The "welfare clause" of the U.S. constitution

[all pro]

Originally Posted by hooked4life

1) Ah, I got confused because contract means something else to me. Yeah, in a very abstract sense it is, although I think Mr. Lincoln sort of proved it's not really a contract, because the states have no power to back out. A contract implies some form of consideration, here the states really have none.

2) It's what I meant and I'm a liberal. It's also what anyone who knows anything about the constitution would mean.

What Lincoln did was illegal and it took him 2 years to figure out that no one would support his war until he signed the emancipation proclamation.

[IdahoViking]

Originally Posted by hooked4life

Yeah whatever, that's certainly not how it's been presented to me. But, it's a moot issue anyway since almost nothing in the Constitution is so clear as not not require massive interpretation. The devil is 'in the details' after all.

When interpreting the Constitution there is a big difference between determining what was originally meant and how it applies today, to determining what was meant then and what it means now.

[Stizzel]

Originally Posted by hooked4life

1. Ohh yeah right. It lacks ANY kind of detail. It would be like Writing Romeo and Juliet and saying A meets B, falls in love, family feud, A and B die.

It lacks detail because the federal government's role is not supposed to be to regulate every aspect of our lives the way it does now. It is only supposed to have some very generalized, basic functions, and it is supposed to be up to the people to decide when the government oversteps its bounds via...

Originally Posted by hooked4life

2. Except that's not what the Constitution set up. See above. You, strong fail.

Grand juries. It was intended by our founders that grand juries be a primary protection against abuse of power. They, therefore, set grand juries aside from all other branches of government. Grand juries are basically a fourth branch, not beholden to the judiciary, legislative, or executive branches. They are intended to be a primary protection for the people and no restrictions were enacted to interfere with access to them.

So you have a minimalist government with only a few specific tasks more or less regulated by the people through grand juries. Basically the opposite of what we have today. It was certainly never intended for any authority figures to decide what is and is not constitutional except in specific instances. That is a power the government gave to itself via fiat.

[psamty]

Spetznaos' support for Stalinism is quite hilarious. Socialism cannot work in a top-down manner. Socialism can only truly work within a free nation. It cannot be forced by the government. In a free nation, people with socialist tendencies are absolutely free to go down that path, without the disgusting violence that they must employ to force everyone to do the same.

The United States has been host to a lot of socialist communities, that were run not by government mandate, but through collective will and free association. This is the only kind of socialism that is morally acceptable.

As examples, look at the Shakers, the Oneida community and the Icarians.

Labor Zionism, in its early days, was also a good example of a socialist community that did an impressive amount of work.

[Stizzel]

Originally Posted by psamty

Spetznaos' support for Stalinism is quite hilarious. Socialism cannot work in a top-down manner. Socialism can only truly work within a free nation. It cannot be forced by the government. In a free nation, people with socialist tendencies are absolutely free to go down that path, without the disgusting violence that they must employ to force everyone to do the same.

The United States has been host to a lot of socialist communities, that were run not by government mandate, but through collective will and free association. This is the only kind of socialism that is morally acceptable.

As examples, look at the Shakers, the Oneida community and the Icarians.

Labor Zionism, in its early days, was also a good example of a socialist community that did an impressive amount of work.

There are two schools of thought with socialism right? Fabian socialism, which is the top-down model, and the more libertarian socialism you're talking about. Can't remember what thats actually called.

[hooked4life]

Originally Posted by Stizzel

Grand juries. It was intended by our founders that grand juries be a primary protection against abuse of power. They, therefore, set grand juries aside from all other branches of government. Grand juries are basically a fourth branch, not beholden to the judiciary, legislative, or executive branches. They are intended to be a primary protection for the people and no restrictions were enacted to interfere with access to them.

So you have a minimalist government with only a few specific tasks more or less regulated by the people through grand juries. Basically the opposite of what we have today. It was certainly never intended for any authority figures to decide what is and is not constitutional except in specific instances. That is a power the government gave to itself via fiat.

Can you point me to the passage in the Constitution that says that?

[swagtime911]

Originally Posted by Spetsnazos

who cares what the founding fathers thought? they're dead.

Please look up social contract in the dictionary or google.

Who cares what you think, your a pretend Soviet.

[hooked4life]

Originally Posted by IdahoViking

When interpreting the Constitution there is a big difference between determining what was originally meant and how it applies today, to determining what was meant then and what it means now.

