While I consider myself at least nominally libertarian, I often chafe at blithe mentionings of the "nanny" state. There are many, many federal programs which do things for us that we take for granted. Any one of these programs could be considered a "nanny". Here are a few examples:

• funding and control of roads/bridges/highways
• FDIC (depositor insurance)
• guaranteed small business loans
• guaranteed student loans
• FEMA (disaster relief)
• FDA/USDA (regulation/safety of food & drugs).
• veterans' affairs
• CDC (center for disease control)

Note that I purposefully left off the standard "nanny" state programs as I think it is more interesting to debate the whole panoply. So, here's the topic for debate:

1. Do you think the federal government has become (or threatens to become) a "nanny" state?

2. If so:

Is it just that you disagree with specific federal programs and are using the cognomen lightly?
Or, do you take a principled stand on federal spending for things which are not strictly within the purview of the Constitution?

I tend to go a principle stand the federal government should be limited to ONLY expressed powers PERIOD.
(Do i have to quote the Tenth and Ninth Amendments???)

Although I am open in giving the the federal government more expressed powers (with a constitutional amendment) because of technology has changed.....

Here are examples.....
Regulation of electromagnetic frequencies.
Air traffic control.

I could possible add some more....

1. Do you think the federal government has become (or threatens to become) a "nanny" state?

I do not believe the federal government has become a "nanny" state, but I suppose there is always the potential for that to occur. We have to stay vigilant or we would very easily end up in that situation.

I suppose my belief here is based on the fact that I don't consider anything not specifically defined in the constitution to be nanny-like behavior. I generally define nanny-like behavior as legislation or organizations that seek to control/guide the morals and values of the country.

There are most definitely elements of the country that would like far more of their moral code and values to be law for the rest of us, this is where we must be careful.

2. Is it just that you disagree with specific federal programs and are using the cognomen lightly?

Yes, I tend to take things like this on a case by case basis. I believe that the government has a duty to the people of this country to provide certain basic services and also to contribute to our infrastructure. This cannot be left to the States because they often do not have the resources, many issues are clearly in the national interest and many times a solution must be applied consistently across the nation. It is also the role of the federal government to set basic standards for many industries, because left to their own devices they would not regulate themselves (e.g. child labor laws, pollution laws, etc). Many of the things that logophage listed fall into this category.

The ones that do not, such as Small Business Loans and Student Loans, are also important programs because they further a national goal. It can of course be argued that education is a value, but to me it is more of a requirement to remain competitive in the global market. Small Business Loans help to keep the economy growing and also promote the sense of entrepreneurship and innovation American's are so famous for.

Now if we start talking denying federal funding to scientific endeavors (e.g. Stem Cell Research) based on morals/values or regulating decency (e.g. The FCC) that is where I start to take issue.

I realize that my position is probably easily attacked since a consistent principle cannot be applied here, but I feel that I could explain my stance on any particular program.

As a "nominal libertarian," why do you seem willing to cede to the federal government powers to which it has no legitimate claim? We cannot claim to be a nation of laws if we allow government to violate the law, even if it is ostensibly for our own good.

Regarding your list of programs:

-Roads and bridges: No problem with federal highway maintenance.
-FDIC: I can see no justification whatever, either constitutionally or economically.

-guaranteed student & business loans. No authority and no sound economic reason.

-FEMA: This should be a State responsibility

-FDA/USDA: We tend to assume that these programs are necessary because they have been around so long. But the FDA has probably caused more deaths than they have saved lives. There is no reason to assume that food inspections and drug approval can only be done by government.

-veterans' affairs: As part of the contract for military service the VA is a legitimate use of government. But, as all buraucracies do, the VA has taken on jobs that go beyond its constitutional authority, such as drug treatment for one-time service members.

-CDC: I'll admit to an ignorance of their mission. Insofar as they concern themselves with communicable diseases and epidemics, this falls within the purview of the Constitution.


If we do not hold the federal government to those powers "strictly within the purview of the Constitution," we might as well scrap the Constitution altogether.
Of course, we have already scrapped it, but that's another topic.

This one is a hold-over from the Great Depression days - check out this history timeline. While the FDIC had some problems in the late 80's and early 90's it has promoted economic stability by allowing people to have some level of trust in banks. Were it not for this organization, people might still be stashing their savings under the matress. So this one does have economic benefit.


As I had alluded to in my post, this furthers certain American goals - namely education and entrepreneurship.

Without guaranteed federal student loans a lot of people would not be able to attend college, traditional sources would consider them too risky. If we are to compete in the global marketplace our people MUST be educated.

Without small business loans there are many companies that exist today that might have never made it out of the idea phase. Since the dot com boom venture capital firms have come into play here, but when a lot of the giants we have today (e.g. Microsoft, Dell) started they didn't have access to this kind of cash.


Good point, but do you know a single state that would be able to pay for a disaster? The wealthiest states generally cut it pretty close budget-wise and many are in debt right now.

So if a huge quake hits Los Angeles, is CA supposed to bail the city out? Unfortunately for LA, California has had serious budget problems for the last few years. The result would be that things wouldn't get fixed and the CA economy (and therefore the US economy) would be losing money daily.



They are necessary, but both organizations are in serious need of reform. I see no reason why this function couldn't be carried out by private companies as long as there were government standards and accountability.

This goes back to my point that industry will not regulate itself if left to its own devices. The regulation the USDA provides to the meat industry is very inadequate, but if it wasn't there we'd all be getting sick a bit more often. There are countless volumes of articles out there on problems with this industry.

You're presuming a position I did not take. If you read my initial post closely, you will see that I did not indicate that I was willing to cede anything to the federal government. The fact is the federal government claims alot of powers that are not strictly within the Constitution. My position is that, when applying the term "nanny state", we should put all federal programs on the table for discussion and not pick and choose ones with which we may have a moral disagreement.

True, every and any federal programs, should be up for descussion...
we may find we need to expand the federal powers with an amendment, but I would not except that if we cannot put more restrictions on the federal government (aka a 'Strengthening the Bill of Rights' amendment)--well, that is a topic for another discussion.

