Obama Is Really Swinging The Budget Ax--Chop Chop Chop

[Buffalo Roam]

Seems thta Obama has really cut the spending, $100,000 dollars in 7 months, what is that ooo65%% of the budget?

Now how does that compare to the $1.8 Trillion in new deficit that has been added to the Debt, not counting the $3.55 trillion budget.

Yes, a great way to get the economy on track and cut the debt.

And a projected $17 billion for 2010, and that is a whopping .5%

Obama announces $17 billion in cuts, less than .5% of total budget ...
May 8, 2009 ... All told, the cuts amount to less than half of one percent of the $3.55-trillion budget that the president has proposed for 2010, ...
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/08/nation/na-obama-budget8

Yes, a great way to get the economy on track and cut the debt, yes Obama is making such great progress, a whole 1/2 of 1 percent, Obama is really wielding the Budget Ax, and cutting deep and wide.

Yes really :shrug:

[S.A.M.]

Where would you suggest he cut spending?

What would you economise on in the deficit?

[Buffalo Roam]

Where would you suggest he cut spending?

What would you economise on in the deficit?

Every un-Constitutional program ever devised by the Government.

[baftan]

The main issue is this: What is he or his government planning to invest this money into? I mean the 0.5% of the budget. Because if you invest this money wisely, you could trigger bigger results and this 17 trillion would affect bigger percentages in the medium and long term. If you can not find these critical investment points or areas, this money would also evaporate and make a comical effect as OP suggested. The next policy step will/will not make the difference, not the amount of money or its proportion.

[pjdude1219]

Every un-Constitutional program ever devised by the Government.

by whose understanding of unconstitutional? Yours? constitutional scholars? The begger in atlanta from north carolina who has been their for 8 years? Mine? The supreme courts? The presidents?

[S.A.M.]

Every un-Constitutional program ever devised by the Government.

For example? I don't know the constitutional status of government programs.

by whose understanding of unconstitutional? Yours? constitutional scholars? The begger in atlanta from north carolina who has been their for 8 years? Mine? The supreme courts? The presidents?

You guys should probably take a break from each other for a while. Believe me, I know how easy it is to achieve critical mass in tete a tetes. :p

[Pandaemoni]

The problem from a Keynesian framework is that every cut is...well a cut. Keynesian analysis suggests you need to increase "gummint" spending not decrease it, and Keynes himself said that it doesn't matter really what the program is, so long as the money flows. Keynes suggested was you pay work crews to dig holes and then fill them back in.

Everyone is neo-Keynesian these days, except the Republicans with no say and no accountability whose collective economic philosophy seems to be "I object to Obama and whatever his policies are, even if I agreed with them when Bush did the same thing." Bush was clearly neo-Keynesian too. Even monetarists have fallen largely out of sight (at least in the public sphere).

The cuts are stupid window dressing. It's a try at blunting the "he's not fiscally conservative" argument. The budget and ARRA clearly signal that the man believes that spending to spur growth in Aggregate Demand is his strategy, and the cuts run in opposition to that.

[Norsefire]

Here's a good place to start cutting: the overseas empire and the bloated military. We don't need bases all over the world (costing hundreds of billions of dollars), we don't need a large military, and we don't need to be giving out foreign aid.

[eddie23]

Seems thta Obama has really cut the spending, $100,000 dollars in 7 months, what is that ooo65%% of the budget?

Now how does that compare to the $1.8 Trillion in new deficit that has been added to the Debt, not counting the $3.55 trillion budget.

Yes, a great way to get the economy on track and cut the debt.

And a projected $17 billion for 2010, and that is a whopping .5%

Obama announces $17 billion in cuts, less than .5% of total budget ...
May 8, 2009 ... All told, the cuts amount to less than half of one percent of the $3.55-trillion budget that the president has proposed for 2010, ...
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/08/nation/na-obama-budget8

Yes, a great way to get the economy on track and cut the debt, yes Obama is making such great progress, a whole 1/2 of 1 percent, Obama is really wielding the Budget Ax, and cutting deep and wide.

Yes really :shrug:
and how much did bush cut? a whopping 0%
in my opinion .5% is a step forward.

[spidergoat]

Please provide evidence of this alleged rise in our deficit.

[madanthonywayne]

The problem from a Keynesian framework is that every cut is...well a cut. Keynesian analysis suggests you need to increase "gummint" spending not decrease it, and Keynes himself said that it doesn't matter really what the program is, so long as the money flows. Keynes suggested was you pay work crews to dig holes and then fill them back in.

Everyone is neo-Keynesian these days, except the Republicans with no say and no accountability whose collective economic philosophy seems to be "I object to Obama and whatever his policies are, even if I agreed with them when Bush did the same thing." Bush was clearly neo-Keynesian too. Even monetarists have fallen largely out of sight (at least in the public sphere).

The cuts are stupid window dressing. It's a try at blunting the "he's not fiscally conservative" argument. The budget and ARRA clearly signal that the man believes that spending to spur growth in Aggregate Demand is his strategy, and the cuts run in opposition to that.
The problem, from a common sense perspective, is that any jobs generated directly by government spending are purely temporary. Did you see this article regarding the "thousands" of jobs provided by the stimulus package in Oregon; each of which lasted less than a week? http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99NA4VO3&show_article=1

That's great. We'll stimulate the economy by giving some guys jobs that last about a week. Wow. On thte other hand, when you stimulate the economy by cutting taxes the stimulus lasts and lasts. Every paycheck is a new stimulus package. How is this not superior to a one time injection of government funds?

[Norsefire]

Madanthony you're right but the thing is you can't stimulate the economy. At least, government can't. That's completely artificial and baseless.

Just like Obama's jobs created out of thin air; you can't just "stimulate" the economy, it doesn't work, and it doesn't make sense. If anything it will just cause more long term damage by creating malinvestment.

[madanthonywayne]

Here's a good place to start cutting: the overseas empire and the bloated military. We don't need bases all over the world (costing hundreds of billions of dollars), we don't need a large military, and we don't need to be giving out foreign aid.
Concur, mostly. If any of the countries overseas want us to maintain our bases there; they can pick up the tab. Otherwise, we're fuckin' out of there. I do think we need a relatively large military able to kick any two or three countries asses simultaneously; but we don't need far flung bases all over the world. Also, we can't afford to be handing out foriegn aide anymore; except in emergencies. It's only right to help out our allies in emergency situations (say, following major natural disasters); but just cutting people a check for regular day to day expenses is wrong.

[spidergoat]

What's wrong? Is our defense too socialist for you?

