Value Added Tax???

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"

"Useful" arts? Useful to whom? I would say useful to the general population considering the purpose of the Constitution was "to promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...."

General welfare. To ourselves and our posterity. While patent and copyright laws protected specific individuals the overarching purpose was to improve the general welfare and help secure the blessings of liberty for everyone and their children.

Instead of relying what you would say why don't we rely on what James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, actually said about this very matter. Would that be acceptable to you?
 
Post a link and let's take a look.

Federalist 14:

In the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any. The subordinate governments, which can extend their care to all those other subjects which can be separately provided for, will retain their due authority and activity.


And Federalist 41:

It has been urged and echoed, that the 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,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. 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!


Seems crystal clear to me that Madison meant that limited government would actually have designated limits, in fact, enumerated powers. How about you?
 
Seems crystal clear to me that Madison meant that limited government would actually have designated limits, in fact, enumerated powers. How about you?

I agree. Designated limits/powers.

Let's look at the first sentence. "It has been urged and echoed, that the 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,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare."

I ask you, "What is more important than a person's health?"

Can a sick infantry protect the country? Hasn't there been multiple discussions regarding more and more people losing medical coverage and it could evolve into a crisis?

(Excerpt) The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781. The Articles created a loose confederation of sovereign states and a weak central government, leaving most of the power with the state governments. The need for a stronger Federal government soon became apparent and eventually led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The present United States Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation on March 4, 1789. (End) http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/articles.html

It's obvious Mr. Madison's ideas needed an adjustment and/or there was need for a strong Federal Government.

Finally, we're talking 1777. The popular beliefs were illnesses were either caused by a demon or were the curse of God. How could medical care have even been considered?

If general welfare refers to the lives of people we have to consider if illness takes the lives of a significant number of people. If illness does claim the lives of a significant number of people and we have the means to prevent that through proper medical care then medical care must be considered general welfare.
 
I agree. Designated limits/powers.

Let's look at the first sentence. "It has been urged and echoed, that the 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,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare."

I ask you, "What is more important than a person's health?"

Can a sick infantry protect the country? Hasn't there been multiple discussions regarding more and more people losing medical coverage and it could evolve into a crisis?

(Excerpt) The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781. The Articles created a loose confederation of sovereign states and a weak central government, leaving most of the power with the state governments. The need for a stronger Federal government soon became apparent and eventually led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The present United States Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation on March 4, 1789. (End) http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/articles.html

It's obvious Mr. Madison's ideas needed an adjustment and/or there was need for a strong Federal Government.

Finally, we're talking 1777. The popular beliefs were illnesses were either caused by a demon or were the curse of God. How could medical care have even been considered?

If general welfare refers to the lives of people we have to consider if illness takes the lives of a significant number of people. If illness does claim the lives of a significant number of people and we have the means to prevent that through proper medical care then medical care must be considered general welfare.

Now that you see that Congress has limited powers, do you agree that they have gone beyond those powers?

If health care is so important than there is a mechanism to have the government provide it. The one that I prefer is suggested by Amendment X, would be to have the individual State create its own system. That way if folks disagree they can move to another State. The other way is to pass a Constitutional Amendment.
 
Now that you see that Congress has limited powers, do you agree that they have gone beyond those powers?

Absolutely not! The whole idea of the Constitution is to see to the citizen's welfare. It's there in the Preamble. If it's government "by the people" then the government is supposed to work for the people.

If health care is so important than there is a mechanism to have the government provide it. The one that I prefer is suggested by Amendment X, would be to have the individual State create its own system. That way if folks disagree they can move to another State. The other way is to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

Ahhh, that wouldn't work well, at all. Medical plans have to be run/controlled/supervised by an overarching power like the Federal Government. Otherwise, one State could object to recognizing the insurance policy from another State. It would drastically limit free movement.

No Constitutional Amendment is needed. The Preamble spells out how the Constitution is to be read/interpreted. The only question, if one can seriously question it, is "Is a person's health considered part of their welfare?"

When you ask a person how they are doing, what are you asking? If you are concerned about a person's welfare doesn't that mean you're concerned about their health?
 
Ahhh, that wouldn't work well, at all. Medical plans have to be run/controlled/supervised by an overarching power like the Federal Government. Otherwise, one State could object to recognizing the insurance policy from another State. It would drastically limit free movement.

No Constitutional Amendment is needed. The Preamble spells out how the Constitution is to be read/interpreted. The only question, if one can seriously question it, is "Is a person's health considered part of their welfare?"

When you ask a person how they are doing, what are you asking? If you are concerned about a person's welfare doesn't that mean you're concerned about their health?

If portability is your concern then have the feds regulate commerce between the states as allowed by the Constitution.

Its hilarious that you think you know more about the Constitution than James Madison, who actually wrote it.
 
We just went over that with Madison's interpretation, and you agreed:

I agree the Federal Government should have limited powers, however, it was shown Madison's ideas were not realistic. The Federal Government couldn't operate properly and some of Madison's ideas were changed.

In msg. 84 I posted, "The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777......The need for a stronger Federal government soon became apparent and eventually led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787."

Over 200 years ago they put Madison's ideas to the test and found some were not practical.
 
If portability is your concern then have the feds regulate commerce between the states as allowed by the Constitution.

Its hilarious that you think you know more about the Constitution than James Madison, who actually wrote it.

There's nothing hilarious about it. They tried Madison's ideas and 10 years later they had to make adjustments because Madison's ideas didn't work.
 
I agree the Federal Government should have limited powers, however, it was shown Madison's ideas were not realistic. The Federal Government couldn't operate properly and some of Madison's ideas were changed.

In msg. 84 I posted, "The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777......The need for a stronger Federal government soon became apparent and eventually led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787."

Over 200 years ago they put Madison's ideas to the test and found some were not practical.

The Articles of Confederation aren't being discussed here; the Constitution is. James Madison was the Father of the Constitution. Since you state, without basis of course, that his ideas weren't realistic, you must be advocating usurpation of them.
 
There's nothing hilarious about it. They tried Madison's ideas and 10 years later they had to make adjustments because Madison's ideas didn't work.
You appear to be confused. Madison is the Father of the Constitution, which replaced the Articles of Confederation. His writings in the Federalist were to "sell" the Constitution to the public, and explain his interpretation of it.
 
The Articles of Confederation aren't being discussed here; the Constitution is. James Madison was the Father of the Constitution. Since you state, without basis of course, that his ideas weren't realistic, you must be advocating usurpation of them.

Exactly. The Articles are not being discussed here. You mentioned them and I posted the following:

(Excerpt) The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781. The Articles created a loose confederation of sovereign states and a weak central government, leaving most of the power with the state governments. The need for a stronger Federal government soon became apparent and eventually led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The present United States Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation on March 4, 1789. (End) http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/articles.html

Madison's Articles, which became the first Constitution, were inappropriate so they were adjusted 10 years later. So why bring them up in msg 81?
 
Exactly. The Articles are not being discussed here. You mentioned them and I posted the following:

(Excerpt) The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781. The Articles created a loose confederation of sovereign states and a weak central government, leaving most of the power with the state governments. The need for a stronger Federal government soon became apparent and eventually led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The present United States Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation on March 4, 1789. (End) http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/articles.html

Madison's Articles, which became the first Constitution, were inappropriate so they were adjusted 10 years later. So why bring them up in msg 81?
I didn't mention the Articles of Confederation, you did. Again:

You appear to be confused. Madison is the Father of the Constitution, which replaced the Articles of Confederation. His writings in the Federalist were to "sell" the Constitution to the public, and explain his interpretation of it.
 
I didn't mention the Articles of Confederation, you did. Again:

We were talking about general welfare and in msg 81 you wrote, “Instead of relying what you would say why don't we rely on what James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, actually said about this very matter. Would that be acceptable to you?”

So, what did Madison say? It appears we’re disagreeing so why not copy and paste what you think he said and what he meant?

Put it here in the thread. State, exactly, what you're referring to.
 
We were talking about general welfare and in msg 81 you wrote, “Instead of relying what you would say why don't we rely on what James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, actually said about this very matter. Would that be acceptable to you?”

So, what did Madison say? It appears we’re disagreeing so why not copy and paste what you think he said and what he meant?

Put it here in the thread. State, exactly, what you're referring to.

Are you being purposely obtuse? Re-read post 83. Madison wrote both Federalist 14 and Federalist 41, as stated previously.
 
Back
Top