When I heard the phrase "nanny state" used, it seems to be used by those who oppose government programs designed to benefit its citizens in some way. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that this particular phrase is only used about things like mandatory seat belt laws, welfare, and so on. I don't think it is often used to describe, for example, laws against prostitution. The difference I see here is between government actions that say "I want to help you" and those that say "I want to prevent you from being bad." It seems to be the difference between a nanny and a police officer.

With that in mind, I have to consider each example of "nanny state" legislation on a case by case basis. Mandatory seat belt laws get a weak and reluctant "yes" from me, for example. I have to try to balance the loss of personal freedom against the benefit to society in each case.

I doubt that it will become a "nanny" in the sense of the term. A lot of programs that you mentioned were created in part, due to the failure of the private sector to police itself(i.e.-food inspection, banks,etc) and were created solely to iron out problems experienced by certain sectors of our society. I really don't like the usage of the term "nanny" for governmetn services in any way. The government constitutes the people, who have the right to erect any and all government programs that serve their needs. The government isn't a nanny, but rather, a butler who assists the daily living of our citizens every day. The nanny or butler does not rule over us since they can easily be fired(or downsized through funding) and thus, are controlled by us-the citizens.

Of course the United States is a "Nanny-state", US tax dollars drive a military industrial complex, and also subsidize large corporations with vast amount of wealth. If it were not for these large government contracts companies such as Boeing, McDonald Douglas, GE. Chrysler, and the entire savings and loan industry would not exist as they do today. They would have to adhere to the laws of Capitalism and close their doors.

"Capitalism" and the ideal of "Rugged Individualism" is only for the average citizens. Bail outs, hand outs, and the real "Welfare Checks" go to "Big Business", from the "Nanny-State"

That's exactly it, Victoria. I don't think helping people in general is the proper role of government. I don't want Uncle Sam to be my mommy and daddy, I just want him to be the neighborhood cop on the beat.


In answer to the questions,

1. Yes, I think government threatens to become a "nanny state" and to some extent already has. In loco parentis (i.e. acting in the role or a parent) activities are more and more of what government does, and that's what we mean by a nanny state, isn't it? That being the case, the appellation "nanny state" fits the phenomenon exactly. If it upsets some people because it fits too well, all the better.

2. I want all government activities to strictly adhere to what is authorized in the Constitution. If something needs to be done that the Founders didn't think of, well, that's what the amendment process is for.

And yet, the neighborhood cop is helping people too, yes?

It seems to me that our Constitution was framed in such a way as to enable the people of this nation to live up to the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence; that among those ideals was the notion of equality of opportunity. Not, of course, the equalization on all levels of all people, but an equal starting point - an equal possibility for similar success.

If this is the case, then it makes sense for the government, expressing the representative will of the people to achieve this ideal, to craft laws which aid in equalizing the opportunities of the people, no matter how born. It makes sense in this light to tax inheritence heavily. It makes sense to have programs which target children who, through no fault of their own, are born into cyclic poverty. It makes sense to help the poor with programs that enable them to further their education, gain working skills.

I can see nothing in the Constitution barring this type of governance, these types of programs.

Let's look at the preamble:


Establish Justice. Form a more perfect Union. Insure domestic tranquility. Provide for the common defense. Promote the general welfare. Secure the blessings of liberty. Like many Americans, I view programs which help all people in this nation fulfill those goals to be very much in line with our Constitutional goals. One note about this preamble: many so-called constructionists seem to feel that "provide for the common defense" can mean everything from Navy SEALS, to Nuclear Arsenals, to Chemical agents - and yet "provide for the general welfare," argued by some to be just as wide-reaching, will get dismissed out of hand as "stretching" the meaning of the document. Either way, we're seeing this document through a prism of our own making. Perhaps those of us who see the document as more flexible are just being more honest - those who claim to be reading a strict interpretation of the Constitution are also seeing it through the spectacles of preconception - yet they are so loathe to admit it!

But - I'm not trying to put down that view - not at all. In fact, I can see how both readings of this document are valid ways of interpreting it. In my reasoning, therefor, it is of the utmost importance to elect representatives who will reflect our interpretation of the Constitution. In my personal experience, it is conservatives, generally, who have been attempting to introduce a new meme about the Constitution - that this is not a battle of differing interpretations, rather, conservatives are reading the document correctly, while liberals are off their collective pinko rockers. I for one don't buy it.

"Nanny state" itself is just worthless political rhetoric. It's absolutely meaningless. It's a way of deriding programs you don't like - nothing more.

Quarkhead wrote:


This is the problem with the "nanny state." It assumes a knowledge far beyond its capabilities. It presumes, not only to identify inequality, but an ability to correct it retrospectively. The Constitution IS the equalizer. In it, our Founders gave us a level playing field on which we could seek our own individual destinies. There was no presumption (nor could there be) that we would all be similarly motivated, focussed, intellectually or phisically equipped.
Undeserved fortune and misfortune alike are part of being human. One of the chief errors of modern "liberals" is that they presume to be able to "fix" this. that this is impossible to do without harming someone else is only too obvious.



May I offer the observation that this is a non sequitor? Besides, the "general welfare" clause has been put to bed already, as you know. The federal government is limited in its powers to those specifically delegated.






On the contrary. The point is not to deride unwanted programs, many of which may have merit. The point is that these "nanny" programs are unconstitutional. If they are widely supported there is no reason why the constitutional cannot be amended to permit them. But whether or not a particular program is worthwhile (all of these programs have a constituency that benefits from them) the great harm that they do is to our rule of law, which is thrown out the window when the federal government assumes for itself unchecked power over us.

Pedro




Edited to fix quotes

Several questions in reference to this:

1. How do you define "harm to someone else?"

2. If it is "too obvious," then why are there Constitutional scholars, politicians, and people of intelligence who disagree with your view?

What social programs should be designed to do is not provide some sort of blanket equality - which they never have and never will - but too provide for an equality of opportunity. Yes, people are born with differing inborn capacities. People have different levels of motivation. Undeserved fortune and misfortune are indeed a part of being human. That said, however, the egalitarianism which helped drive this nation is all about trying to erase, as much as possible, the differences in the starting line. Is a race fair when you start one place, and I start a mile behind you? Starting at the same point doesn't mean forcing us to run the race to a tie. You might have trained longer and harder, I might be simply "built for speed." there are many factors. But to say, because inequities at the starting line are just part of being human, that we should ignore them, not work to alleviate them (because of course we can never completely eliminate them) is not in keeping with the American ideal at all!