Not really, it's just people trying to battle for one side or the other.

[Will.i_am]

Of course "general welfare" doesn't mean food stamps or other social safety nets but it doesn't take a leap of the imagination to say that food stamps and other social safety nets are encapsulated in "general welfare".

We have to remember that the point of the Constitution was to create a powerful central government. I can't imagine that Madison intended for social safety nets to be unconstitutional. If he did, he would have enumerated it.

[psamty]

Originally Posted by Stizzel

There are two schools of thought with socialism right? Fabian socialism, which is the top-down model, and the more libertarian socialism you're talking about. Can't remember what thats actually called.

The top-down model is not socialism at all. It is a mockery of the term. Socialism does require a revolt, but that revolt is not violent. Several early thinkers envisioned socialism occurring spontaneously by workers deciding to band together in order to form societies where they made their own goods. They would not need to force anyone or establish a state. They would simply form a community where each person would be assigned tasks, and the common produce would be shared.

What occurred under Stalin and Mao was the replacement of so-called wage slavery with a far more oppressive slavery, slavery to the state. This is in no way socialism.

One political system is only superior to another if it provides each citizen with a greater degree of liberty, provided he/she does not impose on the liberty of others. It is easy to see that a natural, bottom-up, stateless socialism would provide this liberty, and potentially be a better system than what we have now. State-run socialism, on the other hand, is based on the principle of forced extraction of funds, and is therefore by definition less free than capitalism. Marx was right about the flaws of capitalism, yet he couldn't see the flaws in his own proposed solution.

[Stizzel]

Originally Posted by hooked4life

Can you point me to the passage in the Constitution that says that?

The 5th amendment allows for federal grand juries, and gives them the power to give indictments. Again, grand juries are made up of citizens; if you can get a grand jury to indict a public official for violating the constitution, then there you go.

There are also state grand juries that can do the same.

[hooked4life]

Originally Posted by Stizzel

The 5th amendment allows for federal grand juries, and gives them the power to give indictments. Again, grand juries are made up of citizens; if you can get a grand jury to indict a public official for violating the constitution, then there you go.

There are also state grand juries that can do the same.

In capital cases. It's saying capital punishment is a big deal, not creating a '4th branch of the government to ride around and police the state.'

Jeeezuz ****, at least read the document/take a class on Con Law before you run your mouth about how crystal clear the thing is.

[all pro]

Originally Posted by Will.i_am

Of course "general welfare" doesn't mean food stamps or other social safety nets but it doesn't take a leap of the imagination to say that food stamps and other social safety nets are encapsulated in "general welfare".

We have to remember that the point of the Constitution was to create a powerful central government. I can't imagine that Madison intended for social safety nets to be unconstitutional. If he did, he would have enumerated it.

The point of the constitution was to LIMIT the power of the federal government and to guarantee the rights of individuals. Federal 'social safety nets' are unconstitutional. I don't think the founders ever foresaw a time when 40% of the population would be on state aid!

[Will.i_am]

Originally Posted by all pro

The point of the constitution was to LIMIT the power of the federal government and to guarantee the rights of individuals. Federal 'social safety nets' are unconstitutional. I don't think the founders ever foresaw a time when 40% of the population would be on state aid!

No it wasn't. The Articles of Confederation were meant to limit the power of the central government. The Constitution was made precisely because the Articles called for too weak of a federal government. Virtually every line of the constitution before it was amended called for a greater central government than the one that currently existed. That's exactly why the Bill of Rights was created- many thought it was too much power and needed to be limited.

Social safety nets are encapsulated in the "general welfare" clause and, if social safety nets are necessary and proper to promote said general welfare, then it is constitutional unless explicitly prohibited in the consitution.

Oh and, for those of you who disagree with me, your far best argument is the necessary and proper clause. Are social safety nets necessary and proper for the "general welfare" of the country? I'd argue yes but that's a question that entirely depends on the times and the sentiments of the time. That's what's so great about the constitution. Some of its meanings change as the times change. No amendments necessary.

[Stizzel]

Originally Posted by hooked4life

In capital cases. It's saying capital punishment is a big deal, not creating a '4th branch of the government to ride around and police the state.'

Jeeezuz ****, at least read the document/take a class on Con Law before you run your mouth about how crystal clear the thing is.

It says capital or infamous crime. A Grand jury can be brought against anyone that is not in the military, as the 5th amendment says, as long as the people feel it is warranted.