[pjdude1219]

The problem, from a common sense perspective, is that any jobs generated directly by government spending are purely temporary. Did you see this article regarding the "thousands" of jobs provided by the stimulus package in Oregon; each of which lasted less than a week? http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99NA4VO3&show_article=1

That's great. We'll stimulate the economy by giving some guys jobs that last about a week. Wow. On thte other hand, when you stimulate the economy by cutting taxes the stimulus lasts and lasts. Every paycheck is a new stimulus package. How is this not superior to a one time injection of government funds?

How does some rich fuck increasing his portfollio stimulate the economy?

[Buffalo Roam]

The main issue is this: What is he or his government planning to invest this money into? I mean the 0.5% of the budget. Because if you invest this money wisely, you could trigger bigger results and this 17 trillion would affect bigger percentages in the medium and long term. If you can not find these critical investment points or areas, this money would also evaporate and make a comical effect as OP suggested. The next policy step will/will not make the difference, not the amount of money or its proportion.

The government doesn't invest money it spend it, there is no Constitutional Mandate for the Government to Invest money.

[Buffalo Roam]

The problem from a Keynesian framework is that every cut is...well a cut. Keynesian analysis suggests you need to increase "gummint" spending not decrease it, and Keynes himself said that it doesn't matter really what the program is, so long as the money flows. Keynes suggested was you pay work crews to dig holes and then fill them back in.

Everyone is neo-Keynesian these days, except the Republicans with no say and no accountability whose collective economic philosophy seems to be "I object to Obama and whatever his policies are, even if I agreed with them when Bush did the same thing." Bush was clearly neo-Keynesian too. Even monetarists have fallen largely out of sight (at least in the public sphere).

The cuts are stupid window dressing. It's a try at blunting the "he's not fiscally conservative" argument. The budget and ARRA clearly signal that the man believes that spending to spur growth in Aggregate Demand is his strategy, and the cuts run in opposition to that.

The real problem is that they aren't cuts, What the Politicos cuts is the increase to the programs, and the Government does exactly what the Founding Fathers warned us about....Expands and expands until it sucks up every aspect of the Society into it's insatiable maw

[Buffalo Roam]

Here's a good place to start cutting: the overseas empire and the bloated military. We don't need bases all over the world (costing hundreds of billions of dollars), we don't need a large military, and we don't need to be giving out foreign aid.

.Actually the Military is one of the Constitutional mandate, and in all actuality the Military is smaller than ever.

I agree with you about the Bases, it would level the economic field across the world if the Countries, that use our military to cut their defense budget cost, had to pick up that cost in their own Government Budgets.

And the Money we spend in Foreign Aid is again something that isn't Constitution.

[Buffalo Roam]

and how much did bush cut? a whopping 0%
in my opinion .5% is a step forward.

A step forward? Cuts .5% and adds $1.85 trillion to the Deficit, yes really and just how do you see progress in that?

Add to the fact that Obama isn't done adding to the deficit.

[Buffalo Roam]

Madanthony you're right but the thing is you can't stimulate the economy. At least, government can't. That's completely artificial and baseless.

Just like Obama's jobs created out of thin air; you can't just "stimulate" the economy, it doesn't work, and it doesn't make sense. If anything it will just cause more long term damage by creating malinvestment.

Here I agree with you completely, it would have been far more effective to have given the money directly to the people in the form of a Tax Holiday for a year and let the money hit main street the next week rather than pour in down the rat hole's of Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, and make work government programs that aren't even on line yet.

[Buffalo Roam]

What's wrong? Is our defense too socialist for you?

yes.

[Norsefire]

Concur, mostly. If any of the countries overseas want us to maintain our bases there; they can pick up the tab. Otherwise, we're fuckin' out of there. I do think we need a relatively large military able to kick any two or three countries asses simultaneously; but we don't need far flung bases all over the world. Also, we can't afford to be handing out foriegn aide anymore; except in emergencies. It's only right to help out our allies in emergency situations (say, following major natural disasters); but just cutting people a check for regular day to day expenses is wrong.
We shouldn't be in alliances; didn't Washington warn us about that?

Also, the military should be large enough to adequately defend the borders. That's it.

[spidergoat]

yes.

How'd you enjoy that socialist VA medical care?

[Buffalo Roam]

How'd you enjoy that socialist VA medical care?

What the care that I fulfilled my service contract to acquire, 20 years in the military earning the right to said care?

That isn't socialist,that is free market contractual.

As usual, hurry up and wait is the drill, nothing new, the bureaucrats must be stroked and hammered to deliver.

[Pandaemoni]

The problem, from a common sense perspective, is that any jobs generated directly by government spending are purely temporary. Did you see this article regarding the "thousands" of jobs provided by the stimulus package in Oregon; each of which lasted less than a week? http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99NA4VO3&show_article=1

That's great. We'll stimulate the economy by giving some guys jobs that last about a week. Wow. On the other hand, when you stimulate the economy by cutting taxes the stimulus lasts and lasts. Every paycheck is a new stimulus package. How is this not superior to a one time injection of government funds?


There are two responses to that. First, if you believe that the downturn in aggregate demand is temporary (and that is the general belief, but it is an assumption), then temporary jobs are okay. In fact you don't want the government doling out permanent jobs that might interfere with people getting back to their non-government supported spending and working patterns.

Second is that increased government spending are believed to be strictly superior to tax cuts for generating AD. If I cut your taxes, there's a lag before that takes effect. Worse, if I cut your taxes by $10,000, I Mr. Government am out $10,000 and you Mr. Taxpayer may only spend (let's say) $6000 on the economy and save the other $4,000. You want to save and conserve cash because you are risk averse and the economy is bad.

So the government, in effect "loses" (as the government has an opportiunity cost too) $10,000 to generate $6,000 in stimulus when you actually spend cash. On the other hand, if the government spends the $10,000, it loses $10K and gets a direct $10K in spending. Once the money is set loose into the economy, the next guy to get it will save some of it and spend the rest, but at least at the initial stage you got $10K for $10K as a direct effect.

[Buffalo Roam]

Yes, the stimulous is creating so many new jobs......For 35 hours........and back on the unemployment line.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ifn5cIQggxKMBZdAwWc0ej79EQLgD99NA4VO3


"PORTLAND, Ore. – How much are politicians straining to convince people that the government is stimulating the economy? In Oregon, where lawmakers are spending $176 million to supplement the federal stimulus, Democrats are taking credit for a remarkable feat: creating 3,236 new jobs in the program's first three months.