To say that we all have an equal starting position because it says so in the Constitution is not logical.

Your last two sentences in this paragraph are telling. Allow me please to quote them again:
"One of the chief errors of modern "liberals" is that they presume to be able to "fix" this. that this is impossible to do without harming someone else is only too obvious."
I respectfully disagree. We have been able to start fixing some of the unequal starting points in this country. Head Start. Guaranteed Student Loans. Welfare reform which is focussed on temporary assistance in order to gain work skills. I view taxing the populace in order to fund programs like these as less harmful than not having these programs in the first place. I predicate this upon several foundations:

1. There has never been enough private charity (etc) in this nation to assist everyone.

2. A child who is born to someone very, very poor, and who ends up living on the streets, is certainly harmed far more (in all ways) than a middle class person, or a wealthy person, who must pay a little bit more in tax, to support a program which helps this child get food, clothing, and education. And we are more harmed, as a nation, in a moral way, an ethical way, for having the resources (the collective wealth of the people) and the ability (a bureaucratic establishment) to help alleviate these problems, and then doing nothing about it.

Now, moving on, you said this:


No, I don't know. Nice try to shut down any discussion of it, though. But let's take your words seriously for a moment, particularly this bit: "The federal government is limited in its powers to those specifically delegated."

How else can we apply that? Let's see...



The government, then, as we can see here, is in breach of the Constitution. Nowhere in this document is it specifically delegated that the US government may have marines, or an air force. What part of the Constitution makes us think we can have an air force? Is it "provide for the common defense" that allows us to extrapolate this? I think you get my point. As I said, both sides are seeing the document through prisms of particular ideological memes.

I can't see how social welfare programs are any more unconstitutional than the Air Force. It is Constitutional for the government to tax incomes. Social Welfare programs are not prohibited by the constitution. If the powers not specified to the congress rest within the states and/or the people, then it is certainly constitutional for the will of the people, as expressed through their duly elected representatives, to be heard, as long as the articles and amendments of the Constitution are not breached. Please, show me the breach - and with a little more substance than saying 'it is obvious,' or 'has been put to bed,' or 'as you know.'

Again, I will state my conclusion: 'nanny state' is just political rhetoric. It has no real meaning, because the people shouting it from the rooftops (and across the radio waves) are, almost entirely, content to foster programs which 'nanny' big businesses, content to not worry about having a Marines or an Air Force, though they are not offered up in the Constitution. I say Bah humbug on that junk science!

I think also what is being missed here- though QH touched on it a bit- is how much harm our country would be done if we DIDN'T have some of those programs. If we don't take care of our poor to some degree, our nation would become very unstable, because starving folk can be quite desperate and won't stand on philosophy when they see thier kids dying! This is the stuff revolutions are made of- so the general welfare clause applies, and no, we are not even close to a nanny state in social programs, however, we are in terms of personal behavior. All of the "victimless crime" that makes certain behaviors that harm no one directly but the user is certainly "nanny" in definition!

The problem here is to presume that the state is something outside of the citizens. "It" is really "us"! "The government" is your neighbor who is the county clerk, your uncle who is employed by the department of labor. Government agencies were created to help citizens have a referee with business. Complaining to your boss about asbestos might get you fired, hence-the importance of OSHA. You need someone in your corner in situations like that.



Well, FDIC was created so that at least a portion of the citizen's savings in a bank would be returned to them. We wouldn't have the FDIC if they banks handn't fallen flat on their faces during the '30s. If they minded their own store, they wouldn't need someone to pick up the pieces for their own actions.

On the contrary, we wouldn't be the great country we are today if it were not for the "liberal" thinking that created some of the social programs and regulatory agencies we have today.

Where would the United States be without things like FDR's New Deal which is in part responsible for a lot of our national infrastructure today. Various regulatory agencies and legislation have kept corporations in check by regulating work hours, conditions, and safety. If we didn't have the EPA setting pollution standards then corporations would be pumping mercury into our water, dumping waste where they pleased and pumping tons of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere that they are prohibited from doing right now. These are but a very few examples.

Taking the example of labor laws and labor regulatory agencies, if someone didn't take the initiative to "fix" this problem then the United States might be very much like third world countries are today with children working long hours in unsafe conditions for slave wages. Corporations will not regulate themselves as they prove by using this kind of labor in places like China.

I will agree that there is a limit to what the government should be involved in. However, finding that balance is something none of us agree upon and no one has been able to find.

[quote=quarkhead,Jun 6 2004, 09:48 PM] [quote=Pedro,Jun 6 2004, 12:48 PM]Quarkhead wrote:
[quote]If this is the case, then it makes sense for the government, expressing the representative will of the people to achieve this ideal, to craft laws which aid in equalizing the opportunities of the people, no matter how born. [/quote]

This is the problem with the "nanny state." It assumes a knowledge far beyond its capabilities. It presumes, not only to identify inequality, but an ability to correct it retrospectively. The Constitution IS the equalizer. In it, our Founders gave us a level playing field on which we could seek our own individual destinies. There was no presumption (nor could there be) that we would all be similarly motivated, focussed, intellectually or phisically equipped.
Undeserved fortune and misfortune alike are part of being human. One of the chief errors of modern "liberals" is that they presume to be able to "fix" this. that this is impossible to do without harming someone else is only too obvious.[/quote]
Several questions in reference to this:

1. How do you define "harm to someone else?"

2. If it is "too obvious," then why are there Constitutional scholars, politicians, and people of intelligence who disagree with your view?

What social programs should be designed to do is not provide some sort of blanket equality - which they never have and never will - but too provide for an equality of opportunity. Yes, people are born with differing inborn capacities. People have different levels of motivation. Undeserved fortune and misfortune are indeed a part of being human. That said, however, the egalitarianism which helped drive this nation is all about trying to erase, as much as possible, the differences in the starting line. Is a race fair when you start one place, and I start a mile behind you? Starting at the same point doesn't mean forcing us to run the race to a tie. You might have trained longer and harder, I might be simply "built for speed." there are many factors. But to say, because inequities at the starting line are just part of being human, that we should ignore them, not work to alleviate them (because of course we can never completely eliminate them) is not in keeping with the American ideal at all!

