; count.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enumerated?s=t​

You have show the phrase "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" is NOT listed or enumerated, and IS written in paragraph form disproving your own "point." Youy DO understand that, right...?

The Term "Enumerated Powers" is not a Conservative PLOT. The term was widely used by the Framers, like Jefferson for example.

Jefferson called your argument a "grammatical quibble" in a June 16, 1817 letter to Albert Gallatin regarding a public works project to fix the Erie Canal.

Paragraph 5 (Bold and underline for Emphasis)

1817 June 16. (Jefferson to Albert Gallatin). "You will have learned that an act for internal improvement, after passing both Houses, was negative by the President. The act was founded, avowedly, on the principle that the phrase in the Constitution which authorizes Congress 'to lay taxes to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare,' was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare...it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action... (very important point showing the collection of taxes for that which IS NOT listed in the Constitution is illegal) I think the passage and rejection of this bill a fortunate incident...[it] will settle forever the meaning of this phrase, which, by a mere grammatical quibble, has countenanced the General Government in a claim of universal power."

http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Erie_Canal#_note-4​

​

 

Why resort to special pleading for a Cause you don't seem to have? You seem to believe that only an itemized list is an "enumeration" instead of a simple sequence as an enumeration. The general powers are listed, one after the other.

 

Is this in response to me, or Indago?

 

The post was in response to anyone who believes "providing for the general welfare" is an "enumerated power."

 

Why resort to special pleading for a Cause you don't seem to have? You seem to believe that only an itemized list is an "enumeration" instead of a simple sequence as an enumeration. The general powers are listed, one after the other.

 

What a joke. You think it's not enumerated because it's not in list format? lol dude.

WHAT A CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR!!1