A Constitutional basis for Federal social programs?

B

BTR

New member
While having a discussion on the constitutionality of Social Security, my mother and I debated on the meaning of the first power of Congress:

"Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Does the bold section give Congress the power to spend money on general social programs like welfare and Social Security?

Or does the bold section not an expansion of power, but rather a descriptive statement, to the effect that when congress spends money in the course of its duties, it will promote the defense and general welfare?

I can see both views clearly; does anyone have opinions, or, better yet, facts regarding this section? Has anyone filed a lawsuit on Tenth Ammendment grounds regarding SS?
 
I have heard the scum of society use the term " Federal Entitlement " instead of Welfare . It sounds like the Gov't. is giving them something that they worked for or otherwise deserve . Like Maxine Waters , of Los Angeles referring to the Rodney King riots as " Civil Unrest " . Give it another name and it becomes less offensive .

------------------
TOM
SASS AMERICAN LEGION NRA GOA
 
The Preamble states:

"...insure domestic tranquility, PROVIDE for the common defense, PROMOTE the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty"

I have always wondered why the Framers switched those around. In the Preamble it says the goal was to "PROVIDE for the common defense" which suggests an active role, whereas they were merely to "PROMOTE the general welfare."

From Aug 16, 2000 WorldnetDaily:

<snip>
In 1792, Congress appropriated $15,000 to
assist some French refugees. James Madison
wrote disapprovingly, "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."
<snip>

Rick
 
Most people seem to put the blame on the "promote the general welfare" part. What I fail to see is how giving money or services to a specific group promotes general welfare. The usual argument is that society is better off by supporting: the old, the poor, the sick, the blacks, the unemployed, families with children, children, etc.

They're full of crap.
 
BTR: It's generally admitted by all but the die-hard solphists that the federal government is supposed to promote the general welfare BY EXERCISING THE POWERS GRANTED IT UNDER THE REST OF ARTICLE ONE SECTION EIGHT. In other words, that phrase isn't a grant of any power, but simply points out the purpose to which those powers the federal government actually is granted should be exercised. In fact, I believe that even Madison himself made a point of attacking the idea that this was any general grant of power;

"With respect to the words, "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of power connected with them. [The enumerated powers following, in other words. BPB] To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution... [that] was not contemplated by the creators." Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831

"[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend it's jurisdiction." Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 6, 1788

"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." Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

Mind you, our government IS run by "die-hard sophists"...

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
The fact of the matter is constitutional support for the welfare behemoth is thin to the point of being non-existent. The only constitutional fig leaf available is the general welfare clause. A look at period documentation shows no evidence that the founding fathers envisioned our welfare state.

Congress has wholly abandoned constitutional restrictions on welfare and no one complained. Now that congress is going after freedom of association (Boy Scouts), freedom of religion (any number of episodes), freedom of speech (hate law legislation), the right to keep and bear arms (take you pick of anti-2 moves), the right to due process (Elian's meeting with an MP-5), no ex post facto law (numerous tax laws enacted and made retroactive), various constitution procedures (advice and consent provision of the senate and Clinton's ambassadors,and Bill Lan Lee); people are beginning to pay attention and/or get worried. Too late.

My point is we have effectively abandoned the constitution over the last 2 or 3 decades and both parties participated. My fear is this is the election where the electorate will give the constitution a coup de grace.

------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Barry Goldwater--1964
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top