To say that we all have an equal starting position because it says so in the Constitution is not logical.

Your last two sentences in this paragraph are telling. Allow me please to quote them again:
"One of the chief errors of modern "liberals" is that they presume to be able to "fix" this. that this is impossible to do without harming someone else is only too obvious."
I respectfully disagree. We have been able to start fixing some of the unequal starting points in this country. Head Start. Guaranteed Student Loans. Welfare reform which is focussed on temporary assistance in order to gain work skills. I view taxing the populace in order to fund programs like these as less harmful than not having these programs in the first place. I predicate this upon several foundations:

1. There has never been enough private charity (etc) in this nation to assist everyone.

2. A child who is born to someone very, very poor, and who ends up living on the streets, is certainly harmed far more (in all ways) than a middle class person, or a wealthy person, who must pay a little bit more in tax, to support a program which helps this child get food, clothing, and education. And we are more harmed, as a nation, in a moral way, an ethical way, for having the resources (the collective wealth of the people) and the ability (a bureaucratic establishment) to help alleviate these problems, and then doing nothing about it.

Now, moving on, you said this:
[quote]May I offer the observation that this is a non sequitor? Besides, the "general welfare" clause has been put to bed already, as you know. The federal government is limited in its powers to those specifically delegated. [/quote]

No, I don't know. Nice try to shut down any discussion of it, though. But let's take your words seriously for a moment, particularly this bit: "The federal government is limited in its powers to those specifically delegated."

How else can we apply that? Let's see...

[quote=US Constitution, Section 8]Clause 12:  To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13:  To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14:  To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; [/quote]

The government, then, as we can see here, is in breach of the Constitution. Nowhere in this document is it specifically delegated that the US government may have marines, or an air force. What part of the Constitution makes us think we can have an air force? Is it "provide for the common defense" that allows us to extrapolate this? I think you get my point. As I said, both sides are seeing the document through prisms of particular ideological memes.

I can't see how social welfare programs are any more unconstitutional than the Air Force. It is Constitutional for the government to tax incomes. Social Welfare programs are not prohibited by the constitution. If the powers not specified to the congress rest within the states and/or the people, then it is certainly constitutional for the will of the people, as expressed through their duly elected representatives, to be heard, as long as the articles and amendments of the Constitution are not breached. Please, show me the breach - and with a little more substance than saying 'it is obvious,' or 'has been put to bed,' or 'as you know.'

Again, I will state my conclusion: 'nanny state' is just political rhetoric. It has no real meaning, because the people shouting it from the rooftops (and across the radio waves) are, almost entirely, content to foster programs which 'nanny' big businesses, content to not worry about having a Marines or an Air Force, though they are not offered up in the Constitution. I say Bah humbug on that junk science! [/quote]
Quarkhead wrote:
[quote] If this is the case, then it makes sense for the government, expressing the representative will of the people to achieve this ideal, to craft laws which aid in equalizing the opportunities of the people, no matter how born. [/quote]

Pedro wrote:
[quote] This is the problem with the "nanny state." It assumes knowledge far beyond its capabilities. It presumes, not only to be able to identify inequality, but also an ability to correct it retrospectively. The Constitution IS the equalizer. In it, our Founders gave us a level playing field on which we could seek our own individual destinies. There was no presumption (nor could there be) that we would all be similarly motivated, focussed, intellectually or physically equipped.
  Undeserved fortune and misfortune alike are part of being human. One of the chief errors of modern "liberals" is that they presume to be able to "fix" this. That this is impossible to do without harming someone else is only too obvious.[/quote]

Quarkhead wrote:
[quote] What social programs should be designed to do is not provide some sort of blanket equality - which they never have and never will - but too provide for an equality of opportunity. Yes, people are born with differing inborn capacities. People have different levels of motivation. Undeserved fortune and misfortune are indeed a part of being human. That said, however, the egalitarianism which helped drive this nation is all about trying to erase, as much as possible, the differences in the starting line. Is a race fair when you start one place, and I start a mile behind you? Starting at the same point doesn't mean forcing us to run the race to a tie. You might have trained longer and harder, I might be simply "built for speed." there are many factors. But to say, because inequities at the starting line are just part of being human, that we should ignore them, not work to alleviate them (because of course we can never completely eliminate them) is not in keeping with the American ideal at all! [/quote]

The American ideal is to use whatever resources you have at your disposal and make the best of them. You acknowledge that there are many inequalities at the starting line, some undeserved, some very much deserved. Then you make the giant leap that we should a) try to identify these inequalities and try to fix them. This is a job for God. You and I are not up to it - and neither is the government

Quarkhead wrote:
[quote] To say that we all have an equal starting position because it says so in the Constitution is not logical. [/quote]

I don't say that. The constitution was designed to be neutral with regards to who comes to the starting line and makes no presumptions to being useful to "equalize" things. The Constitution merely guarantees that we are all treated equally under the law. We are free to pursue our lives with energy or apathy as we see fit, so long as we stay within the boundaries of the law.

Quarkhead wrote:
[quote] The last two sentences in this paragraph are telling. Allow me please to quote them again:
"One of the chief errors of modern "liberals" is that they presume to be able to "fix" this. that this is impossible to do without harming someone else is only too obvious."
I respectfully disagree. We have been able to start fixing some of the unequal starting points in this country. Head Start. Guaranteed Student Loans. Welfare reform which is focussed on temporary assistance in order to gain work skills. I view taxing the populace in order to fund programs like these as less harmful than not having these programs in the first place. I predicate this upon several foundations:

1. There has never been enough private charity (etc) in this nation to assist everyone.

2. A child who is born to someone very, very poor, and who ends up living on the streets, is certainly harmed far more (in all ways) than a middle class person, or a wealthy person, who must pay a little bit more in tax, to support a program which helps this child get food, clothing, and education. And we are more harmed, as a nation, in a moral way, an ethical way, for having the resources (the collective wealth of the people) and the ability (a bureaucratic establishment) to help alleviate these problems, and then doing nothing about it. [/quote]


There is always a constituency created by new government programs. This constituency will always claim that their particular subsidy is absolutely necessary for the health of the country. To be consistent, if you think it is constitutional to provide student loans, you should have no constitutional objection to business subsidies.
But more to the point, how is it moral for government to do what is immoral for a citizen to do? If a private citizen took the property of one person and gave it to another, he would be committing a crime - regardless of any compassionate motives he may have. There are many reasons for poverty, for example, but the government has neither the resources, nor the knowledge to remedy each individual case.
As an aside, poverty itself is a “liberal” mirage that keeps changing its shape. Like so many other “liberal” buzz words, poverty can never be defined.