But those jobs lasted on average only 35 hours, or about one work week. After that, those workers were effectively back unemployed, according to an Associated Press analysis of state spending and hiring data. By the state's accounting, a job is a job, whether it lasts three hours, three days, three months, or a lifetime."
Somebody better tell PBO about this because I am sure he would never want anyone playing word tricks with his programs!
Many have said the so called "Stimulus Bill" was nothing more than a buffet for thieving politicians and I think we are seeing more proof of the bait and switch techniques they are using. Appropriate the $$ for something that sounds good and then use it as a slush fund to pay off friends. Look at how they sold us on TARP and how they used the $$. Tarp funds that are paid back was supposed to go to Treasury and Barney Frank wants to use it as a slush fund for his pet projects.
now they are using the same used car salesperson techniques to sell us on health care "reform", aka another money/power/control grab.
We need a special prosecutor for TARP and Stimulus funds.

[Pandaemoni]

Yes, the stimulous is creating so many new jobs......For 35 hours........and back on the unemployment line.


Again, Keynes own example was paying a man to dig a hole then fill it up. Clearly that would not be a permanent position. The big problem with the stimulus is that it is all being spent in and around DC (and DC is doing pretty well).

Everywhere else, the bureaucacy that is supposed to spend the money is slow to get moving because they still need to separate the legitimate spending projects from scams (which will get them fired and which I am sure you would take great glee in, were you able to post about them receiving government funding). Many people submit proposals for things that they don't need cash for now. DC was easy, because all they had to do was accelerate government spending that would have occurred later if events had taken a more typical course.

At this point, the government is even cowwed by "bridge to nowhere" projects that will draw right-wing ridicule (though I remember the same vitriol on the right for Ted Stevens's bridge to no where, then the venom was left wing). That's pretty strange in light of the "dig a hole and fill it up" model. Bridges to nowhere sould positively useful compared to that.

[spidergoat]

What the care that I fulfilled my service contract to acquire, 20 years in the military earning the right to said care?

That isn't socialist,that is free market contractual.

As usual, hurry up and wait is the drill, nothing new, the bureaucrats must be stroked and hammered to deliver.

No one made you use it, you could use private care if you wanted to. The military itself is inherently socialist.

[Norsefire]

The military itself is inherently socialist.

I agree.

[joepistole]

What the care that I fulfilled my service contract to acquire, 20 years in the military earning the right to said care?

That isn't socialist,that is free market contractual.

As usual, hurry up and wait is the drill, nothing new, the bureaucrats must be stroked and hammered to deliver.

You don't seem to understand Buffalo that VA care was not a part of your service contract. Additionally, as in private industry healthcare benefits can be terminated at the leisure of the employer...including federal. Private industry has been doing this for decades. Wittnes the employees at General Motors, have you not seen what happened to retired GM employees?

Your federal employment is no different than that of GM employees. GM got in financial trouble and they whacked retireed medical benefits...which where by the way, far above market. The Federal govenment has similar fiscal woes, why should they not whack your retiree benefits?

[baftan]

The government doesn't invest money it spend it, there is no Constitutional Mandate for the Government to Invest money.

First of all, lack of "Constitutional Mandate to invest money" can also be interpreted as lack of "Constitutional Mandate about not to invest money". In reality, Government understands it that way.

You can google "government investment" and "USA" terms, (even including "Obama" to see the recent policies) and you can picture the actual situation, not principles. Almost any kind of infrasturcture (railways, education, satellite technology, roads etc.) require an initial investment for Research and Development as well as first installation cost. And historically, no private sector can be that powerful or at least they are not willing to do that; later on government would privatise the infrastructure and look for new areas to invest. Apart from that, when government cut taxes for certain industries or give financial aid to certain bodies or groups, these policies are practically investments to these sectors.

Your resistance could be coming from investing money for "interest" gain out of it. If you thought this way, I would agree with you, government should not gamble taxpayers' money (In reality they do that!), neither it should refrain money for necessary spendings (such as health).

All in all, whenever government makes a spending, this can also be understood as "investment", since, "in theory", government must behave ethically; it should consider both taxpayers' money and seller's position in society. This is why governments do not buy underground products to satisfy only taxpayers' interest; no, government should act legally and must buy from national industries first, -principally-. It goes like that...

[Buffalo Roam]

First of all, lack of "Constitutional Mandate to invest money" can also be interpreted as lack of "Constitutional Mandate about not to invest money". In reality, Government understands it that way.

You can google "government investment" and "USA" terms, (even including "Obama" to see the recent policies) and you can picture the actual situation, not principles. Almost any kind of infrasturcture (railways, education, satellite technology, roads etc.) require an initial investment for Research and Development as well as first installation cost. And historically, no private sector can be that powerful or at least they are not willing to do that; later on government would privatise the infrastructure and look for new areas to invest. Apart from that, when government cut taxes for certain industries or give financial aid to certain bodies or groups, these policies are practically investments to these sectors.

Your resistance could be coming from investing money for "interest" gain out of it. If you thought this way, I would agree with you, government should not gamble taxpayers' money (In reality they do that!), neither it should refrain money for necessary spendings (such as health).

All in all, whenever government makes a spending, this can also be understood as "investment", since, "in theory", government must behave ethically; it should consider both taxpayers' money and seller's position in society. This is why governments do not buy underground products to satisfy only taxpayers' interest; no, government should act legally and must buy from national industries first, -principally-. It goes like that...

Our Government is limited to only those actions authorized by the Constitution, the Constitution is the Law of the land, and the Government cannot indulge in actions not legal by the Constitution.

If the power it isn't explicitly granted by the Constitution it isn't granted.

The X Amendment to the Constitution

“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ”

In ascending order of power the Government of the United States is first subordinate to the Power of the States, and the Power of the Government of the United States and the States is subordinated to the People, and no powers not Granted to the U.S. Government or to the State by the Constitution can be exercised over the Power of the People.

Simple and straight forward, there is no Constitutional Mandate by omission or commission that allows for the Government to take Tax money and invest it for any reason.

The one prime example of the failure of said investments is Social Security, the Government borrow's the money out of Social Security, invest it into Government Bonds, and then spends it, and Social Security isn't going broke...it is broke, there is no actual cash surpluses, and the Government cannot redeem the Bonds with out printing fiat money, adding to the debt, or going broke.

233 years ago our founding Fathers saw exactly what i is happening today and set the Constitution to prevent such a occurrence, and We the People have let the Government Trash the Constitution for the name of altruism, by redistribution of moneys in the name of Forced Charity, which is no Charity at all but absolute theft and thievery.

[S.A.M.]

So the veterans health program is unconstitutional?

[Buffalo Roam]

So the veterans health program is unconstitutional?

No SAM, the military is a Constitutional Mandate, along with the fact that a contract was in place providing for compensation for my services.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States......................

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

[Pandaemoni]

Our Government is limited to only those actions authorized by the Constitution, the Constitution is the Law of the land, and the Government cannot indulge in actions not legal by the Constitution.



Yes, but the ability to tax and the ability to spend have been held to not be limited by the enumerated powers. It's the reason why the Congress is able to use economic coercion to force the States to adopt a 21 year old drinking age.

As CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST WROTE in South Dakota v. Dole (decided 7-2):

The breadth of [the Spending] power was made clear in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 66 (1936), where the Court, resolving a longstanding debate over the scope of the Spending Clause, determined 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." Thus, objectives not thought to be within Article I's "enumerated legislative fields," may nevertheless be attained through the use of the spending power and the conditional grant of federal funds.

Who dissented? Liberal firebrand Justice Brennan, and every conservative's favorite Sandra Day O'Connor.

In this case of course they are paying money to buy cars that all (every single one of them) move through interstate or international commaece. Regulating interstate and international commerce are w an enumerated power.

[Buffalo Roam]

Yes, but the ability to tax and the ability to spend have been held to not be limited by the enumerated powers. It's the reason why the Congress is able to use economic coercion to force the States to adopt a 21 year old drinking age.

As CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST WROTE in South Dakota v. Dole (decided 7-2):



Who dissented? Liberal firebrand Justice Brennan, and every conservative's favorite Sandra Day O'Connor.

In this case of course they are paying money to buy cars that all (every single one of them) move through interstate or international commaece. Regulating interstate and international commerce are w an enumerated power.

Just because the Supreme Court Ruled, (Doesn't make it Constitutional,) you have missed the major oblivious that the Supreme Court has become a Legislative Body by usurpation and is no longer the Protector and Defender of the Constitution, and We The People, no longer have a a balanced separated powers Constitutional Republic.

Now tell me just exactly what you don't understand about the Bill Of Rights it is written in the common language, of the Common Man, and in the Tenth Amendment it is plainly stated that, unless granted by the Constitution, in ascending order that all rights belong to the State and then to the People, read it very slowly and than listen to the Meter, the Cadence, and the Rhythm of the Language, and there is no ambiguity as to what is meant by the Tenth Amendment and that Un less granted by the Constitution, the Federal Government is not given the Right to do such.

Only in the mind of a pettifogging lawyer or politically active liberal black crow judge, would the the meaning not be clear and the words parceled out to allow the Federal Government the ability to destroy the Greatest Document of the Common Man in the History of the World;

Constitution Of The United States of America

“ We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ”


“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ”

provides that powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the United States and does not prohibit the States from exercising, are "reserved to the States respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE."

[joepistole]

Just because the Supreme Court Ruled, (Doesn't make it Constitutional,) you have missed the major oblivious that the Supreme Court has become a Legislative Body by usurpation and is no longer the Protector and Defender of the Constitution, and We The People, no longer have a a balanced separated powers Constitutional Republic.

Now tell me just exactly what you don't understand about the Bill Of Rights it is written in the common language, of the Common Man, and in the Tenth Amendment it is plainly stated that, unless granted by the Constitution, in ascending order that all rights belong to the State and then to the People, read it very slowly and than listen to the Meter, the Cadence, and the Rhythm of the Language, and there is no ambiguity as to what is meant by the Tenth Amendment and that Un less granted by the Constitution, the Federal Government is not given the Right to do such.

Only in the mind of a pettifogging lawyer or politically active liberal black crow judge, would the the meaning not be clear and the words parceled out to allow the Federal Government the ability to destroy the Greatest Document of the Common Man in the History of the World;

Constitution Of The United States of America

“ We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ”

“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ”

provides that powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the United States and does not prohibit the States from exercising, are "reserved to the States respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE."

With all due respect Buffalo Roam, you have really gone off the deep end here. While for different reasons, I am no fan of the Supremes. They are the highest court of the land.

Do you not understand the there has to be some final arbiter of the Consititution? There would be a thousand different intrepretations of the Consititution if it were not for the Supremes.

[pjdude1219]

Just because the Supreme Court Ruled, (Doesn't make it Constitutional,) actually it kind does. If it doesn't it defeats the purpose of it ruling on the constitution. Kinda like how an amendment to the constitution by definition has to be constitutional.

[Pandaemoni]

Only in the mind of a pettifogging lawyer or politically active liberal black crow judge, would the the meaning not be clear and the words parceled out to allow the Federal Government the ability to destroy the Greatest Document of the Common Man in the History of the World;

Like Scalia and Rehnquist, apparently, as they said the Spending Power is broad and not confined by the enumerated powers.

Let me put this in words you can grok:

What you don't understand is that the people did delegate the power to Congress, in the Spending Clause to the Greatest Document of the Common Man in the History of the World;


Constitution Of The United States of America

[Buffalo Roam]

For all your melodrama, hyperbole, and pretty colors, no they did not, only those spending powers granted by the Constitution are Constitutional.

And I don't know what Constitution Scalia and Rehnquist, are referring to but the Constitution is a absolute limit to the Powers of the Federal Government, there is nothing in the Constitution about granting broad broad unlimited powers on anything, and every power granted to the Federal, and State Government is absolutely confined by the enumerated powers. and the Tenth Amendment;

X Amendment

“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ”


provides that powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the United States and does not prohibit the States from exercising, are "reserved to the States respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE."


If it is so lets see chapter, verse, paragraph, section, subsection, and line were the Founding Fathers even suggested that the Constitution was not a absolute limit to the Federal and State Powers, or that there was any such intention to grant the Federal and State Governments broad and unlimited powers on anything.

You need to understand the definition of Grok as you are a complete failure on the Constitution because that is exactly how the Founding fathers intended for the Constitution to be Understood,

grok (grŏk)
tr.v. grok·ked, grok·king, groks Slang
To understand profoundly through intuition or empathy.

Not as you, and the liberals like you want, it to be, as a parsed out, parched, out of rhythm, cadence, and meter, painfully dry and grating sound on the ears and mind of,

We the People,

The Constitution is a Song, the Song of the Rights of the People over the tyranny of the Government, and it's elite and privilege Ruling Governmental Class, and that unacceptable interfearence in the Rights of the Peoples and their Lives.

[Pandaemoni]

For all your melodrama, hyperbole, and pretty colors, no they did not, only those spending powers granted by the Constitution are Constitutional.

I agree, and it is obviously broad. It does not claim o be limited by any other section of the document, and so it is not. You are an activist internet poster, trying to rewrite the spending clause to suit your political agenda rather than taking it to mean what it says.

The people, though the Constitution, granted powers to the federal government and the federal government gets no more power than the Constitution grants; but the grant under the Spending clause is not limited by reference to any other clause and it would have been very easy for the Framers to have written that Congress had the power to spend "for those things otherwise within the powers granted hereinafter." The Framers did not.

