I personally am against Welfare and any government plan to take away succesful peoples money and redistribute it among the population for whatever reason. I believe that the Constitution does not allow for this but would like to hear other opinions and angles specifically of those in support of welfare.

Just to put things in perspective, over 50% of the total taxes collected in the United States are paid by the richest 4% of citizens...

Question: Does the Constitution allow the federal government to maintain a welfare plan and redistribute money gained from taxing of the people.

No, not as interpreted by the majority of our founding father's or the USSC until after FDR's court packing attempt cowed the court into submission. The Fabians looked upon the existance of a written constitution as an obstacle to their socialist path, they managed to work around this by the use of judicial activism. My signature makes clear what "The Father of the Constitution" thought of the constitutionality of welfare.

True, the Constitution does allow for the federal government to spend its money but it does not say it has the right to redistribute it among the citizenry... But that is just my opinion, many other people would follow the Constitution very loosely.

Even as a libertarian, I've always gotten hung up on the phrase "provide for the general welfare..." in the Constitution. I would be interested in hearing what you think of that guarantee in relation to this debate.

In Federalist paper #41 Madison is quite clear that the general welfare clause sole purpose is to enable the government to carry out it's powers as delegated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

General welfare is just that GENERAL. It does not target one specific group (the poor). It is a provision for such things as roads, bridges, etc.

Well, I suppose it allows welfare if you refer to the elastic clause (Hamilton certainly made use of that one ). I don't pay taxes, but still think that it's wrong for people to have to pay for the nation's needy, when it's not their fault or even has anything to do with them.

I don't see it as being either a constitutional or unconstitutional issue anymore than healthcare or un-employment or police and firefighters are. You aren't guaranteed any of those other things in the constitution either but they make living in a society with each other more tolerable. There are benefits in taking care of the poor and starving even for the rich. And if they are in the top 4% they are hardly suffering even after they pay their taxes. I can't understand why they don't expect to have to contribute more to a society that has allowed them to make such huge fortunes in the first place. I find it hard to believe that these people would rather live in a place that showed no concern for it's neediest people which is why, I expect, they don't move to such a place.

If they got rid of welfare and I were in that top 4% I would start have Marie Antoinette nightmares with the hungry angry masses gathering on my lawn calling for my head for being such a greedy SOB while their children were dying of hunger in the streets just like they do in 3rd world countries.

It's no more unconstitutional or unfair than a middle class antiwar activist having to pay his taxes knowing the biggest chunk will go towards an already astronomical and unchallenged military budget including the salaries of people employed to do something he finds morally outrageous. His wealth is being distributed as well but I doubt he feels it's all done as punishment for being successful.

I don't know where the Supreme Court falls on "the general welfare" issue, but certainly by now someone has probably challenged the constitutionality of welfare programs.

The anger and frustration directed at programs that provide social uplift reminds me of John Kenneth Galbraith's observation, "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

I think the integrity of the USSC was shown in Dec of 2000. Yes, since the Civil War, and in particular since 1935, the USSC has allowed all kinds of violations of the Constitution through misinterpretation of the general welfare and commerce clauses. It is quite sad.

Definitely not constitutional on the federal level. The US government may only do what it is specifically authorized to do according to:

Amendment [X.]

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.

The states may constitutionally have welfare programs, IF the state constitution allows it, and likewise for cities and counties, but not the federal government.

You are correct, I guess a better wording for the debate question would have been "Can welfare be distributed while a country still claims to be capitalist?"

Sorry, we can't change direction twelve posts in. This thread is already committed to this debate:

It's a great Constitutional debate question and should remain open as is.

However, please feel free to start a new debate regarding welfare and capitalism.

National defense is included in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Welfare is not.

Wellfair was put in for a good reason, but to many ppl take advantage of it.

You are technically correct. However, roads and other public necessities are not guarenteed either but they are still necessary to run a society. Just because defense is mentioned in the Constitution does not mean that people could be forced to work to pay for it either. It's not that cut and dry.

I don't know if welfare is constitutional or not.

