Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the power to enact the various welfare programs that exist today. (See my signature for Madison's quote on this issue). It is only since the mid 30's that the USSC, after being initially challenged by FDR's attempt to pack the court, has consistently taken an expansionary view of the general welfare clause and allowed the federal government to have powers never contemplated by the founding fathers. Another Madison quote, this one directly addressing the general welfare clause,"With respect to the words 'general welfare' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character not contemplated by its creators."

Is the Constitution worth the paper it is printed on?

I understand that taxes are unconstitutional as well... but what can one do? The constitution is like the bible, it's used to suit. Is it worth the paper it's written on? I would say so, even if we don't stick to it to the letter today it's still a nice foundation.

Who cares what Madison thought?...Is he in power today? No. Its up to how the Constitution is interpreted today, times change and so do laws. If its interpreted today by those in power as constitutional, then it is.

Edited to remove personal attack

Kim - Yes, when interpreting the Constitution it should matter what the authors of the Constitution thought. Madison is often heralded as the father of the Constitution.

Actually, neither taxes, nor the government providing for the welfare of its people is unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, clearly defines this power of the congress:

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

That pretty much says it all, doesn't it?


Stefan Fargus
Manager of the Dem War Room
http://members.aol.com/demwarroom

This post ain't about taxes. See my prior quote of Madison on the general welfare clause. Check my signature also. The man generally heralded as the Father of the Constitution was quite clear on the meaning of the general welfare clause.

I think what Madmax may have been referring to is if the Amendment that instated the income tax was properly ratified. Many argue it was not.

I realize that this post isn't about taxes... I was actually referring to the portion that reads "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States". I understand that certain items were written after the fact, that denounce social programs, entitlements, and the like, but that was based upon life in their time. Did the founding fathers expect that there would be 280,000,000 people living here? That the standard of living would become so high, that people who yearn for the "simple life" couldn't possibly do it? Somehow I doubt it. Remember, back then, to get land, all you had to do is stake a claim. (Wow, does that ever reak of socialism!) Its not so easy or cheap to do that these days. Regardless of what was written after the fact, by Madison, Jefferson, or whomever else you'd like to quote, the Congress is constitutionally allowed to provide for the general welfare of the United States, however they may see fit to do it.

Stefan, Unfortunately for your assertion, The Federalist Papers, specifically the Federalist paper #41 preceded the ratification of the Constitution. In the Federalist Paper #41, Madison specifically addresses the General Welfare clause and those who would "misconstrue" this clause to give the federal government unlimited powers. As the Federalist papers #41 points out the general welfare clause simply enables the government to fulfill it's duties as enumerated in the Constitution.

If to quote you Congress can address the "'general welfare of the United States, however they see fit to do so", why were amendments necessary to prohibit and then reinstate sales and possession of alcohol".

Read Federalist Paper #41,folks, it clearly dictates the limitation of the general welfare clause. Liberals have trashed the Constitution with their intentional misconstuing of the general welfare clause.

Hugo, stop these nasty digs. You have been previously warned about this. Not only does it diminish a good argument, it lowers the level of debate in this entire forum. Mike and I have worked very hard to ensure people debate in a civil, mature manner. We will have no other choice to issue you a strike for the next irrelevant, snide remark.

Back to the topic:

I have a question - when exactly were the Federalist papers ratified by all the states? Oh yeah, they weren't. While the Federalist papers offer a nice guideline to how the Constitution should be followed and I tend to agree with Madison, they are not law.

I have to agree with Jaime, that the Federalist papers are not law, and once again, were written considering only the time-frame that the founders lived in.

No the Constitution is the law, The Federalist Papers were written to explain the meaning of the Constitution. The law is determined by activist judges who ignore what the Constitution says and interpret their own meanings. The Federalist papers are clearly the best source showing what the authors of the Constitution intended. In fact if Madison was wrong, or deceptive, in Federalist Paper #41, then the Constitution was ratified under false pretenses.