Quarkhead wrote:
[quote] Now, moving on, you said this:
[quote]May I offer the observation that this is a non sequitor? Besides, the "general welfare" clause has been put to bed already, as you know. The federal government is limited in its powers to those specifically delegated. [/quote]

No, I don't know. Nice try to shut down any discussion of it, though. But let's take your words seriously for a moment, particularly this bit: "The federal government is limited in its powers to those specifically delegated."

How else can we apply that? Let's see...

[quote=US Constitution, Section 8]Clause 12:  To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13:  To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14:  To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; [/quote]

The government, then, as we can see here, is in breach of the Constitution. Nowhere in this document is it specifically delegated that the US government may have marines, or an air force. What part of the Constitution makes us think we can have an air force? Is it "provide for the common defense" that allows us to extrapolate this? I think you get my point. As I said, both sides are seeing the document through prisms of particular ideological memes.

I can't see how social welfare programs are any more unconstitutional than the Air Force. It is Constitutional for the government to tax incomes. Social Welfare programs are not prohibited by the constitution. If the powers not specified to the congress rest within the states and/or the people, then it is certainly constitutional for the will of the people, as expressed through their duly elected representatives, to be heard, as long as the articles and amendments of the Constitution are not breached. Please, show me the breach - and with a little more substance than saying 'it is obvious,' or 'has been put to bed,' or 'as you know.' [/quote]


You cannot seriously suggest that "armies" does not include Air Force? Besides, this in no way equates with social programs, which are not even vaguely alluded to in the so-called penumbras and emanations of the Constitution.

It was Madison, I believe, who noted that the “general welfare” clause should never be interpreted to be a blanket authority for any program that could somehow be justified as generally beneficial. This would, he said, make a mockery of the rest of the document, which clearly defines and limits the authority of the federal government.
It has become fashionable in modern times for “liberals” to regard the Constitution as a “living” document, one that must be re-interpreted periodically in light of changing social conditions and sensibilities. I refer you to Justice Joseph Story’s treatise on the Constitution. “It is to be interpreted…by endeavoring to ascertain the true sense and meaning of all terms; and we are neither to narrow them, nor to enlarge them, by straining them from their just and natural import….or bending them to any favorite theory or dogma…” The constitution is “to be judged of according to common sense, and not by mere theoretical reasoning.”
Story goes on to elaborate on the preamble. Regarding the “general welfare” clause, he speaks of the regulation of commerce, agriculture and manufacturing. He seems not to have suspected that the clause would (or, could) be used to justify all manner of wealth transfers.

Pedro

CruisingRam wrote:


Make your case. It is my observation that social conditions have worsened since the implementation of many government-run social programs.



"Kids dying??" Where do you live? We were all much poorer during the Depression, yet virtually all social indicators were more positive than they are now. There were more intact familes, less crime, more charity.

If people are going to use poverty as an excuse for giving government more power, the least you could do it define the word. While you're at it, can you define some other "liberal" rhetorical bullets: justice, fairness, level playing field, equality.

pedro

From a purely pragmatic point of view, CruisingRam has a point. Some government programs are preventative rather than prescriptive. If you know inductively, deductively or abductively that not doing X will cause Y and Y is worse than X, then it's only logical to do X to prevent Y from occurring. Let me give an example: providing for a strong military prevents (or reduces the likelihood of) the US from being invaded; invasion is worse than spending money for the military; thus, the US should spend money on the military. Here's another example: researching cures for disease prevents (or reduces the likelihood of) disease epidemics; disease epidemics are worse than the cost of research; thus, the US should spend money on disease research. This logic (as in everything else) can be taken to an extreme so it's important to create criteria to evaluate the success and, most importantly, failure of a given program -- which is exactly what's missing from politics today.

Pedro, you have made good points as well in so far that definitions of abstract concepts either have a built-in ambiguity or are easily colored by political preconceptions. The concept of "liberal" for you, Pedro, likely means something quite different than for CruisingRam. I reckon that without a commonly agreed definition you both would be talking past each other.


First, you have to demonstrate this is the case. However, even assuming that it is the case, you then have to demonstrate the reason that social indicators were better was because government was smaller or, rather, less of a "nanny".

[quote=logophage,Jun 8 2004, 01:33 AM] [QUOTE=Pedro,Jun 7 2004, 05:11 PM][QUOTE=CruisingRam] If we don't take care of our poor to some degree, our nation would become very unstable, because starving folk can be quite desperate and won't stand on philosophy when they see thier kids dying! This is the stuff revolutions are made of- so the general welfare clause applies, and no, we are not even close to a nanny state in social programs, however, we are in terms of personal behavior. [/QUOTE]
"Kids dying??" Where do you live? From a purely pragmatic point of view, CruisingRam has a point. Some government programs are preventative rather than prescriptive. If you know inductively, deductively or abductively that not doing X will cause Y and Y is worse than X, then it's only logical to do X to prevent Y from occurring. Let me give an example: providing for a strong military prevents (or reduces the likelihood of) the US from being invaded; invasion is worse than spending money for the military; thus, the US should spend money on the military. Here's another example: researching cures for disease prevents (or reduces the likelihood of) disease epidemics; disease epidemics are worse than the cost of research; thus, the US should spend money on disease research. This logic (as in everything else) can be taken to an extreme so it's important to create criteria to evaluate the success and, most importantly, failure of a given program -- which is exactly what's missing from politics today.



[/quote]
Pedro wrote:
[quote]We were all much poorer during the Depression, yet virtually all social indicators were more positive than they are now. There were more intact familes, less crime, more charity.