If it is not, do you propose it be removed altogether? To be replaced with what, if anything?

Good quote. It's easier to feel comfortable about oneself when the economically disadvantaged are "are out sight and out of mind."

Paying taxes bites. If there was no welfare, though, would those who resent paying higher taxes use that extra money for charities to help the poor?

- What does it matter? Its their money, not mine, not yours, not the poor's.

Welfare, as practiced by the Federal government is contrary to the written Constitution of the United States. Neither the "general welfare" clause, nor the "interstate commerce" clause can be construed in any fashion intelligible to the folks who WROTE the Constitution as permitting the Federal gov't to engage in welfare. Ditto for most disaster relief, and a tremendous volume of the activities that the Fed's engage in today. The Courts have, however, found it consistent with the "living" or "evolved" Constitution, i.e., whatever makes the blackrobes feel warm and fuzzy.

Welfare IS perfectly permissible for every state. The funnelling of federal dollars through the states does not, to my mind, in any way, meet the test of Constitutionally permitted welfare, especially when the use of federal money is restricted in any fashion.

Even the majority of the federal highway dollars are spent in violation of the Constitution, as the benefits to the "general" (i.e. that's means all of us) welfare attendant the Big Dig in Boston are incredibly weak, especially when weighed against the benefits to "the select few" (in this case, Bostonians). Virtually ANY public spending can be justified as benefitting the "general welfare" if you are willing to count fourth or fifth order indirect benefits. Conversely, any activity not specifically stated in the Constitution (i.e., defense, federal courts, the census, etc) can be torturously construed to be of such narrow benefit as to not meet the test.

All of which takes us to the past meaning of the term "general welfare", and whether the present usage is abusive.

I'm unclear as to exactly how taking Paladin's or Wertz's or Jaime's or Hugo's or etc's... money and giving it to me without me doing anything in return for them would benefit the general welfare. Please, somebody enlighten me. (It would, of course, improve my financial welfare, although it may have deletrious impacts upon my moral and ethical welfare. )

Grace and peace, BD

I strongly support the Constitution as the Founding Father's interpreted it, so ofcourse I am very much against any form of federal wellfare program. I have heard some legitimate argumets over why the rich should have to give money to those who either dont want to work or cant work, but I must argue that the Founding Father's (particularly Jefferson) were strongly against the redistribution of wealth by the federal government, and he is quoted saying, "The day the government steals from the man who is willing to work and gives to the man who is not, then our democracy has truly failed." And he's right, America is a land of opportunity, being a citizen does not guarentee you sucess in your endeavours, only a greater chance to be born poor and die rich which is not afforded to so many in other nations. I believe that some of the cause of poverty in America is the excessive regulations placed on starting a business, which defeats the idea of entreprenuership and capitalism itself, along the minimum wage that prevents some people from working, even if it is not much money, a job is better than no job. It is my firm stance that wellfare should be shifted back into where it was originally intended and should be, private charity's and religious institution's, and ofcourse family and friends.

The key part here is about the man who is not willing to work, as in a lazy man. Notice that there is no mention of those who can't work, or is a part of the planned percentage of unemployed, or not working due to no fault of his own. Those who simplistically use the expression "won't work" while failing to consider the other categories is attempting to stack the deck. And if you read a bit more of Jefferson, you will find he is in favor of helping those who need it. The man said a lot, and you can find Jefferson quotes to support almost any idea.

I certainly agree that welfare, and the programs designed to lessen the need for welfare, should be a state's responsibility, and the Feds should stay out of it.
With 50 states trying to solve the problem, certainly some of them will find a way that works better than what we have now.

If 4% of us are paying 50% of the taxes, then the tax rates need to be adjusted such that the rich can pay even more towards improving the economy, creating jobs, improving public education, and leveling the playing field such that more of us have the opportunities to achieve at least a portion of the American dream.
Part of the problem is that the rich make the rules, and they make them selfishly. I suspect there is more tax money going out to the corporate world in the guise of "economic stimulation" than is going out to the so-called welfare class.
Our congressfolk depend on the largesse of the wealthy and will suck up to them in a heartbeat if it means getting a donation to the cause of re-election.