The restricted view of the general welfare clause was the predominately held view of the USSC until the mid-30's. Then FDR, tired of his social programs being ruled unconstitutional, decided to pack the Supreme Court. While FDR's attempt to add six members to the USSC was too blatant an attack on the seperation of powers to succeed, FDR did succeed in cowering the USSC. Suddenly an expansionary view of the general welfare clause became accepted. If this clause had been misconstrued in such a way before, the Amendments on prohibition would have been unnecessary.

Let me put it in more PC terms. The expansion of the general welfare clause has destroyed the integrity of the Constitution. It has eliminated the 9th and 10th amendments. It has made the enumeration of powers in Article 1 Section 8 redundant. It has taken us a long way to being a democracy instead of a republic. The tyranny of the majority, as Tocqueville warned us about is here. The rights of the individual are gone, replaced by group rights and temporary majorities.

I ask this question again, Why were amendments needed to enact and repeal prohibition?

They are? How so? The very fact that you "lump together" group rights and temporary majorities, proves you wrong, if by 'group rights', you're referring to minority/other special interests, as generally speaking, the majority would vote overwhelmingly against them. (Sorry about the run-on sentence.)

How do you figure? What rights have you lost as a result of welfare? On the flip side of that coin, what have you gained? Yes, that's right, gained. If we failed as a nation to provide assistance to our own people for the common good, what would that say about us as a society? (What would the NEIGHBORS think?) What would the consequences be? More than likely an exponentially higher crime rate, and areas of the country that would become so horribly economically depressed that it would be similar to stepping into a 3rd world country. Do you honestly believe that this country would have been better off without these social programs?
People seem to forget what this country was like before these social programs came to be. We were not a wealthy nation, not a superpower in even the lightest sense of the word. The new deal was spawned from the very fact that the economy was stuck in a long-term depression. Had the fed not stepped in with infrastructure programs, there would still be LARGE areas of the country with no electricity! That was something that was supposed to be left to the states as well. The very programs that you argue so fiercely against, are a big contributing factor to our current strength, and wealth. The proof is in the pudding, and it seems to be working allot better with the social programs, then it did before they were enacted. Would you not agree, at least to this?

Once again you fail to address, Why was an amendment required to enact and repeal profibition? You also fail to address the 9th and 10th Amendments. That is because they are obstacles to the socialist state.

Groups and minorities can form temporary majorities by banding together and/or by getting others to support their causes.

The Great Depression was caused by government failure. The recently created Federal Reserve reacted to a recession by shrinking the money supply. The money supply actually shrunk by a third between 1929 and 1933. As anyone educated in macro-economics will tell you, the proper monetary policy would have been to expand the money supply. Government failure led to the Great Depression. What was the liberal response to this failure of government? More government of course! Sadly economics was in it's infancy and many saw the Great Depression as a failure of capitalism, not government. The tragic result has been socialism, the trampling of private property rights, and the destruction of the constitution.

The great advancements since the 30's have been the result of capitalism and the free market. These advancements would have been much greater if it was not for the attack on private property rights, the degradation of the work ethic and the attack on the family by blatantly unconstitutional social programs.

Let me try this question once again, Why were amendments needed to enact and repeal prohibition?

Another guy who didn't believe in government programs had shanty towns named after him. I don't know if you're old enough to remember Hoovervilles, but I am.
Real people lived in those hell holes. They thanked God that someone came along and offered government programs so they could become employed and start eating again. Those are the good results you failed to mention.

Madtown

Them people would not have been out of work if the government had not screwed them to start with. Government had one primary job back then, as far as the economy went, control of the money supply. They blew it.

I see no one can answer my prohibition question.

I don't think those starving people living in dumps cared about who or what was the cause of their misery. They cared that someone (FDR) came along and saved them.

It's one thing to read about the depression, it's another thing to have been there.

Madtown

Why were amendments required to enact and repeal prohibition? The question liberals refuse to answer.

Hugo, notice it's NOT just liberals? NO ONE here has attempted to answer your question. This is your final warning. Next snide remark like that gets a strike.

Let me rephrase it, the question no one can answer,Why were amendments required to enact and repeal prohibition?