If people are going to use poverty as an excuse for giving government more power, the least you could do it define the word. While you're at it, can you define some other "liberal" rhetorical bullets: justice, fairness, level playing field, equality.[/quote]

Logophage wrote:
[quote]From a purely pragmatic point of view, CruisingRam has a point.  Some government programs are preventative rather than prescriptive.  If you know inductively, deductively or abductively that not doing X will cause Y and Y is worse than X, then it's only logical to do X to prevent Y from occurring.  Let me give an example: providing for a strong military prevents (or reduces the likelihood of) the US from being invaded; invasion is worse than spending money for the military; thus, the US should spend money on the military.  Here's another example: researching cures for disease prevents (or reduces the likelihood of) disease epidemics; disease epidemics are worse than the cost of research; thus, the US should spend money on disease research.  This logic (as in everything else) can be taken to an extreme so it's important to create criteria to evaluate the success and, most importantly, failure of a given program -- which is exactly what's missing from politics today.
[/quote]

This is a good point. In the heat of political push and shove, very little time is spent thinking of trade-offs. Politicians are motivated by the need to be re-elected. This means that they focus on the short term. Once a program is implemented, the politician loses interest and a new set of incentives takes over for the bureaucrats who administer it. The focus shifts from service to the public to expansion of the power and authority of the agency.
This is, however, off topic. The fact still remains that almost all federal social programs are unconstitutional.

Logophage wrote:
[quote] Pedro, you have made good points as well in so far that definitions of abstract concepts either have a built-in ambiguity or are easily colored by political preconceptions.  The concept of "liberal" for you, Pedro, likely means something quite different than for CruisingRam.  I reckon that without a commonly agreed definition you both would be talking past each other. [/quote]

A common definition of "liberal" is not necessary for the debate to continue. It is almost irrelevent. But it is vitally important that some other terms be defined - justice, fairness, equality, poverty, greed (to name a few). These terms are used as blunt instruments, causing a lot of damage, but adding nothing of substance.

[quote=Pedro]We were all much poorer during the Depression, yet virtually all social indicators were more positive than they are now. There were more intact familes, less crime, more charity.[/quote]

Logophage wrote:
[quote]First, you have to demonstrate this is the case.  However, even assuming that it is the case, you then have to demonstrate the reason that social indicators were better was because government was smaller or, rather, less of a "nanny".[/quote]

Good point. I can dig out the data. But my point there was merely to dispute CrusingRam's contention that our children would be starving to death if it were not for government social programs. Even during our worst economic times children were not starving to death.

Pedro

It is hardly new, read my signature, nor was it a purely conservative interpretation. A quote:


"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 subject1, 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 is right, that was FDR in 1930. The "nanny state" is unconstitutional. Legalized theft is not legal under any proper interpretation of the supreme law of the land. As abhorent as Bush's argument for an amendment to restrict individual freedom is at least he is following constitutional procedures.

Actually it is only a "nanny state" if you are a worthless, lazy bum. It is a mugger if you work for a living.

Cube Jockey wrote:


There has been vigorous debate about those programs. There are smart people on both sides of these issues. But the point is not whether these programs have merit. The larger question is whether they are constitutional. Implementing unconstitutional programs has far-reaching negative effects beyond the program itself.
When law is finessed or ignored because it offends the sensibilities of some judge, all law is suspect. Law becomes no more than a crap shoot, the meaning of which is dependent on judicial whim.
As a people, we agreed, when we ratified the Constitution, to volunteer our labor in service to the greater good - within the limits of the Constitution, which establishes a boundary beyond which the federal government is not permitted to go. But we never agreed to becomes slaves to a government that assumes power to concoct social programs that seem popular at the moment.

Cube Jockey wrote:


I respectfully suggest that you become familiar with third world labor. Only by applying U.S. standards and sensibilities can you call it slave labor (except in Totalitarian countries where actual slaves are employed.) In less developed countries, children provide much needed income for families, often making the difference between survival and starvation. In a cosmic sense, we don't like to see childlren employed at hard labor in unhealthy conditions, but of the choices actually available to us, this is the best we can do.

But getting back to the "nanny" state question. there are two very different ways to read the Constitution. One way is to take the words literally, interpreting them in their proper historical context. The other way is to take words and phrases out of context, twisting the meanings in such a way as to find justification for whatever policy you prefer.
The first apprach is honest, the second is not. And the damage done by dishonest reading is far-reaching, going beyond the particular issue of the moment. We have reached the point in the U.S. when law schools are teaching techniques for taking law out of context and stretching it to mean, in some cases, exactly the opposite of its original meaning. Even "liberals" today are pretending to be shocked at the innovative "post-slavery syndrome" defense, the "Twinkie" defense and other legal legerdermaine.

Cube Jocket wrote:


I suggest that the balance has been written into the Constitution, but that balance between the people and the state gets in the way of some people who can't resist the urge to tell the rest of us what to do.


Pedro

The Constitution states in Article I Section 5 (paraphrased):



The founding fathers wrote the document with principles in mind, but left enough room for interpretation so the document could grow with the times. The combination of "make laws for the general welfare of the United States" and "ability to make all necessary and proper laws" gives Congress the authority to create this kind of legislation.

As I said before, how far you take these powers is a judgement call, but they are clearly there and there is not a limit placed upon them.



It is not the best we can do, if corporations could actually be held accountable for their actions we could work to improve conditions in the countries we trade with. In the long run an investment like that would pay off better because you would now have a new market capable of buying US goods and services.

However, corporations do not do that, it is far easier to exploit the local population, paying them pennies on the dollar for their labor. It doesn't break any laws in the host country per se, because there are no laws. It costs a few dollars in raw materials and labor for Nike to produce a shoe they sell for $165 in the US. I respectfully submit they have some room to work with there.

I respectfully disagree; and this was my main point earlier. We could both use this exact statement to support our arguments. But this is exactly how the so-called 'constructionists' want to paint the debate - it's not about differing interpretations of words and vague statements, it's about 'I'm reading it correctly, you are not. You are being dishonest.' It's a worm I ain't biting on, I'm afraid.