I have no problem with the working poor not having to pay taxes at all. It goes back to "no taxation without representation". As long as the government is by the rich, for the rich, etc., the poor are not going to get representation.

Our government spends a lot of money on issues that the constitution doesn't specifically address, but at least the money for welfare isn't going overseas as foreign aid to support dictators and despots.

BTW, I am not rich, or poor, but comfortable beyond my needs. I am also not selfish and don't mind helping others, if they are willing to do their part. The lazy need not apply for assistance at my house.

Federalist Paper #41

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!

We don't have to guess what the founding fathers thought. Welfare is unconstitutional. It is, as Madison stated, an absurdity to enumerate certain powers following a clause that would give the government practically unlimited powers.

In a well working economy, anywhere from 2%-10% of the working force is unemployed.

Economists major goal isn't to make sure that everyone has a job. In fact, if 100% of the population DID have a job, it would hurt the economy.

So, what to do with those people who just lucked out? They were part of the plan, it was intentional that someone was going to be unemployed.

So what do we say to them? Game over? You lost, give me back my money?

People who benefited from the system should invest in the system. And lets face it, the rich will remain rich, the middle class will remain the middle class, and the poor will always be poor. Welfare taxes at least serve to slighten the separation, and even one who disagrees with that assessment will agree that welfare taxes aren't hurting any rich person financially.

Where is the constitutionality of welfare addressed in this post?

As for Danya's statement



Wrong, public roads are addressed in Article 1 Section 8

If you eliminated direct pay federal welfare, you would see no decrease in your actual taxes, because welfare consists of only 1% of the federal budget. So there is no redistribution as implied. ( I am sorry I can not provide a link, my computer is screwing up, you can type in "welfar myths" on www.askjeeves.com and you can get a breakdown of the federal budget)- the bulk going to social security, medicaid and medicare. Any real double digit cuts, or just no increase in spending to keep up with inflation, would have to come from this area. I would argue that this is a matter of national security, because it would seriously weaken our country to have a giant class of poor or starving poeple commiting crimes out of desperation. So I would say "YES" it is constitutional to have welfare and welfare like programs, just to keep our nation strong.

Those who think we have no need of these social programs should travell to a country that does not have these programs. We would not be able to have the military we have without our economy, our economy is dependent on goverment spending "stimulas" if you will, so therefore, it is a matter of national security.

Article 1 Sec 8 of a once great Constitution

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 defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


To borrow money on the credit of the United States;


To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;


To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;


To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;


To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;


To establish post offices and post roads;


To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


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;


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And


To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.


No mention of welfare or social security. Welfare is a drag on the economy, not a stimulant.

Let me add a quote from a former US President

"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1930

That man knew what he was talking about in 1930.

And why is this issue so important? I think my buddy, Alex, said it best:

No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

So what you are saying is, welfare is a state issue, not a federal one? If so, I agree.

However, those of us who have money to be taxed are going to support welfare, it makes little difference to our personal finances whether it is done with state taxes or federal taxes.

And I don't see any states filing suit against Washington, D.C. on the constitutionalilty of federal money being used to help them pay for the welfare needs of their states.

It appears that the states have surrendered this, and many other, responsibilities.

Those who advocate or believe that goverment has no other function besides those expressly mentioned in the constitution, and who believe that no other function is allowable in the constitution, are IMO, living in a fantasy land make believe world , because we would have ceased to exist as a nation under those very strict guidelines. America has survived because we have been able to adapt and change. Just the act of changing from Tarrifs to another tax system was unforseen by the founding fathers and the tarrif system would have caused us to collapse under debt and bad economy eventually. The greatest thing to ever happen to this country is the civil war and the triumph of the federal goverment over the confederacy. This stopped the lunitic fringe from gaining a permanent foothold in a state and making thier own private fiefdom/theocracy, which is exactly what the slave state elite wanted. It allowed the federal goverment to sweep away an injustice like slavery and then segregation. It allowed us as one to unite in the great world wars, and eventually become a great super power.