General welfare, meaning general well-being, of the people. Not the bloated gov't social program

--cheers

Madison has been brought up a few times here. He not only is known as "the father of the Constitution", he is also known as the most conservative of the Constitution's framers.

So, the complaint seems to be about how much the government spends on social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and so on.

The following site may open your eyes a bit to other ways of looking at our federal budgets:

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

BTW, during Madison's time, the only revenue collected for the federal government came from import/export duties. That was then, this is now. The nation has grown. Our international influence has grown, much to the despair of the spirit of G. Washington, the father of our *country*. Washington warned us about getting involved internationally. I guess that trumps Madison, eh? Hehehe, if we need to follow Madison, first we must shrink back into the 18th Century form of the United States.

In other words, to follow Madison means that not only do we scrap social programs, we have to scrap our huge military too.

I don't believe either proposition makes any sense.

Yes, Washington warned us about entangling alliances. We should have listened to that. I addressed that issue in the appropriate post.

Madison's view on the general welfare clause as written in the Federalist Papers was an explanation and a promotion of the Constitution. If he lied about the use of the general welfare clause than the Constitution was ratified on fraudulent grounds. Actually the founders were liberal compared to their opposition opposing the Constitution.

Still no answer to the question,Why were amendments needed to enact and repeal prohibition?

Well, actually, the Federalsit Papers were written in an effort to "sell" the Constitution to the people of New York. They were part of a lobbying effort to get the folks of that state to ratify the new Constitution, overriding the Articles of Confederation. It should also be remembered that Madison, Hamilton, and Jay represented one faction of the Constitutional Congress - and that Madison later changed his position radically on several issues (primarily due to the influence of Jefferson), that Hamilton represented an extreme, elitist minority in that Congress, and that Jay had virtually no input into the Federalist Papers.

The Federalist Papers are clearly the best source showing what James Madison's opinion once was when he was acting as a huckster for the Constitution. Period. For an insight into the mind of that individual at a particular period in history, the Papers are an interesting curio. If Madison was wrong or deceptive in Federalist Paper #41, he would be typical of salesmen since the beginning of time. I'm not arguing that he was, but everything in the Federalist Papers should be taken with a truckload of salt.

As your hallowed Federalsit was written to examine the differences between the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution (in an attempt to sell the latter), it might be interesting to compare the two documents ourselves - especially the Articles dealing with "the mutual and general welfare". In terms of the states "binding themselves to assist each other" and the intent to "secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among... the free inhabitants of each of these States", it is interesting to note that the original Articles of Confederation excluded from those free inhabitants "paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice". The Constitution does not. If anything, it would appear that the Constitution is more inclusive in terms of who was to be included in the "general welfare" of "free inhabitants" than the original Articles - apparently now including paupers and vagabonds. Jamie Madison's protean positions aside, what does that tell us?

Rubbish. Your claim that when the Constitution says "the general welfare", it doesn't really mean "the general welfare" is all well and good. It is not, however, what I would call a compelling argument for an overt contradiction of either of the Amendments you mention. The enumeration of powers in Article 1, Section 8 are vague and are as open to anyone else's interpretation as they are to yours. FDR's failure to stack the Supreme Court strikes me as irrelevant, though it does appear that the "activist" US Congress would disagree with you in that they are responsible for enacting all of the welfare legislation which is currently on the books. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the enactnment of legislation kinda like their job?

I am actually a big fan of Tocqueville, but I don't see how his admonition against the tyranny of the majority would apply here at all. Are you somehow suggesting that those in receipt of social welfare constitute a majority in this country? On the contrary, if Tocqueville's opinion regarding the rights of individuals can be squeezed into this discussion in any context, it would seem to me that welfare legislation seeks to look out for those individuals in this country who are living below the poverty line.

I'm not sure what the context of this question is, but it was my understanding that, prior to the Eighteenth Amerndment, "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors" was legislated by the individual states. A Constitutional Amendment was required because the Constitution did not cover the prohibition by the federal government of any trade within "the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof" or restrictions on the import of any goods whatsoever. The Constitution does provide for the promotion of "the general welfare", however ill-defined such "welfare" may be, even in its Preamble. Regarding Prohibition and Social Welfare, then, I'd like to ask a question: What do apples and oranges have in common?