Here is an interesting take on the subject:



More from this interesting book which I will now have to purchase:

and


Further: Pedro, though you dismissed out of hand my bit about the Air Force, it is germane to my point, which was to show that you are interpreting as much as I am. Since the Constitution enumerates only the power of the government to have an army and a navy, what do you use to derive the idea that an air force is permitted? Is it the "provide for the common defense?" If we are going to just read it according to the words written in ink, there should be no air force - excepting as perhaps a subset of the navy or army - but not its own branch of the military. Of course I am not attempting to make this case - I'm not suggesting we get rid of the air force. I'm just using it to help make a point.
Cheers.

A bit from Madison's Federalist Paper #41

[QUOTE]Security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed and essential object of the American Union. The powers requisite for attaining it must be effectually confided to the federal councils.

Security from foreign danger is an avowed an essential object of any government. The Air Force is simply a response to technological change. It is well in align with the intentions of the founding fathers

The anti-federalists made the same arguments, concerning the general welfare clause as liberals do today. And there motive of the liberal and the anti-federalists is the same: to defeat the Constitution. Madison's response also from Federalist Paper 41. Pardon the long quote, this is definitely in the public domain.

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. 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!

PUBLIUS.

The intent of the founding fathers is what is important in deciding the constitutionality of an action. Air Force is a no-brainer it is needed to defend our nation. Welfare is unconstitutional and it's propagation undermines the law. Now a tyranny of 51% can wreck havoc on the minority.

[quote=quarkhead,Jun 8 2004, 04:53 PM]
I) The obligatory international law is unimpaired by recent changes in U. S. federal welfare law:  Nothing in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 1 in any way abolishes or supercedes the individual entitlements of the involuntarily unemployed (and their families) to all the social security and labor protective rights, examined below, which are promulgated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 2 (taken entirely to the extent that it is enacted of legally binding force in the equal protection of law by the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights of 1966),3 and which are established in those international labor conventions to which the United States is also party.   What the 1996 revision of the federal welfare-workfare law does, in the main, is to replace a system of individual federal entitlements to relief assistance under state administration, expressly by a system of block grants to the states for relief to the needy in programs operated under increased state flexibility.  It does not unburden the states of their responsibilities under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Art. VI, Cl. 2) to uphold the obligatory international law by providing necessary relief assistance to the involuntarily unemployed (and their families) and by respecting all the rights of labor established in the body of the self-executing international labor law.  That it is not presently the declared intention or policy of Congress, in its devolution of authority over social programs to the several states upon reduced federal funding, to take any exception to the obligatory international law, is made explicit in Sec. 4 (5) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.4 [/quote]

and


[quote]Not that the negative-liberties model is the obstacle to what this book proposes; I doubt that constitutional theory generally has much beyond a limited influence on political practice. The negative-liberties model itself may be little more than emblematic of broader cultural forces that constitute the real obstacle to what is here proposed. These forces are strong enough to sustain the negative-liberties model in academic venues despite what will quickly prove to be its indefensible, if not fraudulent, character. These same forces also weaken the capacity of jurists, politicians, and ordinary citizens to see the Constitution for what it expressly (in the Preamble) claims to be: an instrument of goods like "the general Welfare." They therefore diminish hopes that a morally and descriptively truer model will have much of a political impact. Still, if there is a better model, it deserves explication and defense; truth attracts whether it will out politically or not. In addition, it should be hard for American constitutionalists, of all people, to concede that better ideas will probably have utterly no political consequences, and it should be no easier for academics to concede that superior theories have little hope in the academy. Also, as we shall see, the cultural forces arrayed against a better model may themselves be influenced by the Constitution, and the very power of these cultural forces undermines a family of (false) arguments against a better model: that constitutionalizing the least deniable of governmental benefits (like police protection) puts us on a slippery slope to totalitarian socialism. [/quote]


[quote=pedro]But getting back to the "nanny" state question. there are two very different ways to read the Constitution. One way is to take the words literally, interpreting them in their proper historical context. The other way is to take words and phrases out of context, twisting the meanings in such a way as to find justification for whatever policy you prefer.
The first apprach is honest, the second is not.[/quote]

quarkhead said:
[quote]I respectfully disagree; and this was my main point earlier. We could both use this exact statement to support our arguments. But this is exactly how the so-called 'constructionists' want to paint the debate - it's not about differing interpretations of words and vague statements, it's about 'I'm reading it correctly, you are not. You are being dishonest.' It's a worm I ain't biting on, I'm afraid.

Here is an interesting take on the subject:
More from this interesting book which I will now have to purchase:
[quote]I try here to defend Madison's statement about the end of government and to show what it imports for the basic normative nature of the American Constitution, for the cultivation and maintenance of a people that appreciates such a constitution as its own, and for constitutional theory as a field of academic inquiry. I try to persuade constitutional theorists to take the Constitution's Preamble seriously and turn to the hard philosophic and scientific work of formulating a forthrightly substantive theory of "the general Welfare." I contend against scholars who argue on multiple philosophic grounds against the possibility of such a theory. I show that the Constitution itself presupposes such a theory and implies guidelines for developing it. I derive these guidelines from the constitutional text and then use them to formulate a working theory of the general welfare, which theory I submit to the debate about the substance of the nation's values and character. According to this working theory, the Constitution not only permits but under some social conditions can even require such benefits as Social Security pensions for the aged and disabled, Medicaid for the poor, the late Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and, above all, a liberal or self-critically secular education at public expense for the children of all who want it.


I also argue that because enforcing many such state duties falls more to the taxpaying electorate than to the judiciary, declining public sympathy for the poor (and other developments, like religious-based hostility to the public schools as fonts of secular reasonableness) indicates that the authors of The Federalist erred in thinking they could maintain the Constitution by relying mostly, if not exclusively, on what they called "the private interest of every individual" to be "a centinel over the public rights" (51:349). They erred in thinking they could avoid active governmental efforts to foster a citizenry whose members were at once personally responsible and public-spirited. By book's end I hope to persuade the reader that the debate over welfare for the poor is really a debate about constitutional and even cultural reform, a debate about the meaning of "responsibility" and the character and true well-being not just of the poor but of the nation as a cultural whole. [/quote]

The author is defending Madison? Here is what Madison had to say about constitutional authority:

[quote][Congressional jurisdiction of power] 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." - James Madison, Federalist 14 [/quote]

[quote]The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45 [/quote]
[quote]If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792[/quote]