Do you think you're smarter than the Framers or just trhat you can read the minds of the long dead? Assuming it's the latter, please read the mind of Justice Joseph Story, as since 1833 it's his reading of the Spending provision that has held the day. He argues that they could have places it after the list of enumerated powers to indicate that it was subordinate. They did not. He mentioined that they could have limited it expressly. They did not (in fact they said Congress could provide "for the general Welfare" which is as broad as you can get). He mentioned that they could have roilled it into the necessary and proper clause, which is expressly limited to the powers listed ahead of it. They did not. They know perfectly well how to limit a clause and bind it to the enumerated powers, and they did so in the necessary and proper clause. ou seem to believe what? That they forgot when it came to the General Welfare clause?

Face it, the Constitution works against you this time.

[Buffalo Roam]

I agree, and it is obviously broad. It does not claim o be limited by any other section of the document, and so it is not. You are an activist internet poster, trying to rewrite the spending clause to suit your political agenda rather than taking it to mean what it says.

The people, though the Constitution, granted powers to the federal government and the federal government gets no more power than the Constitution grants; but the grant under the Spending clause is not limited by reference to any other clause and it would have been very easy for the Framers to have written that Congress had the power to spend "for those things otherwise within the powers granted hereinafter." The Framers did not.

Do you think you're smarter than the Framers or just trhat you can read the minds of the long dead? Assuming it's the latter, please read the mind of Justice Joseph Story, as since 1833 it's his reading of the Spending provision that has held the day. He argues that they could have places it after the list of enumerated powers to indicate that it was subordinate. They did not. He mentioined that they could have limited it expressly. They did not (in fact they said Congress could provide "for the general Welfare" which is as broad as you can get). He mentioned that they could have roilled it into the necessary and proper clause, which is expressly limited to the powers listed ahead of it. They did not. They know perfectly well how to limit a clause and bind it to the enumerated powers, and they did so in the necessary and proper clause. ou seem to believe what? That they forgot when it came to the General Welfare clause?

Face it, the Constitution works against you this time.

You are absolutely wrong the Constitution, IX and X Amendments, and the Federalist Papers, 41 and 45, and James Madison, are in full support and conformation of my view of what the General Welfare is and How it is Restricted to the Federal Government.

Again the Constitution is what it is and it is a limit on the power of the Government, and your contention as to the "General Welfare" is a total parcing of the Preamble to the Constitution;

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well]

Changed today as;

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment is the defining point to what the general welfare is and the limits placed by the Constitution on the Government as to definition and meaning of Promote the General Welfare.

Federalist Paper #41:

General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution
Independent Journal
Saturday, January 19, 1788
[James Madison]

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

The Federalist Papers : No. 45

The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered
For the Independent Fournal.

MADISON

Read and be educated, the General Welfare as ascribed to the Federal Government by the Constitution is for the Benefit of the Whole Country in Trade with Foreign Government, and Between States in open and fair trade with each other, the Protection for the General Welfare of the Country and States as a Whole, and at no point is the Power of "the General Welfare" given by the Constitution as a Power, to the Federal Government for the maintain and welfare of the Individual.

http://reagan2020.us/platform/the_general_welfare.asp

The General Welfare

Perhaps no phrase found in the Constitution has been more distorted in actual use and application than the provision that one broad purpose of our government is to promote the general welfare throughout the United States. The Constitution's Article I, Section 8, assigns Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes ... to pay the debts and provide for the ... general welfare of the United States." Certainly, if the Founders had meant this purpose to include any action that might possibly benefit citizens generally, the Constitution itself could have been limited to this solitary statement. Justice, defense, and liberty, after all, are of good effect on the general welfare of the nation as a whole.

But the Founders also ratified the Constitution's 10th Amendment, affirming, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Thus, the general welfare cannot reasonably be stretched to allow the national level of government to perform functions and exercise powers beyond those specifically and explicitly listed in the Constitution. As James Madison described the limitations on interpretation of the general welfare clause, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one...."

[pjdude1219]

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.
Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance.???
wait so insuring people can get all the basics for life(food and protection from the elements) isn't providing for health,happiness, and/or prosperity?

[Pandaemoni]

Again the Constitution is what it is and it is a limit on the power of the Government, and your contention as to the "General Welfare" is a total parcing of the Preamble to the Constitution;[/COLOR]

Please read the Constitution you claim to love. The General Welfare Clause is NOT in the Preamble, it's in the enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8.

The Congress shall have power

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

According to Justice Story, one of the most eminent scholars of the early Constitutional period, whose research and understanding are deeper than yours or mine, that clause means that Congress can spend any money duly collected by the federal government on anything they deem to be in the best interest of the nation. They can dole it out, for example, to States in order to bribe them into raising the State drinking age, in the form of highway funds. The only limitation under the General Welfare Clause is that their objective cannot be expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

That they can spend generally on the "general Welfare" is uncontested by anyone save you because it is express in the document. Further as Rehnquist wrote, "the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by Congress" so they have broad authority to decide what is a good idea or a bad one.

You are on the wrong side of two centuries of scholarship, not to mention the plain English of the Constitution on this one. Again, the ultimate textualist, Scalia, agreed with Rehnquist in South Dakota v. Dole.

[Buffalo Roam]

Really Pandaemoni, I think you are the one in need of reading the Constitution, starting with the Preamble......

“ We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ”

To me it is stated very clearly in the Preamble, why can't you see it there?

And again read Federalist Papers 41 and 45, and learn what is General Welfare and to what it was addressed, and it is not addressed to the Individual Welfare of a person or people, again I reference Federalist 41 and the point and fact as pointed out by James Madison;

The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,"

Not one word about the General Welfare applying to the Individual, only the Nation and States at large.

The Constitution and Article I, Section 8, in fact or supposition support any Idea of a responsibility to provide Welfare to a Individual.

So again Read the Constitution and don't parce it into a dry, droning grind of words on the ears and soul of--- "We the People"

[Pandaemoni]

Not one word about the General Welfare applying to the Individual, only the Nation and States at large.


Not "the" Indovidual, but it is individuals which comprise society. Any program that benefits manu individuals also benefits society and enhances the general welfare. There is a line between the "general" welfare and the "specific" welfare, but that is a murky line between them.

In any event ANY SPENDING authorized by Congress that enhances the general welfare, however defined, is constitutional because the General Welfare Clause permits it so long as it does not reach an end expressly forbidden by the text of the constitution. The crux of my point has nothing to do with individuals, but rather than the spending power of Congress in not limited by the other enumerated powers of Article I, section 8. Congress is free to spend money on things that it could never pass direct legislation on. For example, under U.S. v. Lopez Congress cannot pass a law making it ilegal to own a gun in a school zone., but under South Dakota v. Dole Congress *could* cut off all highway funds to any state that did not have such a law on its books.