If the general welfare was intended to do anything more than enable the government to fulfill the duties already designated to it in the Constitution than there would have been no need for Amendments on prohibition.

It seems like Wertz holds into the position that Madison was an extremist and a huckster. A used car salesmen type,I guess. I disagree with his position that the Constitution was fraudelently ratified. It shows a disrespect for our Constitution to say so. The limited powers of our federal government are clearly spelled out and the 9th and 10th Amendments clarify the limitations. You have two choices here, Wertz's that Madison was simply a extremist"huckster" who fraudelently sold the Constitution ,or mine that Madison was chosen to honestly explain and promote the Constitution and that those who at the time argued that the general welfare clause in the Constitution gave the feds virtually unlimited power were misconstruing the clause.

Madison's and Jefferson's and the vast majority of the founders view of the general welfare clause was held consistently by the USSC, until after FDR's blatant attempt at undermining the USSC, after the USSC struck down several New Deal programs as unconstitutional, failed, but succeeded in cowering the Court into submission.

The end result an expansive federal government that can enter all areas of our lives, a loosely interpreted Constitution devoid of the 9th and 10th Amendments. A document that is now claimed to be a living document. A document that needs not be changed through amendments but by the mere whims of jurists or legislators. The founding fathers had provided for changing times. it was called amendments. But, who cares what them hucksters had to say,right?

The reference to a tyranny of the majority? Let me explain. The Constitution had protections against tyranny by a temporary majority. One was indirect election of senators, since amended. another was the electoral college. The Amendment process, with its requirement of super majorities was a third, this process has been eliminated. We are all less safe because of it. Particularly, at this time, a minority of our population which calls upon Allah.

Care to elaborate?

Yes,Jaime, I will. Once the protections in the Constitution against the tyranny of the majority are broken down individuals are now subject to the passions of temporary majorities. The 14th amendment granting all native born Americans equal protection under the law has already been targeted usually, so far, relatively harmlessly. I would hate to see the possible outcome if domestic born Muslims were implicated in a major terrorist attack, similar to 9-11. I don't think the primary proponents of social programs completely trust the current administration and congress. I know my Muslim acquantances do not.

I have already used Madison extensively to show what the founding fathers view of the general welfare clause was in 1787. Let me show how consistent this view was held through 1930 with this quote,"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the states are all of those which have not been surrendured to the National Government by the Constitution. wisely or unwisely, people know that under the 18th Amendment congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the manner 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 a dozen other important features. In these Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." Let me reveal the author of this quote, FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT.

Yes. Right. Correct. As I pointed out in my previous post, the duties designated to the government in the Constitution do not cover the prohibition of any trade or any restrictions on the import of any goods - intoxicating or not. A Constitutional Amendment was clearly required to grant such powers of prohibition. The Constitution does provide for the promotion of "the general welfare" by the government. A Constitutional Amendment is clearly not required to provide for such general welfare. What part of this are you failing to grasp, Hugo?

Let's try it this way...
Prohibition=this is not in the Constitution. Amendment required.
Welfare=this is in the Constitution. Amendment not required.

It seems like my post was not as clear as I had thought. It was Alexander Hamilton whom I described as representing "an extreme, elitist minority", not James Madison. Perhaps, where Hugo comes from, Madison is spelled H-A-M-I-L-T-O-N or something - or perhaps he is deliberately distorting my posting. I did describe the author of some of the Federalsit Papers as a huckster - which is exactly what he was. Publius existed solely and exclusively to sell the Constitution to the populace of New York state. The Papers were written for no other reason. They were advertizing. Hugo may wish to imagine that the Founders were infallible saints, the "vast majority" of whom were in 100% agreement on every aspect of their new nation, its government, and its Constitution - that's his right. I prefer to go by the historical record.

That is not my position. To invent positions for other participants here shows a disrespect for this forum.