[quote]I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794[/quote]

[quote]Present-day students of the Constitution seem generally to assume that, for better or worse, the Constitution leaves government's provision of goods and services, from national defense to pensions and schools, to the play of pluralist political forces represented by elected officials whose decisions are legally restricted solely by judicially declared fundamental rights and structural principles. Thus conceived, the Constitution is a "charter of negative liberties": it guarantees exemptions from governmental action, not rights to governmental benefits. It imposes no unconditional duty to provide, and therefore it guarantees no right to any substantive benefit beyond access to the system of interest representation.5 Whether the Constitution permits a specific benefit is held to depend on whether the appropriate level of government (federal or state) delivers the benefit in a legally authorized way and whether the delivery affects rights the judiciary is obligated to protect, like the claimed liberty of business to contract for labor at whatever price workers will accept or the claimed right of just compensation at public expense when land-use regulations diminish the market value of real estate.
This negative-liberties model of the Constitution organizes much of the debate regarding state-facilitated welfare in America. It excludes any proposal that constitutional theorists find a workable theory of the general welfare as an end that government is constitutionally obligated to pursue.[/quote]

quarkhead added:
[quote] Further: Pedro, though you dismissed out of hand my bit about the Air Force, it is germane to my point, which was to show that you are interpreting as much as I am. Since the Constitution enumerates only the power of the government to have an army and a navy, what do you use to derive the idea that an air force is permitted? Is it the "provide for the common defense?" If we are going to just read it according to the words written in ink, there should be no air force - excepting as perhaps a subset of the navy or army - but not its own branch of the military. Of course I am not attempting to make this case - I'm not suggesting we get rid of the air force. I'm just using it to help make a point. [/quote]
The plain definition of army is “military force.” It is in no way a stretch to include the air force, or, in the future, the Space Rangers or Galactic Expeditionary Force.
But, regarding a wide-open interpretation of “general welfare,” let’s see what others had to say:

[QUOTE}"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798[/quote]




[quote]"The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791 [/quote]



[quote]"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83[/quote]

[quote]"[I must question] the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those … who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy ... I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." - President Franklin Pierce, 1854[/quote]

[quote]"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." - President Grover Cleveland, 1887[/quote]

[quote] I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.  We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. - Congressman Davy Crockett[/quote]

The author you cite is quoted again here:

[quote]… constitutional government in America can legitimately foster personal responsibility, and … for the same reason that it can foster personal responsibility it can legitimately discourage racism, forms of religious zeal, and a self-indulgence that breed indifference and blindness to public purposes, hostility to the ends of a liberal regime, and an incapacity to act on reasons that anonymous, competent, and autonomous persons can recognize as good reasons.” Sotirios A. Barber, Welfare and the Constitution. [/quote] (EMPHASIS ADDED)

The preceding quote tells us exactly where your preferred interpretation of constitutional authority ultimately leads us – an all-powerful nanny state that demands obedience in every aspect of human activity (for our own good, of course) and which countenances no dissent.

Pedro

Edited to correct my embarrassingly amateurish cyber-skills.

Pedro, while your quotes are interesting insofar as presenting the mindset of the founding fathers they are irrelevant to the debate of whether congress has the authority to legislate social programs.

The founding fathers may have held the beliefs that you espouse, but the fact of the matter is that they did not write the document in such a way as to prevent Congress from legislating in this manner. The sections that I cited in a previous post grant a broad range of power, I don't know of any other way to interpret those passages.

Therefore, we must believe that they intended for the powers of Congress to expand with the changing times, regardless of quotes that may exist to the contrary. In retrospect this proved to be very insightful on their behalf because we would not be where we are as a country today without this legislation.

The Constitution states in Article I Section 5 (paraphrased):



Cube Jockey added:


Please see my citation of Madison in my post to quarkhead in this thread.



To which Cube Jockey added:



When corporations employ foreign labor, they are improving the conditions of those workers and their families. What you seem to be saying is that their working conditions are not something that you would personally care to endure. But they are quite happy to get the work. I travel frequently to a third-world country where the standard wage is about $2-3 a day, the work is hard and somewhat dangerous - and people who have the jobs are very glad to be employed. By the way, people live very well on that pay.

Pedro

Forgive me, CJ, if I have trouble following the logic there Let me try this approach: If the Constitution was intentionally made flexible, changeable with the times, why are there enumerated powers? Why does it not plainly state that whatever Congress deems beneficial to enough people, it has the authority to do?
As I have noted elsewhere, there is ample evidence from the Founders' own mouths that a loose translation is not at all what they intended. Why would we want to debate the merits of current intellectual fashions rather than take the Founders at their word?
A very good source is Justice Joseph Story's treatise on Constitutional interpretation.

Pedro

The Constitution in fact does state that, I'll repost the relevant sections from Article I, Section 5.



"General Welfare of the United States" pretty plainly says to me Congress can make laws it considers beneficial to the country.



Again, this gives Congress a blank check to make whatever laws it deems fit to not only enforce the body of the Constitution, but also each of the amendments, and to enforce the will of any department created by the Executive branch.

Thus, if the president creates a department of agriculture, congress has the power to make laws regulating agriculture.

In summary, it seems very plain to me that Congress has power to make whatever laws it sees fit, however if you have a section that disproves that, please feel free to cite it. What the founding fathers thought is irrelevant, what they wrote down on paper is what matters, and it is the law of the land.

Does this mean that Congress technically has the power to become the quentisential "Nanny State"? Yes, it does. However, given the checks and balances in our system of government and the differing ideologies of the political parties that is not likely to happen. What is inevitable is that government will grow with time as new challenges arise.

It is true as Pedro contends, that James Madison held a restrictive interpretation of the general welfare clause of the constitution. At the same time, his wasn't the only view of the matter. Alexander Hamilton held contrary views to Madison in this regard, and he provided some key arguments for the general welfare clause interpretion which today, holds sway in the minds of most constitutional historians and scholars.
From Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures" Dec.1791


The general welfare clause was created due to the ineptness of the states, who under the Articles of Confederation, presided over a weak federal government that couldn't procure funds or help industry/farming in any meaningful way. FDR expounded on this when he stated:

Hug0 eloquently wrote: