Please look up Federal district, and you might also take note of the clue given in the text of Article 1, Section 8 which you quoted '(not exceeding ten Miles square)'. You might also look up 'exegesis' and 'eisegesis' as it appears quite obvious you are applying the latter in interpreting our Constitution.
And you're not? Providing for the General Welfare means promoting an economy that's prosperous. As a capitalist, I want to see the invisible hand do most of that work, but sometimes a nudge in the right direction goes a long way in providing for that goal. Your own eisegesis doesn't allow you to understand the intent of the. Constitution.
No, I'm not. The Constitution speaks of the duties of the Federal government to the States, and does not speak of providing for the welfare of the population individually. The first 10 amendments, address the rights of the people, and the 10th amendment clearly states that the powers of the Federal government are enumerated by the consent of both the people and the States, not simply through the election process, but by the amendment process. You claim to be a capitalist? I agree a nudge in the 'right' direction would go a long way in producing a desirable goal.
You're not showing that. You're not showing anything to be outside the scope of the US Constitution. Not just claim, but made money as a small business owner, in two very different businesses. I'm not in business any more, but sold both businesses and did pretty well. The purpose of spending to provide for the general welfare of the US is to promote opportunities, without the government having the means of production. The help to the poor has an overall good effect on the whole economy. So, arguments against that kind of help, and no court cases making it unconstitutional, are just mental masturbation and ignorance of the US Constitution.
Yes, I have read the entire document, and it was taught quite differently in school over 65 years ago than it seems to be taught today. The interpretation you both seem to have been led to accept is quite different from that which was finally agreed on by the founders in creating the United States of America. Rather than continue to drag this thread further off topic, I would suggest both you and Shanty do some reading of the words from George Mason, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, to understand the difficulties foreseen in creating a Constitution that would assure the people to hold the strings controlling the power of our government. Mason in particular warned of the dangers that came to pass beginning with the actions of the so called 'progressive' movement and the term of Woodrow Wilson in which along with creation of the Federal reserve act, and passage of the 16th and 17th amendments has brought about the imposition of the changes in our government through gradual reinterpretation of its words leaving us to deal with the consequences that exist today, such as the one questioned in this threads title. It would appear that 'we' are never going to reach agreement on the interpretation of the Constitution in regards to the meaning of welfare as it was meant to be understood by the founders, so I would suggest that rather than resort to denigrative comments, we accept that fact and instead return to this threads topic of 'Federal deficits' instead.
The point is that our federal Congress is delegated the social Power to use Socialism to bail out Capitalism, like usual; in the federal districts. From that, Standards could be enacted for the Union.
That's quite a stretch. The Federal district, singular, is Washington D.C., which Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings", the 'like Authority' does not refer to the States, but ONLY areas within the States 'purchased' by the consent of the Legislatures of the State by the Federal government. Don't forget the 10th Amendment. And nowhere in the Constitution is the Congress granted the 'social power' to use socialism to bail out capitalism in either the Federal district, or the States. In fact, the words social, socialism, or capitalism do not exist anywhere in our Constitution.
Dude, the point is our federal Congress can use Socialism to bailout Capitalism, like usual, in the federal districts and fix Standards for the Union.
Jefferson, Mason and Madison, Jay and Hamilton (particularly the latter three in the Federalist Papers) offered their opinions of what should be for their time. But there's no question that the Constitution was going to be the framework, while the laws would evolve within that framework as the nation evolved. Certainly, the Supreme Court has not struck down the ability of the congress to tax or spend to create those programs. You're telling us how you want the Constitution to be, I limiting congress further than the Founders intended. But reality says the programs are here, because your view of the Constitution is skewed.
In an attempt to remain on topic, I'll take your post to mean that you feel that Federal deficits are good, which only adds to the list of reasons that Socialism implemented by a Central government is not only bad, but destructive to the societies over which its rule is imposed.
Shanty, All I've said is that the Constitution should be applied as it was intended. allowing for changes to be made by consent of the people and the States, not simply by elections and packing of the Supreme court with activists intent on reinterpreting the words of our Constitution as the means of producing change to fit the agenda of the party/politicians who they are affiliated with. The U.S. Constitution should be interpreted/understood by ALL in the same way, with any differences of opinion relating to what it should say to be a result of amendment by both the people and the States. Should I assume that you also hold the opinion that Federal deficits are good?
First, elections are the way representation is chosen in congress, the Presidency and state and local governments. The consent of the people is to have those representatives represent them, until citizens decide to bring in new people to represent them. The Constitution lays it out (with the 17th Amendment). The Constitution also lays out the judiciary being appointed and confirmed. As the Constitution intended. And, it should be understood the intent of the Constitution was to provide a framework to govern within, as it is now being governed within the restrictions the Constitution places on government. You should ask me. Assumptions about me could make you very wrong in your assumptions. - - - Updated - - - You're making an assumption which looks wrong about danielpalos, from what I'm reading.
Most of what you have posted above I agree with. The 17th amendment significantly changed the way our government works, and together with the 16th amendment have contributed greatly to our economic woes at all levels of government. "Should I assume that you also hold the opinion that Federal deficits are good?" - I believe what I wrote DID pose a question. My take differs based on what I've read, but danielpalos is free to clear that up if necessary.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" That is correct. Obviously we do not agree on a definition of the term 'general Welfare', and as James Madison stated "the clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand" or there would have been no reason to list specific protective powers as they would have been encompassed by the phrase "promote the general welfare". By the way, how are we doing on the thread topic question of deficit spending?
Not at all. The 16th Amendment helps the economy by allowing for an income tax, which funds the government in its functions. That the tax structure is somewhat progressive makes it even better for that. The 17th Amendment is the election of Senators, instead of appointment by Governors, and isn't directly tied to the way we tax or spend. No. Making that assumption is not that simple. It's not a matter of good or bad. It's a matter of necessity, and how to treat them. They don't really matter as much as some people make them out to be. Generally, we should have relatively balanced budgets. But in economic downturns, or a compelling reason (like a large scale war, to defend the US) for a large spending increase, it's no big deal if they get high. But after the economic recovery or end to the emergency spending, budgets should be balanced again, which has made debt fall as a percentage of GDP. Now, as we know, conservatives have raised deficits via tax cuts that have never panned out for job creation, and has helped to see revenue growth rise much slower than spending. Another way conservatives raised deficits, and debt, has been through poor policy on economic matters that has allowed for the last couple of recessions be based on bubble economics, due to deregulation of stock or banking/finance markets.
That was Madison's theory and opinion. But, his theory and opinion was not the only one from the Founders. And as the government took shape, the legislature and courts fleshed out how the nation would run. You're placing too much stock in one theory of governance, that was discarded by the real world. But, that doesn't make our government work outside of the framework of the US Constitution. And the courts have upheld my position over yours, as have the Federal and state legislatures.
The 16th amendment allows the Federal government to tax individuals directly. Prior to the 16th amendment, the Federal government was allowed to tax the States, according to their proportionate share of the total population. Prior to the 16th amendment, income was taxable, and a progressive tax structure was allowable, but at the State level of government not the Federal. As such, both the States and the people had a much greater say over Federal government spending. The reason for having two houses of Congress in the first place was to give BOTH the people AND the States a voice in how our Federal government was allowed to operate, or in other words 'the ultimate checks and balances' over the Federal government. As such, each of the States governments had greater responsibility to their inhabitants/citizens in doing what was necessary for economic growth and providing for the needs of their population. Bad governance of one State would have impact on the citizens of that State while good governance of another/other State(s) could be seen and used as a cause to demand changes more rational/beneficial. Currently, bad governance at the Federal level, applicable to ALL the States impacts everyone and every State. Also, budgeting at the Federal level of government would be much more easily balanced if both the peoples representatives and the States representatives in Congress had to agree on spending bills which in turn would require their States to tax their citizens adequately in providing its share to the Federal government each fiscal year. The tendency appears to be trying to label everything liberal or conservative, which in my opinion is a meaningless label when applied to our government. When applied to individuals, living within ones means is something I would consider to be conservative, and living beyond ones means is something I would consider to be liberal. Why should we view the GDP as the means which 'belong' to the Federal government? The problem in my opinion is the fact that government over the last century has moved more and more from the hands of the people and the States into the hands of a very few at the Federal government level. Note that my education occurred during the 40's and early 50's, and was apparantly much different than that of the younger generations that followed, when government rather than parents became the primary source of how subjects were taught, especially American government and American history. and perhaps math also seeing how many people require a calculater to make change when you go to the store.
That appears to explain the problem. The 'real world'? While the courts may have upheld your position over mine, the real question is have the courts been correct or simply appealing to those who while making the most noise, are not necessarily a majority?
Regardless of what it was before the 16th Amendment, the amendment became law, and income taxes work better, particularly of they are progressive, than flat or sales taxes. American liberals/progressives have made the government live closer to within its means since the end of the Great Depression. Partly because they, through unionism, the New Deal, Great Society and Keynesian economic policies, ushered in the post-war prosperity that has been unmatched in human history. I don't know of American conservatives to have any ability to keep deficits or debt low for the Federal government. You'd have to be able to quantify it. I'd counter the prosperity of the post-WWII era, until Reaganistas started chipping away at the regulations that kept bubble economics at bay, proved itself against older ways that saw less economic liberty for individuals who were working people. my parents never saw it as you do, from that same era you hail from. They were both relatively well educated and saw the values of people stepping up to fight for economic and civil liberties. They were both moderately liberal. I was moderately conservative during the height of the Reagan era because I bought into the hype without understanding the pitfalls American conservativism brings to the nation. Basically, I educated my way out of it by taking notice of the logical fallacies. Plus, getting to see how government works from inside and out, as a business owner, then later from having to deal with government agencies and politicians, opened my eyes to a lot. Going on to learn to rely on sound economic theories that have been used for real world results, shapes my support for moderately liberal economic policies. It's a matter of being pragmatic more than being beholden to some kind grand ideology, for me. That said, I'm very much not in agreement with viewing the a constitution as if we're anti-Federalists, trying to dissuade others from supporting the Constitution.
It's no problem. I'm certainly not going to say the courts are always right in my view. Citizens United, McCutcheon, Hobby Lobby and more have not been good rulings, in my opinion. But, they are the rulings we have to live with, unless or until citizens step up and change it. They can be changed via amendments. But amendments require large scale citizen action. So, citizens have to take the reigns, and hold politicians accountable, and to use the accountability to push for change.
The Fed and Hoover Dam are revenue centers while our wars on crime, drugs, and terror are cost centers.