The strict interpretations is really just dreaming of a past that did not happen. Functions that our goverment have come to perform such as welfare, soc sec etc fall into an area like "other duties as assigned" on a job description, fill a need when it arises, I don't care whose job it is!

Just like to point out that Section 8 states "provide for the...general welfare of the United States" From this choice of words I would draw the conclusion they are not talking about the people, and providing for their general welfare, but for the collective welfare of the US as a country.

Yes, I realize in your opinion the Constitution should be ignored. There is a way to adapt the Constitution, it is called amendments. Why do you think amendments were used to enact and repeal prohibition if the feds already had this power under the general welfare or commerce clauses?

There was an amendment to the Constitution that provided for an income tax. Yes we adapted, in a manner consistent with the Constitution, from tariffs as aprimary source of federal revenue.

Doesn't "providing for the general welfare of the U.S.," as described in section 8 exactly apply to a federal welfare? Keeping 10 percent of the population from starving in the streets, a la North Korea, seems to be in the general interest of the nation, both on practical and ethical grounds.

BTW, the old hoary conservative line about people who "won't work" is largely a self-serving fiction. Due to mainly Republican spear-headed efforts to scale back funding for government mental health programs and institutions, current estimates run that a full 60-70 percent of the homeless are mentally ill. Not to mention that the vast majority of America's underclass are employed, but unfortunately employed at jobs that don't pay a living wage - I'd recommend the book "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich to anyone tempted to fall back on the poor=lazy equation.

As the Terminator himself said: "I used to think people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Later, I realized not everyone has boots."

Not according to Jefferson or Madison. See my earlier post or read Federalist Paper #41. Or just look at my signature.

Jefferson and Madison weren't the only people who wrote the Constitution nor are the Federalist Papers the law of the land. And times have changed, its silly to think that interpretations of law cant change to an extent.

So, it seems like your argument is that, even though the Constitution expressly permits the levying of taxes to provide for "the general welfare" in Article 1, section 8, your objection to the government doing so rests upon subsequent comments made by a couple of the framers regarding their personal interpretations thereof. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. It seems cut and dried to me that government welfare, although not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, easily falls under the rubric of "protecting the general welfare" of the nation.

It's silly to think that the law of the land cannot be reinterpreted on a whim. The Founders knew times would change. That is what amendments are for. If Federalist Paper #41 is not correct, then our Constitution was ratified under false pretenses.

Count, your argument has already been addressed see Federalist Paper #41. The pertinent parts are already quoted at an earlier post on this same thread.

It seems like we're arguing two different points here. I agree that in Federalist #41, Madison is clearly wary of the "general welfare" clause, but so what? I don't see how that's at all germane to a discussion of federal welfare's constitutionality. Madison and Hamilton weren't the co-authors of the Constitution, and the Federalist papers were a proselytizing effort to get the constitution ratified - not a legal document in themselves, whatsoever.

No, Federalist paper #41 was not legally binding, it is not part of the Constitution. It was not mere political propaganda either. The view of the general welfare clause, written by Madison in #41, on behalf of the Constitutional Convention, was the prevailing view for the first 150 years of our nation's existance. In 1919 and in 1933 Prohibition was enacted and repealed by amendments, not congressional bills, because the federal government was not empowered under Article 1 Sec 8 of the Constitution.

We have torn asunder the Constitution and as a result all of us are a little less secure. There are no longer any reasonable limits on the encroachment of government in our lives.

The proof Madison's view was held even by politicians some would call liberal is shown in the 1930 FDR quote. He too states welfare is no business of the federal government.

The tyranny of the majority is now upon us.

From "Our Unconstitutional Congress" by Walter E. Williams



The Founding Fathers wished to protect us from the abusive potential of an overly powerful federal government. The history of government up to colonial times, and not much changed since, was for governments to trample on the rights of the individual.

Hugo,

Didn't you read the part of the Constitution that authorizes Congress to save us from ourselves?

I agree completely with your line of reasoning. We are no longer secure, since the Federal Government see nothing as outside of its purview.

