The new low.

[Michael Tee]

The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 8:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Seems to be pretty clear to me - - does anyone want to argue that the general welfare of the United States does not include the general health of its citizens, or that the general health is not maintained and improved through scientific research?

[Amianthus]

does anyone want to argue that the general welfare of the United States does not include the general health of its citizens, or that the general health is not maintained and improved through scientific research?

Sure, I'll argue it.

That is the preamble; the rest of the section enumerates what the government can do to "maintain the general welfare."

I don't see health care listed there.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Where does the Constitution mention the Interstate highway system? Where does it mention Homeland Security? The FAA? The FCC? The DEA? Most of what the government spends money on is not mentioned in the Constitution.

[BT]

Where does the Constitution mention the Interstate highway system? Where does it mention Homeland Security? The FAA? The FCC? The DEA? Most of what the government spends money on is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Most of those are defense related. The interstate Highway System certainly is.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Interstates were built as a defense tool, but they are primarily used by the civilian population. They were built because Eisenhower was impressed by Hitler's Autobahns.

The inspiration for the Autobahns was the Pennsylvania Turnpike, by the way.

[BT]

The Interstates were built as a defense tool, but they are primarily used by the civilian population.

Yeah, more civilians drink Tang than astronauts.

[Michael Tee]

<<That is the preamble; the rest of the section enumerates what the government can do to "maintain the general welfare.">.

Your problem is that it's not a preamble - - a preamble explains the intent and then is followed by the actual substance of the laws; often it begins with a "whereas" then comes the statement of general intent, then there's a phrase like "now therefore" and then the actual law is stated.

This section BEGINS with an actual donation of general powers to the Congress and then enumerates specific examples of what the Congress can do, but does not state that the specific examples are the only ways in which the more general powers can find expression.

[BT]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html

[Amianthus]

Your problem is that it's not a preamble - - a preamble explains the intent and then is followed by the actual substance of the laws;

Well, Madison and Hamilton both called it a preamble. Guess they were too dumb to know what they had written, huh? Both Madison and Hamilton claimed that the general power listed in the preamble was prescribed by the list of detailed powers included. The discussion was covered in Federalist 39-41, IIRC.

This section BEGINS with an actual donation of general powers to the Congress and then enumerates specific examples of what the Congress can do, but does not state that the specific examples are the only ways in which the more general powers can find expression.

Yeah, just looked up one Madison quote from Fed 41:

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?

[Michael Tee]

That was a great link, Ami, and I thank you for it.

You should read it more carefully.  The guys who drafted the general welfare clause were not in such close agreement as you claimed with regard to its meaning:

<<With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause;Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers . . . >>

They may or may not have agreed on whether or not to call it a "preamble," but the more relevant point is what they regarded to be its effect.

<<Within little more than a year  . . . Steward Machine Co. v. Davis [a Supreme Court decision] . . . sustained the tax imposed on employers to provide unemployment benefits, and the credit allowed for similar taxes paid to a State. To the argument that the tax and credit in combination were “weapons of coercion, destroying or impairing the autonomy[p.156]of the States,” the Court replied that relief of unemployment was a legitimate object of federal expenditure under the “general welfare” clause . . .

In other words, an objective which clearly lay outside the objectives specified in Sectio 8 of the Constitution following what you call the "preamble" was seen as a legitimate Federal activity under the "preamble's" general welfare clause.

[Amianthus]

That was a great link, Ami, and I thank you for it.

BT provided the link.

Yes, during the 20th century, the courts have allowed Congress to expand on the Constitution, taking liberal views of both the Interstate Commerce and General Welfare clauses. That does not mean that is what the founders intended.

BTW, Hamilton was also opposed to the Bill of Rights. His view was that it was not needed, since Congress could only do those things it was authorized to do (such as that list in Section 8). That is the reason for the inclusion of the 10th Amendment.

[Michael Tee]

<<BTW, Hamilton was also opposed to the Bill of Rights. His view was that it was not needed, since Congress could only do those things it was authorized to do (such as that list in Section . That is the reason for the inclusion of the 10th Amendment.>>

Well, he was also opposed to slavery.  Books have been written about him, he was a brilliant and complex man.  He may have been wrong on the Bill of Rights, but that doesn't make him wrong on everything.

