Is there a limit to the Welfare Clause?

Post Reply
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Is there a limit to the Welfare Clause?

Post by Accountable »

yaaarrrgg;1342207 wrote: I just don't see how healthcare violates the Constitution. What's clearly allowed is taxation for the general welfare and taxation for defense. Healthcare falls under both from my perspective. The only restriction there is that the taxation must be uniform across the states. Ben Nelson was the only guy I recall who proposed something possibly unconstitional, in trying to get a special deal for his state. And this special treatment was taken out by amendment I thought?



From my perspective, we are the government, or should be. So saying the government shouldn't take care of people who take care of themselves is hard to parse:

The people shouldn't take care of the people who take care of themselves?

By the identity relation, people necessarily always take care of the people that take care of themselves. :)

IMO the problem isn't "the government" but the line of seperation between the government and the people. It's a conslidation of power that was grabbed on the pretense of protecting ourselves from ourselves.


yaaarrrgg;1342966 wrote: I read the Constitution and social programs are clearly supported. If some service is beneficial to more than one person, we can consider providing them as part of the general welfare. And good social/economic policy also constitutes defense, since it's already known that social disorder occurs when extreme poverty is left unchecked. If our country were smarter, it would take an equal interest in stabilizing developing countries through humanitarian work, as it does towards destroying the ones that have grown up not to our liking. Hard to be painted as an enemy by a lunatic or dictator, when we've already made friends around the world with the majority of populations.


yaaarrrgg;1345806 wrote: It [child nutrition bill] falls squarely under general welfare and common defense. That's right, WELFARE. :)


yaaarrrgg;1345878 wrote: The whole point of the Constitution was to create the foundation of a better society, and escape English rule. To prevent the arbitrary taxation, and to give people representation. The notion that "the" founders wanted this or that is oversimplifying the history to align it to a modern political viewpoint. Some of the founders wanted a strong central government that emulated England, and others favored a decentralized approach. Some, like Jefferson, saw banks and corporations as top level threats, equal to standing armies. Many of them thought the people were too stupid to self rule, and others (like Jackson later) nurtured the more modern idea of U.S. democracy.

It's become fairly trendy since Ron Paul to call any and every social policy "unconstitutional." Though by the same logic, I don't see "school lunches" listed as an exception when Congress is defining taxes to provide for the health and happiness of the U.S.. This line of attack is not very far off from birthers calling Obama's presidency unconstitutional. I mean if we are going this route, I can equally claim that libertarianism itself is unconstitutional. Anything that the majority of people vote for, that improves the standard of living for a majority of people, or provided long term cost savings for the whole nation, would fall under general welfare. It doesn't seem implausible that providing better nutrition and education would cut heath and social costs later on down the road. But even if it didn't, like it or not, even bread and circuses are consistent with the Constitution's open wording.

Ironically though, Ron Paul libertarians might suffer from a case of "beware what you wish for" if they ever got exactly what they wanted. Living under arbitrary taxation of an empire across the ocean isn't a whole lot different than living under the rule of a multinational corporation that's monopolized a given market. They have no vested interest in local communities, and if you aren't a major shareholder, forget any representation. You can gripe about paying arbitrary taxes, only to turn around and pay the arbitrary prices set by a monopoly which -- after it becomes big enough -- also owns and operates the government in the market as well.


Ahso!;1283933 wrote: I'll do a BTS.Which he did, in spades :D. If anyone wants to read it, click the link.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Is there a limit to the Welfare Clause?

Post by Accountable »

Is there no limit to the General Welfare clause of the US Constitution? To use the definitions above, absolutely anything fits under it ... and I mean absolutely anything. Using the views here, if Congress decided that eliminating the 2nd Amendment was in the best interest of the general welfare, they would be within their rights to do so. The same goes for any other amendment.

If the General Welfare clause and interstate commerce clause are allowed to have such broad and far-reaching definitions, then what was the purpose of the Tenth Amendment, which was written later? What could possibly not have been "delegated to the United States by the Constitution"??
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Is there a limit to the Welfare Clause?

Post by Ahso! »

What's your interpretation of the Welfare Clause, Acct?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Is there a limit to the Welfare Clause?

Post by Accountable »

Ahso!;1345896 wrote: What's your interpretation of the Welfare Clause, Acct?Answering a question with a question is rude. I see no reason that I should show you more courtesy than you show me. Answer my question, please.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Is there a limit to the Welfare Clause?

Post by Ahso! »

Accountable;1345910 wrote: Answering a question with a question is rude. I see no reason that I should show you more courtesy than you show me. Answer my question, please.I find it rude that an OP does not include the authors opinion in the first place. I'll be happy to answer your question as soon as you state your position.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Is there a limit to the Welfare Clause?

Post by Accountable »

Ahso!;1345914 wrote: I find it rude that an OP does not include the authors opinion in the first place. I'll be happy to answer your question as soon as you state your position.Fair enough.
Post Reply

Return to “United States”