That is all well and good, but you are taking the "I'm scared of government" argument to somehow mean that welfare is unconstitutional. By the letter of the law it is not. You are therefore relying on the Federalist Papers (and other sources) in which to divine the intentions of the framers of the constitution. This position is dangerous because the Constitution is (I know this is a cliche) a "living document." The framers may have had very strong convictions about the role that government would play the late 18th century but it is impossible to presuppose what they would feel about the trappings of modern day society. It is for that reason that (as far as I am concerned) relying on the personal feelings of the long dead framers is foolish. If they wished for the constitution to go on unchanged and uninterpretted there would be now amendment clause and the Supreme Court would not exist.

You are correct the Founding Fathers did recognize the Constitution would have to change with the times. That is why they set up an amendment process. The Supreme Court is suppossed to interpret the Constitution, not remake it. It is the duty of Congress to make laws within the boundaries of the Constitution.

It is clear that from the days of our nations founding to the early days of FDR that the prevailing opinion on the general welfare clause was the same opinion expressed by Madison, writing for the Constitutional convention, in the Federalist Papers. Evidence this was not simply a false interpretation in order to get the Constitution ratified is clear from Madison's later statements along with the statements of many others, including FDR in 1930.

The Founding fathers set up a Constitution with an amendment process that prevented the Constitution from being changed by the whim of a temporary majority. That included changing the Constitution based on a 5-4 vote of 9 justices.

Thank God we have one judge that seems to understand this. Scalia from this article

In contrast, the idea of a "living Constitution" in which the meaning can be interpreted as society changes is "seductive," he said.

But Scalia also insisted that only his approach - interpreting the Constitution based on the Framers' precise words and the meaning they intended at the time - can preserve the Constitution's guiding principles.

"The Constitution is not an organism," the justice said, "it is a legal document." (end of quote)

The Constitution is a legal document. I tried the ole "living document" argument on my tenant when I attempted to raise his rent in the middle of his lease period. He told me where to stick my "living document" ruse.

This is a great point, Hugo.

Look at how hard the framer's (and ratifiers) of the Constitution made it to change the Constitution.

Look at how easily today's justices skew their interpretation based upon the "prevailing wisdom" of the day.

Sheer, utter disregard for the framer's intentions.


The point exactly. Contracts do NOT change with time. They MUST be interpreted literally, with some leeway as to the intentions of those entering into the contract. They cannot be reinterpreted on a passing fancy.

From the article:


BTW, the Federalist papers were a breakdown of the practical implications of certains points of the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers

As has been said before, the Constitution is a "living document" only insofar as it can be amended. It is not "living" in the sense that you can apply your own interpretation to it as you would a piece of poetry!

Also what I see lacking in many of the arguments here is a knowlege of jurisprudence and the interpretation and application of law. While the Federalist Papers are not legally binding documents, there is a VITAL concept in law called "original intent". One cannot simply interpret the words of a law by themselves. Especially words from 225 years ago! They must be interpreted in the context of the debate that took place regarding them and the final consensus and discussion of their meaning. If you ignore these contextual cues, then you make plain that you have no interest in actually executing the law according to the intent of the law makers but rather you'd make clear that you only care to apply the law as you personally preffer.

Law does not change with time if not amended through due process. This is true no matter how drastically society has changed in the intervening years. Law is law. What the law meant 200 years ago, it still means today. Were this not so, then we'd have chaos and could change law at whim and without any sort of due process. But since the meaning of law is so important, it is vital to look at the context and stated intentions of those who WROTE that law.

If we go the way of re-interpreting the Constitution according to our modern views, we will one day find ourselves in the position of the Chinese whose high court ruled that its constitution's guarantee of free speech should be *interpreted* to mean the freedom to speak in agreement with the State. THAT'S where re-interpretation gets you.

The court will generally not tell Congress what to do with regard to spending or providing for the general welfare and common defense. If it is deemed for the general welfare, then it is proper. If it is not deemed for the general welfare, then it is not proper and actually criminal. Who know what kind of deals are made behind closed doors to get them to vote the way they do.