On the point of the individual version the non-individual benefit, there is no such thing as the latter. "Benefits" accrue only to indivuduals. If Congress builds a state park, the real benefit of that park is shared by the people who enjoy its existence. If Congress passes a law that distributes money to the poor, and if enough members of the populace get the money that the effects of the program can be called "general" then you have anhancesd the "general welfare."

Nothing in the language you quote prohibits that natural reading of the words. A thing is only in the general interest of the States if it is in the general interest of the people of the States, and "the people" you love are made up of "individuals". Anything that improves the welfare of individual citizens generally (though note that "generally" does not mean "equally" and it does not mean "universally") improves the States and by definition improves the "general welfare" of the States.

You are trying to twist the words so that they mean nothing. Congress in your vire can only spend money on things listed in the other enumerated powers, and then only because of the necessary and proper clause. You try to read the General Welfare Clause into meaninglessness because you don't want Congress to have that power. It's fair to think that they shouldn't, but your solution is an amendment to the Constitution, not to press some BS theory and hope some activist judge buys it.

[Buffalo Roam]

Not "the" Indovidual, but it is individuals which comprise society. Any program that benefits manu individuals also benefits society and enhances the general welfare. There is a line between the "general" welfare and the "specific" welfare, but that is a murky line between them.

In any event ANY SPENDING authorized by Congress that enhances the general welfare, however defined, is constitutional because the General Welfare Clause permits it so long as it does not reach an end expressly forbidden by the text of the constitution. The crux of my point has nothing to do with individuals, but rather than the spending power of Congress in not limited by the other enumerated powers of Article I, section 8. Congress is free to spend money on things that it could never pass direct legislation on. For example, under U.S. v. Lopez Congress cannot pass a law making it ilegal to own a gun in a school zone., but under South Dakota v. Dole Congress *could* cut off all highway funds to any state that did not have such a law on its books.

On the point of the individual version the non-individual benefit, there is no such thing as the latter. "Benefits" accrue only to indivuduals. If Congress builds a state park, the real benefit of that park is shared by the people who enjoy its existence. If Congress passes a law that distributes money to the poor, and if enough members of the populace get the money that the effects of the program can be called "general" then you have anhancesd the "general welfare."

Nothing in the language you quote prohibits that natural reading of the words. A thing is only in the general interest of the States if it is in the general interest of the people of the States, and "the people" you love are made up of "individuals". Anything that improves the welfare of individual citizens generally (though note that "generally" does not mean "equally" and it does not mean "universally") improves the States and by definition improves the "general welfare" of the States.

You are trying to twist the words so that they mean nothing. Congress in your vire can only spend money on things listed in the other enumerated powers, and then only because of the necessary and proper clause. You try to read the General Welfare Clause into meaninglessness because you don't want Congress to have that power. It's fair to think that they shouldn't, but your solution is an amendment to the Constitution, not to press some BS theory and hope some activist judge buys it.

Reference; Federalist 41

"All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,"

This is the though and reasoning of the Founding Fathers in their own words, again;

"All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare",

They are not talking about the Government changing your dirty diaper when you shit it full. they are talking about the Common Defense in General Welfare of the Nation.


Still parcing the words, what is the context of The General Welfare in the Preamble;

“ We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ”

and Article 1 Section 8 clause 1;

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;

Again nothing about the People it is about Defense and the General Welfare of the Nation, the United States, they can spend for the Defense under the General Welfare limited by the 2 year clause, but no where does it authorize the Congress to spend moneys as charity for the indigent, or as it has been parced out of context as General Welfare to the individual.

Show me in the Plain Words of the Constitution where it states that the Federal Government is granted the Powers under the Constitution to take moneys as charity to individuals from the People, if it was so the word individual would appear, or it would state that Congress has the Power to give Money to the People, and no where in the Constitution such a though or Ideal stated.

[Pandaemoni]

Buffalo, you do not understand Federalist 41. The argument that Madison was gettig at was NOT that "general welfare" does not mean "general" "welfare", as you seem to suggest.

In New York, an anonymous authour had published a screed that said the power to "provide for the common defence and general welfare" were license to pass any legislation anyone could ever want. Any law passed that promoted the general welfare would "provide" for the general welfare...and thus any law that was "good" was permitted.

In other words, "provide" does not mean "spend" it means something broader including "provide legislation."

Madison was refuting that by showing the the phrases used were clearly limited to spending measures. The language you quote above is a quote from the Articles of Confederation where Madison was showing the "common defence" and "general welfare" were yet again used in the context of spending only and not as part of a general grant of power.

He was not saying that the term "general welfare" limits spending and nothing in what you quote says that. He was saying that "general welfare" is limited to spending.

Federalist 41 is the reason that we interpret the clause as being the "Taxing and Spending Clause" and not the "Taxing and Providing Clause".

All of this was considered by Justice Story when he interpreted the clause very differently than you, and he surely understood it better. Hs commentaries became the basis for much of our understanding of the Constitution because his scholarship and insight were widely acknowledged.

That Federalist 41 is about limiting the interpretation of "providing" as used in the Taxing and Spending Clause does not by itself alswer the question of that the limits of spending are, but Story went on to analyze that, as have courts after him, and the courts have deferred to him.

At the end of the day the Constitution means what we as a nation, by consensus, collectively believe it to mean. Your view is not entirely crazy, but it is so outside the legal mainstream that you have no hope of ever seeing the law interpreted the way you would prefer. Centuiries from now, that could happen, but almost certainly you won't see it n your lifetime. It requires repudiating an icon of constitutional theory, the overturning of case law and of two centuries of practice.

[Buffalo Roam]

Buffalo, you do not understand Federalist 41. The argument that Madison was gettig at was NOT that "general welfare" does not mean "general" "welfare", as you seem to suggest.

In New York, an anonymous authour had published a screed that said the power to "provide for the common defence and general welfare" were license to pass any legislation anyone could ever want. Any law passed that promoted the general welfare would "provide" for the general welfare...and thus any law that was "good" was permitted.

In other words, "provide" does not mean "spend" it means something broader including "provide legislation."

Madison was refuting that by showing the the phrases used were clearly limited to spending measures. The language you quote above is a quote from the Articles of Confederation where Madison was showing the "common defence" and "general welfare" were yet again used in the context of spending only and not as part of a general grant of power.

He was not saying that the term "general welfare" limits spending and nothing in what you quote says that. He was saying that "general welfare" is limited to spending.

Federalist 41 is the reason that we interpret the clause as being the "Taxing and Spending Clause" and not the "Taxing and Providing Clause".

All of this was considered by Justice Story when he interpreted the clause very differently than you, and he surely understood it better. Hs commentaries became the basis for much of our understanding of the Constitution because his scholarship and insight were widely acknowledged.

