Con Law - Lesson 1 "The Preamble"

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Why not? It also doesn't answer the question posed: If "promote the general welfare" means something legally, what are the limits on it?

The Constitution has no restrictions on what Congress can do to provide for the general welfare. It is a power specifically granted Congress in the Constitution. The founders argued in the Federalist papers there should be no legal limits on the levels of Federal taxation which is in the same sentence. Why would you think they would place limits on providing for the general welfare?

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;

[evince]

There is what the founders meant by general welfare




IT IS NOT A MYSTERY

[Flash]

Okay, so? The preamble is just a general statement about what the constitution is for. It isn't law, it isn't legal standing to use to create law. That comes in what follows, not the preamble. It's like a forward or introduction to a book, not the contents of the book itself.

Agreed. And "promoting the general welfare" is not a separate grant of power. If it meant Congress could take any action in the "general welfare" there would be no need for Article I, Section 8 enumerating the (17?) delegated powers of Congress. The Constitution clearly sought to limit the powers of the federal government and not issue such a broad grant as "general welfare" which would vary greatly depending on those in power.

[T. A. Gardner]

The Constitution has no restrictions on what Congress can do to provide for the general welfare. It is a power specifically granted Congress in the Constitution. The founders argued in the Federalist papers there should be no legal limits on the levels of Federal taxation which is in the same sentence. Why would you think they would place limits on providing for the general welfare?

Absolutely wrong. The framers quite clearly stated that what was allowed to the federal government was spelled out in the constitution, everything else was reserved to the states or the people. The whole federal welfare state is built on bullshit.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The "Militia" has meaning. The Orgainzed militia consists today of the National Guard. The unorganized militia is the people themselves. Much like Switzerland, as an example, the idea is that every able-bodied citizen is part of the militia and defends the nation when necessary. Thus, keeping military grade weapons by individual citizens is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment.

Would you be willing to have the US pass the same gun laws as Switzerland?

I am asking because I am curious as to how ignorant you are about the actual laws in Switzerland vs the RW myths.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Absolutely wrong. The framers quite clearly stated that what was allowed to the federal government was spelled out in the constitution, everything else was reserved to the states or the people. The whole federal welfare state is built on bullshit.

So now you are simply claiming that words that do exist in the Constitution don't exist? Interesting since I quoted Article I where Congress is granted the power you say doesn't exist.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Agreed. And "promoting the general welfare" is not a separate grant of power. If it meant Congress could take any action in the "general welfare" there would be no need for Article I, Section 8 enumerating the (17?) delegated powers of Congress. The Constitution clearly sought to limit the powers of the federal government and not issue such a broad grant as "general welfare" which would vary greatly depending on those in power.

I am curious if you have ever actually read the US Constitution because the federal government was clearly given the power to provide for the general welfare. While one could argue that one can promote the general welfare without providing for it, it's rather hard to provide for it without promoting it.

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;

[Flash]

The Constitution has no restrictions on what Congress can do to provide for the general welfare. It is a power specifically granted Congress in the Constitution. The founders argued in the Federalist papers there should be no legal limits on the levels of Federal taxation which is in the same sentence. Why would you think they would place limits on providing for the general welfare?

Of course there are limits. See Article II, Section 9.

There are also clearly limits on federal taxation: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken" which resulted in the income tax being declared unconstitutional because it was not apportioned.

--it was Hamilton who argued there were no limits.

"Madison argued that Congress had no independent power to tax and spend in pursuit of its conception of the general welfare; rather, Madison contended, the constitutional meaning of the phrase “general Welfare” is defined and limited by the specific grants of authority in the rest of Section 8."

[evince]

relating to, or affecting all the people or things in a group and their state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity

This was the founders clear intent on the USA constitution




It’s not for you right wing assholes to throw away

[evince]

Absolutely wrong. The framers quite clearly stated that what was allowed to the federal government was spelled out in the constitution, everything else was reserved to the states or the people. The whole federal welfare state is built on bullshit.

Lies

The told us what they thought


You “throw that away”

[T. A. Gardner]

Would you be willing to have the US pass the same gun laws as Switzerland?

I am asking because I am curious as to how ignorant you are about the actual laws in Switzerland vs the RW myths.

This is a combination of fallacies consisting of a Tu Quoque, No true Scotsman, and ending with an ad hominem.

It should have been obvious the comparison wasn't intended to be an exact match but a generalization you turned into an argument for an exact match (No true Scotsman). It combines this with the claim in the ad hominem as a Tu Quoque (what about...?).

[T. A. Gardner]

This was the founders clear intent on the USA constitution

It's also clear they didn't want a strong, massive, federal government.

[evince]

It's also clear they didn't want a strong, massive, federal government.

You have proven you have no interests in the constitution



You just seek to weaken and destroy this Democracy

[evince]

This is a combination of fallacies consisting of a Tu Quoque, No true Scotsman, and ending with an ad hominem.

It should have been obvious the comparison wasn't intended to be an exact match but a generalization you turned into an argument for an exact match (No true Scotsman). It combines this with the claim in the ad hominem as a Tu Quoque (what about...?).

Fucking idiot blather

[Jarod]

Absolutely wrong. The framers quite clearly stated that what was allowed to the federal government was spelled out in the constitution, everything else was reserved to the states or the people. The whole federal welfare state is built on bullshit.

Please cite any backup for that claim.