A literal reading of section 8 does find a Congressional power to act for the general welfare, not taken away by specific examples of that power:  Use my home as you would your own, raid the refrigerator at will.  Does that mean you can't watch the TV in the family room?  It's ridiculous to contend that the general application of the first power is taken away by the specificity of the second?  The court that you refer to as "liberal" in its interpretation of the section was actually "strict constructionist" in that one case.  It would take some tampering with the actual wording of the Constitution to find express limitation of the "general welfare" in the examples that follow it.

Besides which, the Constitution as presently interpreted by the Supreme Court of the U.S.A. does provide, whether you agree with the "liberal" Depression-era court or not, that the power to act for the general welfare of the nation is NOT limited by the examples given.  (And BTW, if that court was so "liberal," how come FDR wanted to "pack" it by increasing its members to 14?)

So there is no "Constitutional roadblock" to funding stem-cell or any other health-related research.  That's just one more right-wing myth.

[Amianthus]

A literal reading of section 8 does find a Congressional power to act for the general welfare, not taken away by specific examples of that power:  Use my home as you would your own, raid the refrigerator at will.  Does that mean you can't watch the TV in the family room?  It's ridiculous to contend that the general application of the first power is taken away by the specificity of the second?

What's the point of the list then? If Congress can already do anything, why make a list? If I was giving someone permission to "use my home as their own" I would not then tack on a list of "fer instances" - I might tack on a list of "stuff you CAN'T do," but it would be stupid to tack on a list of "stuff you CAN do". Guess you think that the founders were idiots...

So there is no "Constitutional roadblock" to funding stem-cell or any other health-related research.  That's just one more right-wing myth.

I never said that there was a "Constitutional Roadblock" - I did say that Congress is not REQUIRED to fund it, and if they DECIDE to fund it, they are not then required to fund it at 100%, they are free to limit the funding. Research grants are not an entitlement.

[Michael Tee]

<<What's the point of the list then? If Congress can already do anything, why make a list? If I was giving someone permission to "use my home as their own" I would not then tack on a list of "fer instances" - I might tack on a list of "stuff you CAN'T do," but it would be stupid to tack on a list of "stuff you CAN do". Guess you think that the founders were idiots...>>

The list might be to resolve some issues whose relationship to defence or general welfare might be debatable.  For example, keeping a standing army in peacetime might have been seen in those days as neither defence nor general welfare, so in order to resolve doubts, it was specifically enumerated that an army and a Navy could be established.  They were looking at the document through an 18th-Century lens.

<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 09:07:28 AM
<So there is no "Constitutional roadblock" to funding stem-cell or any other health-related research.  That's <just one more right-wing myth.>

<<I never said that there was a "Constitutional Roadblock" >>

No, that was from another poster, but it was what precipitated our examination of section 8.

<<I did say that Congress is not REQUIRED to fund it, and if they DECIDE to fund it, they are not then required to fund it at 100%, they are free to limit the funding. Research grants are not an entitlement.>>

They're not an entitlement, but at the same time if they grant A but not B, they have to justify the discrimination on some rational grounds, not that "B is prohibited by the Chief Executive's religion."  How'd you like it if President Lieberman cut off all Dept. of Ag. grants to hog farmers?

[Amianthus]

They're not an entitlement, but at the same time if they grant A but not B, they have to justify the discrimination on some rational grounds, not that "B is prohibited by the Chief Executive's religion."  How'd you like it if President Lieberman cut off all Dept. of Ag. grants to hog farmers?

There is already a ban on funding abortions with public money. Limiting embryonic stem cell research to lines that would not require funding any future abortions is just keeping in line with an already-in-place ban (which, if memory serves, has never been overturned as unconstitutional). It is not a "religious quirk" as you would have us believe.

And yes, I think most Dept of Agriculture grants are stupid, I would not be opposed to limiting them.

Besides, limiting funding based on "we have X dollars to spend, so here is where we're going to spend them" is rational.