That Federalist 41 is about limiting the interpretation of "providing" as used in the Taxing and Spending Clause does not by itself alswer the question of that the limits of spending are, but Story went on to analyze that, as have courts after him, and the courts have deferred to him.

At the end of the day the Constitution means what we as a nation, by consensus, collectively believe it to mean. Your view is not entirely crazy, but it is so outside the legal mainstream that you have no hope of ever seeing the law interpreted the way you would prefer. Centuiries from now, that could happen, but almost certainly you won't see it n your lifetime. It requires repudiating an icon of constitutional theory, the overturning of case law and of two centuries of practice.

No, Pandaemoni, General Welfare is not as you suggest, there is no intent in the Constitution for Individual Welfare.

And you have not provided any citation by the Writers of the Constitution, that they meant anything like a individual welfare, paid for by the Federal Government.

You have totally ignored the Fact that in Federalist Papers 41 and 45, it is stated, the exact intent of the General Welfare Clause, and it is and intended to be.

Now if your are correct lets see some citation from your supposed brilliant Constitutional Minds, in support of a General Welfare that is granted by Government largess paid for by general tax Funds to individual, and exactly where in the Constitution that power is granted.

Word for Word from the Constitution were it states such moneys can be paid to individuals, and that the Government has grant of any such power.


It requires repudiating an icon of constitutional theory, the overturning of case law and of two centuries of practice.

You are really that ignorant of Welfare that you claim that it has existed for 2 centuries????

The United States did not have an organized welfare system until the Great Depression, when emergency relief measures were introduced under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Even then, Roosevelt's New Deal focused predominantly on a program of providing work and stimulating the economy through public spending on projects, rather than on cash payments.

There was no such thing as Welfare until 1930, State or Federal, New York City was the First governing body to pay Welfare;

From the 1930s on, New York City government provided welfare payments to the poor.
Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. New York, New York: Basic Books. pp. 228–229. ISBN 0465041957.

After the Great Society legislation of the 1960s, for the first time a person who was not elderly or disabled could receive a living from the American government. This could include general welfare payments, health care through Medicaid, food stamps, special payments for pregnant women and young mothers,and federal and state housing benefits. In 1968, 4.1% of families were headed by a woman on welfare; by 1980, this increased to 10%. In the 1970s, California was the U.S. state with the most generous welfare system. Virtually all food stamp costs are paid by the federal government.

.^ a b c Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. New York, New York: Basic Books. p. 72. ISBN 0465041957.
.^ Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. New York, New York: Basic Books. p. 325. ISBN 0465041957.
.^ a b c d e f g "Welfare Aid Isn’t Growing as Economy Drops Off". The New York Times. 2009-02-02. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/us/02welfare.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all. Retrieved on 2009-02-12.

[Pandaemoni]

It does NOT mean "individual welfare," it means "general welfare," but YOU have provided no citation to the founders that states that individuals cannot be allowed to benefit from spending engaged in under the clause's auspices.

The "general public" is made up on individuals. If individuals cannot benefit from the spending, then no one can. "Nations" are abstractions. The United States does not really have its own welfare. It's the people of the United States that have a welfare, and "people" is a concept of "individuals taken as groups."

Justice Story's view was that you can never have spending that will benefit everyone equally and only rarely spending that would even "benefit everyone" so any spending is likely to have disproportionate impact. Hire a policeman to catch criminals and you pay the individual only--the policeman, BUT the payment is for the general welfare. So who decides how the money should be spent and when the "general welfare" of the country is enhanced? His view was that that is a legislative call. The legislature may turn out to be incorrect as a factual matter, but it's their job to try to figure out how to enhance the general welfare, even if they sometimes miss the mark.

In any event, I sleep well knowing that my view is both right and is the law of the land as it is enforced. You can go sleep well knowing that your view is Right(tm) and that no court anywhere will agree with you in your lifetime.

[Buffalo Roam]

It does NOT mean "individual welfare," it means "general welfare," but YOU have provided no citation to the founders that states that individuals cannot be allowed to benefit from spending engaged in under the clause's auspices.

The "general public" is made up on individuals. If individuals cannot benefit from the spending, then no one can. "Nations" are abstractions. The United States does not really have its own welfare. It's the people of the United States that have a welfare, and "people" is a concept of "individuals taken as groups."

Justice Story's view was that you can never have spending that will benefit everyone equally and only rarely spending that would even "benefit everyone" so any spending is likely to have disproportionate impact. Hire a policeman to catch criminals and you pay the individual only--the policeman, BUT the payment is for the general welfare. So who decides how the money should be spent and when the "general welfare" of the country is enhanced? His view was that that is a legislative call. The legislature may turn out to be incorrect as a factual matter, but it's their job to try to figure out how to enhance the general welfare, even if they sometimes miss the mark.

In any event, I sleep well knowing that my view is both right and is the law of the land as it is enforced. You can go sleep well knowing that your view is Right(tm) and that no court anywhere will agree with you in your lifetime.

I sleep well knowing that my View is the view of the Founding Fathers, and Constitutional.

Again can you read? If the Founders meant for the Government to provide for the Individual they would have said so, by clause, (just as they did for everything else) and provided said powers in plain words clearly stated in Section 1. 8.

And no the People Cannot Delegate that Authority, to Congress, with out a Amendment to the Constitution.

And if so why did James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution,

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia. James Madison wrote disapprovingly,

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

or;

William Giles of Virginia, who condemned a relief measure for fire victims. Giles insisted that it was neither the purpose nor a right of Congress to

"attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require."

or;

In 1827, Davy Crockett was elected to the House of Representatives. During his term of office a $10,000 relief measure was proposed to assist the widow of a naval officer. Davy Crockett eloquently opposed the measure saying,

“Mr. Speaker: I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.”


or;

In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a popular measure to help the mentally ill saying,

“I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity.” To approve the measure "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”

or;

During President Grover Cleveland’s two terms in office, he vetoed many congressional appropriations, often saying there was no constitutional authority for such an appropriation. Vetoing a bill for relief charity, President Cleveland said,

“I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.”

or;

Thomas Jefferson explained in a letter to Albert Gallatin,

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

or;

The framers addressed the misinterpretation of the “general welfare clause. James Madison said, in a letter to James Robertson,

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare’, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

James Madison also said,

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”

James Madison laid out what he saw as constitutional limits on federal power in Federalist Paper Number 45 where he explained,

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

Not one word of support for your Contention that the General Welfare was about,

the Constitution granting a right to Congress, of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

Walter E. Williams

[spidergoat]

Let me know if the welfare program was declared unconstitutional by the supreme court. Let me know if the tax exempt status of churches was declared unconstitutional.

[Pandaemoni]

I sleep well knowing that my View is the view of the Founding Fathers, and Constitutional.