Actually you (whoever you are) have as many choices as you like - including what my real position would be: Madison was expressing what his opinion of the Constitution was at the time; he was expressing that opinion in such a way as to make it as palatable as possible to those who would be voting on the ratification of the US Constitution; and his opinion did not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other Founders or even a majority of the other Founders. And Madison, by the way, was "chosen" by no one. He and Hamilton and poor ailing John Jay voluntarily took the hard-sell project on themselves.

Please cite a source for Jefferson's opinion on the "general welfare" references in the Constitution and the majority opinion of the Founders regarding same.

One question, Hugo: if the only response to "changing times" which the Founders envisioned was Constitutional Amendments, why did they establish a legislature at all?

Okay, this makes about as much sense as... something I would have to edit because it would probably constitute a personal attack. Let me put it this way: WHAT??? Could you maybe restate whatever points you're trying to make here in a coherent fashion?

Well,Wertz, the Father of the Constitution and the Founder of the Modern Socialist State disagreed with you. The general welfare clause covered only the powers enumerated in the Constitution that is what Madison, Jefferson and FDR thought. I guess you are better qualified than they were to expound on the Constitution.

Of course I have referred to historical records,the Federalist Papers, which Wertz writes off as the work of hucksters. I have provided quotes from individuals as diverse in time and politics as FDR and Madison. What historical records or sources has Wertz utilized? The answer is none.

Wertz, I think you're being a bit harsh on hugo. He may have possibly misinterpreted what you had previosly written but I do not feel it was malicious.

Additionally, hugo did elaborate on his last statement you quoted in a follow up post to me. Perhaps you were posting at the same time as he (hugo 10:06, wertz 10:15)

By the way, where I come from Madison is spelled Madison. Just as you spelled it ,Wertz, when you called M-A-D-I-S-O-N. a huckster.

I am every bit as qualified as Madison, Jefferson, or FDR to express an opinion on the Constitution - as are you. Clearly, if he is to be considered "the Founder of the Modern Socialist State", FDR ended up disagreeing with himself sometime between the 1930 quote you cite and the institution of the New Deal policies of 1935 (such as Social Security and the Aid to Dependent Children program). I have yet to see you post anything about the opinions of Jefferson or any of the other Founders on "the general welfare", though you keep bundling them with Madison.

The answer, actually, is the Articles of Confederation of 1777 (ratified 1781), the the US Constitution of 1787, and the Eighteenth Amendment to that Constitution (1919). The rest of my postings regarding the Welfare State in relation to those documents are admittedly comprised of my own opinions, not those of James Madison or anyone else. For what exactly would you like an historical reference cited, Hugo? I've made my request clear ("Please cite a source for Jefferson's opinion on the 'general welfare' references in the Constitution and the majority opinion of the Founders regarding same").


I don't think he was being malicious either, but he was definitely spinning my posting - and, I felt, out of its original context. If I was unnecessarily harsh, my apologies. I may have made up for it by agreeing with him in two or three other threads.


Yeah - that one crossed in the post. Though I must admit I'm still not sure what point he's making here.


And when I did not call him an extremist.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated" Thomas Jefferson 1798

"The specification of particulars (Article 1 Sec 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 given." Alexander Hamilton

Thomas Jefferson again "Our pecliar security is in the possession of a written Constitution, let us not make it a blank check by construction."

We have, by construction, made our constitution a blank check. Our peculiar security is in jeopardy.

Well who knew that america would fall into a depression, What did the constutuion have about that. My mom had to support us on food stamps because we were poor ( still am ) Had the constution knew that America would become so powerful and so many people living on the streets im SURE they would f added it During the revolt of 1776 many people were doing fine, so they didn't add it

The Founding Fathers supplied an answer to changing times. It was called amendments.

Questions........

1...How much say do the American people have in the course of ammending the Constitution.
2...Can the American people put forth suggestions regarding the Constitution.

Regards..Alan

Free speech Alan...anything is possible. There essentially 2 ways to amend the Constitution of the United States. Congress and the States. I believe it takes 2/3 Congress and 3/4 of the States.

Back to lurking,
Darcaine

Since there are many Americans that don't know this information, here is a good link on how the amendment process works.
www.usconstitution.net.
It has helped me out in the past.