Here is a good bit of reading about the role of spending for the general welfare:

Not Yours To Give
Col. David Crockett
US Representative from Tennessee

http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm

Here are some quotes from the United States Supreme Court that I think pretty well sum up the role of the court:

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...&vol=5&page=137

Whenever this court is required to pass upon the validity of an act of congress, as tested by the fundamental law enacted by the people, the duty imposed demands, in its discharge, the utmost deliberation and care, and invokes the deepest sense of responsibility. And this is especially so when the question involves the exercise of a great governmental power, and brings into consideration, as vitally affected by the decision, that complex system of government, so sagaciously framed to secure and perpetuate 'an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states.'
POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...l=158&invol=601

The argument, at last, comes to this: That because of possible results, a power lawfully exercised may work disastrously, therefore the courts must interfere to prevent its exercise, because of the consequences feared. No such authority has ever been invested in any court. The remedy for such wrongs, if such in fact exist, is in the ability of the people to choose their own representatives, and not in the exertion of unwarranted powers by courts of justice.
FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...l=220&invol=107

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791

"When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803.

"Where a phrase is susceptible of two meanings, we ought certainly to adopt that which will bring upon us the fewest inconveniences." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Apportionment Bill, 1792

"The main body of our citizens... remain true to their republican principles; the whole landed interest is republican, and so is a great mass of talents. Against us are... all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty... We are likely to preserve the liberty we have obtained only by unremitting labors and perils. But we shall preserve it, and our mass of weight and wealth on the good side is so great as to leave no danger that force will ever be attempted against us." --Thomas Jefferson to Philip Mazzei, 1796

orat.blogspot.com[/URL]Well, since Rattlesnake's topic was closed and sort of rerouted to this one (since it is supposedly a duplicate), I'll sort of attempt to address his question here.

In short, there is a rationale that separates taxation for things like police from taxation for redistribution. For a somewhat more detailed treatment of this, see my blog site, , or Frederic Bastiat's The Law ([URL=http://bastiat.org]bastiat.org. Police, military, and the necessary structures to make these work (such as courts, etc) are all extensions of the individual right to self defense. In Libertarianism, the purpose of government is to secure rights and nothing more. While we all have a right to defense of ourselves and our property, we do not have a right to take from another simply to give it to ourselves -- or to anyone else for that matter.

Now you could say that welfare is like police taxation in that you are taking from someone else to provide for your own defense. This still doesn't bridge the gap or nullify the differences between police spending and welfare spending as far as I'm concerned, but because of this similarity I do support the idea of contractual citizenship. That is, to have citizenship and reap all the benefits of the government, you must consent to a contract that not only confers upon you the benefits, but also obligates you to duties such as taxation. The beauty of this system is that it is 100% consensual. Without citizenship, that is, as a "resident", you are free to not pay taxes, but you don't get any of the benefits of citizenship. No enforcement of property titles (such as cars or realestate), no access to government services, etc.

I think the founding fathers would be shocked at how "welfare" has gotten out of control and moreso how much it is abused and misused.

Which founding fathers and in what ways? Could you provide some examples please?

I'd say almost all of them. The FF envisioned a limited federal goverment where individual states retained much more control. They never envisioned massive federal programs on the scale that exist today nor in my opinion would they have approved by any means of the vast power the federal government now wields.

Actually it was the interpretation of the meaning of parts of the Constitution that led to political parties in America. Strict constructionists, such as Jefferson and Madison, made up the Republican Party. The Federalists, who included Adams and Hamilton, believed there were implied powers in the Constitution. The conflict over the formation of a national bank, which Jefferson and Madison argued was unconstitutional since the federal government had no power to form corporations, was the first major point of contention between these two ideologies. Washington reluctantly failed to veto the bank's formation. Jackson later, in the spirit of Jefferson and Madison, attempted to eliminate the national bank.

Having said that. The encroachments by the federal government, while beginning at the birth of our country, remained mild up until the post Civil War era (my opinion, clearly Jackson disagreed), and as late as 1930 FDR stated welfare was no business of the federal government.