Funny I sleep well knowing that my view is correct and that madison would agree me. I also sleep well knowing that I don't Randomly capitalize Words in Violation of English grammar. (It's a pet peeve of mine regarding your posts.)

Again can you read?

No, I cannot. You caught me.

If the Founders meant for the Government to provide for the Individual they would have said so, by clause, (just as they did for everything else)

Yes, like they did for the First Bank of the United States. Oh wait, that's right, they did not expressly by clause mention the power of Congress to charter a bank, and yet Congress did, more than once. Fancy that. Of course Madison strongly object to the First Bank too...so is Madison against me? Nope. See below.

And no the People Cannot Delegate that Authority, to Congress, with out a Amendment to the Constitution.

Good thing they do not have to, as it is right there in black and white in the Taxing and Spending Clause. And no

And if so why did James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution,

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia. James Madison wrote disapprovingly,

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

I am so glad you sited Madison, because you should hate what Madison thought about constitutional interpretation.

Madison, who kept extensive notes during the Constitutional Convention, refused to publish his journal until after his death:

or, at least, . . . till the Constitution should be well settled by practice, and till a knowledge of the controversial part of the proceedings of its framers could be turned to no improper account . . . . As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution, the debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative character.

In other words hearing what the framers though the words meant was not relevant and should not be considered authoritative. What mattered was how the Constitution was implemented in practice by the people as a whole. If practice contracticed the intent of the framers, then the framers should, in his view, lose to the actual practice of the people.

This explains his view on the Bank of the United States. As I noted, he was vehemently opposed to the First Bank of the United States when he was in Congress on the grounds that Congress did not have the power to charter a bank. When he became President, though, the charter of the bank had to be renewed. If he felt the bank was unconstitutional, all he had to do was veto the Second Bank bill that Congress had sent him. Instead, he signed it. If he felt the Bank was unconstitutional, then it would have violated his oath to sign that bill and yet he did. Why? Because:

Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, and the American people have for two decades accepted the existence and made use of the services of the First Bank....

He viewed this widespread acceptance as:

a construction put on the Constitution by the nation, which, having made it, had the supreme right to declare its meaning.

He thought the bank was unconstitutional, and then practice proved him wrong. He understood that his interpretation of the Constitution was not the same thing as the Constitution itself. The meaning of the Constitution, in his view, is determined by consensus as evidenced through practice. As such, though he objected to the Bank in his days in Congress, he later understood that he was wrong, because the country read the Constitution differently that he did.

and noted:

whatever veneration might be entertained for the body of men who formed our Constitution, the sense of that body could never be regarded as the oracular guide in expounding the Constitution. As the instrument came from them, it was nothing more than the draft of a plan, nothing but a dead letter, until life and validity were breathed into it by the voice of the people . . . .

So Madison himself felt that the practice of the country over 20 years "defined" the meaning of the Constitution. So much for orginalism, and as you note, Madison is the acknowledged father of the Constitution.

Since Justice Story voiced his opinion in 1833, the Taxing and Spending Clause has been regarded as a broad grant of spending authority on any project deemed to be in the interests of the country so long as it wasn't antithetical to some prohibition contained in the Constitution. If, in Madison's view, 20 years of banking gave Congress authority to charter a bank, then what must 167 years of constitutional interpretation do?

So even if you were correct about the original intent. Even if Madison would have agreed with you about the original intent, Madison would have disagreed with your position on it today, because a construction has been put on the Constitution by the nation, which, having made it, has the supreme right to declare its meaning.

Madison understood, better than you, that the words, once written must be interpreted, ambiguous clauses like "general wefare" are treated in the way the people want them to be treated. There is no section in the Constitution that defers to your cramped and myopic views.

[Buffalo Roam]

So then prove it in Madison's own words, not you speaking for Him, and no where can you find Madison's voice approving of Government Welfare for the individual or that the General Welfare clause provided such powers to the Congress.

No let Madison speak for Himself, as I have, quoting Madison in His own words, and those words convict your arrogance.

[Pandaemoni]

So then prove it in Madison's own words, not you speaking for Him, and no where can you find Madison's voice approving of Government Welfare for the individual or that the General Welfare clause provided such powers to the Congress.

No let Madison speak for Himself, as I have, quoting Madison in His own words, and those words convict your arrogance.

Madison himself said that we should not rely on the founders thoughts on the Constitution, you dolt! It was only a "dead letter" (his words) until the people put it into practice. The people, and that practice, was where its real meaning arose.

Thank God too! Because the if the meaning of the Constitution could only be found in the minds of the founders, then only psychic mediums can understand the thing. Mediums and of course those of us who think we can select one founding father and pretend that he speaks for them all, which is a step further removed from sensible analysis.

We're clearly not going to reach a meeting of the minds, and nothing new has been said in many posts, really, so I will bow out now (at least until I have a new thought to share). Let me just say though, that I know you will post after me, and you will post the Same Old Tired Rhetoric that you Like to Use Above, mis-capitalized Words and All, but getting in the last word doesn't make you more correct. You have exhausted me, but only with your stubbornness not with any insight.

I pray that no one who agrees with you will ever make the Supreme Court, and I take heart in that even Scalia voted with my side in South Dakota v. Dole, not with you. If your side could not win him over, what hope do you have?

[Buffalo Roam]

Madison himself said that we should not rely on the founders thoughts on the Constitution, you dolt! It was only a "dead letter" (his words) until the people put it into practice. The people, and that practice, was where its real meaning arose.

Thank God too! Because the if the meaning of the Constitution could only be found in the minds of the founders, then only psychic mediums can understand the thing. Mediums and of course those of us who think we can select one founding father and pretend that he speaks for them all, which is a step further removed from sensible analysis.

We're clearly not going to reach a meeting of the minds, and nothing new has been said in many posts, really, so I will bow out now (at least until I have a new thought to share). Let me just say though, that I know you will post after me, and you will post the Same Old Tired Rhetoric that you Like to Use Above, mis-capitalized Words and All, but getting in the last word doesn't make you more correct. You have exhausted me, but only with your stubbornness not with any insight.

I pray that no one who agrees with you will ever make the Supreme Court, and I take heart in that even Scalia voted with my side in South Dakota v. Dole, not with you. If your side could not win him over, what hope do you have?

Quotes please.

[Pandaemoni]

Madison is quoted above to the effect of "The framers views of the Constitution are not authoritative." To quote Madison for anything else at this point would simply be ironic. Your challenge fails and I have, clearly, won. :cool:

[Buffalo Roam]

Madison is quoted above to the effect of "The framers views of the Constitution are not authoritative." To quote Madison for anything else at this point would simply be ironic. Your challenge fails and I have, clearly, won. :cool:

So you say, lets see the quote.

In your dreams.