Article 1, Section 8 - Question for Conservatives

its not that we are against helping the poor or needy..its that the current welfare system isnt working..the answer is through educating them and getting them job training so some day they can be on their own..now they just stay poor all the time..with no hopeof seeing an end in sight

 

OP comes into this debate just knowing that it's 'right' to believe that Government should be the provider for all people, and force everyone to bear the burden of all unfortunate circumstances, as well as those circumstances that have nothing to do with fortune at all, but with lack of discipline.

Just knowing. That rationalization is so strong, that no amount of proof as uttered by the authors of the Constitution itself could possibly sway it. He. Just. Knows.

And he'll excoriate Conservatives as much as needed to defend this notion justifying taking from those with more than he and others. Because he just knows it's right.

Even a casual understanding of the Constitution and the quotes of its authors refutes him.

 

Well for the 100th time....."Provide for the general welfare" doesnt entail the government stealing money from me and giving it to you and other lazy liberal slobs.

Thats providing for your Welfare......at the cost of my Welfare....and 100% contrary to what The Founders intended.
.
.

 

No....both phrases appear in The Constitution....

"Provide for the Common Defence and General Welfare" appears in Article 1. Section 8....

"Promote the General Welfare" appears in the preamble.....

.....this is not to say "General Welfare" is the two word Constitition that Democrats believe it is......just a little FYI....
.
.

 

Look again. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution says "provide". I think it's the Preamble which says "promote".

 

The original constitutional language had to be overridden by both the Supreme Court and the 16th amendment to get to the point where redistribution of wealth became legal.

 

The right of Congress to provide for defense and welfare is in the same Section of the same Article in the Constitution, in fact, it is found in the very same sentence. If welfare applies to the "United States" and not "Citizens", you would have to apply the same strict logic to defense. Therefore, defense would only to be used to defend the States and not We the People. How ludicrous that the Founders would risk their lives and freedom to create a government that did not protect the "people" for which the Constitution was created.

 

How convenient that you leave out the very next sentence, "and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The very first enumerated power gives congress the "power to lay and collect taxes...to provide for the general welfare."

Oops.

 

One should not confuse the actual wording of the Constitution with conservative rhetoric not found in the Constitution.

 

One should not confuse history with liberal reality.

 

Commentary about the Constitution does not trump the Constitution itself. Give it up already.

 

You do comprehend English right? I know it was written in the 18th Century but c'mon. Let me quote from the Constitution one more time, "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;" If you are against using "your money" for welfare, to be consistent, you must also be agasint your money going to common defense. But of course you are okay with defense, but will hoarde your money when it comes to helping the poor. Gotta love conservative morals!

 

Why do you pretend that the above quote was never posted? Use whatever rhetorical devices you want, but what you call "conservative rhetoric" is an articulation of the way the guys who wrote the Constitution understood it.

 

Government is the government "of the people" and so is bound by law. The same law we are all bound by. We band together to do what "legally" we could do ourselves but of such a scale that it makes more sense to do it together. What we cannot do legally is to steal from our neighbor just to give someone else their property because we feel it is the moral thing to do. In fact, it is immoral. If you did such a thing you would go to jail.

Progressives have usurped the role of government from government of the people to government of the elitist social engineers where doing such things as stealing to give to others is somehow now "moral" and legal. If it were truly and legitimately legal, you could do it as an individual.

 

So, stop your commentary.

 

Great example of "conservative rhetoric" not found in the Constitution. Well done.

 

This is more of the liberal education stuff.

As already noted, the "general welfare" is as enumerated, but mroe importantly, just as with "common defense", is meant for the group, not the individual. That is why the words chosen were "general" and "common".

But liberals clearly want to believe that "general welfare" is to take from one, thereby reducing them, so as to give to another. Madison wrote specifically otherwise.

This thread is a fine display of "Look ! Another liberal Constitutional scholar."

Thanks.

 

Unfortunately postmodernism, which has been abandoned by practically all philosophers at this point, still infects many layman, brought to them by their parents and grandparents, has an effect of encouraging readers to strip a text's author of any intent and, instead, read into the text their own metanarrative. Postmodernism still passes, in some circles, for an intellectually defensible position.

 

"... general welfare of the United States." The union as a whole not the particular welfare of individuals. The welfare of citizens falls to the states. I'd have the same problem with defense spending if we were just defending certain individuals.
Molchmeister

 

Written in the 18th century and its still kicking Leftist ass.......truely brilliant conservatives.

Let me quote from the Father of the Constitution......

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

--James Madison--Conservative--Father of The Constitution--Hater of Liberals--Great American

You see James was talking about the very power your contending.......and how its exactly the type of power The Founders wrote the Constitution to prevent.....and in just one paragraph....James destroys everything today's Democrat Party stands for.

Of course now would be the time where you claim to know more about The Constitution than The Father of The Constitution.....
.
.
.

 

Funny how all of you guys are basing your arguments from commentary regarding the Constitution, but ignore the actual text of the document which clearly gives Congress the power to create "all laws" as "necessary". Commentary which for whatever reason was NOT inserted into the document. Ever heard of the Constitutional Convention? The Founders did not all agree on the powers delegated to the government. Cherry picking the Founders' statements which agree with your interpretation is laughable. You accuse me of not understanding the Constitution when all I have done is present the actual text. How dare I actually quote from the Constitution when having a conversation about the Constitution!

Unless you can use the actual words in the Constitution to show where the government has no power to tax to provide welfare, your arguments hold no water.

 

Yes commentary from THE FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION explaining his work......

......clearly you know better......albeit none of The Founders share your advocation for a Two Word Constition and Unlimited Government.

Somebody stick a fork in this thread....
.
.
.

 

The Constitution does not say that the general welfare clause is one of the enumerated powers. We say that it is not. We defend this position by citing one of the authors of the Constitution. You say that it is. How do you defend your position?

 

Nonsense, the worst penalty of all is invoked...loss of country.

 

When a legislator writes an unconstitutional law, he is not in danger of being executed as he should. He's not subject to any time in prison, or even a fine. No, there are no penalties for those whom violate the Constitution. Another way to say it is: The Constitution has no teeth.