Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

"If as you say the research has a political slant then it is bad research."

---

Yes.. and if it has bad methodology then it is also poor as well.

Conversely having little political slant and good methodology is a good yardstick for accessing the worth of this type of genre.

Using that criteria the only paper discussed that makes it through is, Economic Opportunity and Poverty in America.


In answer to a couple of your earlier questions.

I don't really know about 'general welfare' as applied. Going on what has been happening lately I would imagine if push comes to shove on the issue SCOTUS will have the final say.

I also think the issue of 'general welfare' will end up being defined in broad or narrow terms depending on the political make up of SCOTUS at the time.

As to the fallacy of only reading half a research paper? I don't really know, but I would imagine it would be some type of select reading fallacy.

I have since corrected that error.

Tut

Quote:

---

I also think the issue of 'general welfare' will end up being defined in broad or narrow terms depending on the political make up of SCOTUS at the time

---

But in the context of what the founders understood it ,it is clear. Also talking the phrase out of context with the whole understanding of the taxing power envisioned in the Constitution has been a fatal flaw.

Quote:

---

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 a single paragraph of which the general Welfare is not a separate entity. Nor is it severed from the words following it... of the United States . It does not talk of the general welfare of the people of the United States (and that is not the same as some people here argue.. In the preamble the founders made a distinction... We the people of the United States ;the United States not being only the people.

The key to understanding the scope of the taxing power is then found in the subsequent clauses in Article 1 Sec 8 where the specific taxing powers are enumerated... and not in the phrase 'general welfare ' .As you see ,with even a judge that was once considered a minimalist,without the specific enumerations ;there is room for broad interpretation ;and the possibility to tax anything and everything under the guise of the general welfare.
So it is the enumerated powers of the rest of Article 1 Sec 8 that define the limits of what can be done in the name of general welfare .

Quote:

---

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..

---

Madison Federalist 41

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

That is a single paragraph of which the general Welfare is not a separate entity. Nor is it severed from the words following it .... of the United States . It does not talk of the general welfare of the people of the the United States (and that is not the same as some people here argue .. In the preamble the founders made a distinction ...We the people of the United States ;the United States not being only the people.

---

Yes, and this is why it creates so many problems.

"We the people of the United States; the United states not being only the people".

I know you get sick of me saying this but, when it comes to language you can't have it both ways. It cannot be both the people of the United States and the concept of the United states at the same time.

The problem as I see it is that the actual quote I have isolated speaks exclusively in terms of concepts. The words, Congress, we the people, the United States are all meant to be concepts. That is, mental constructs for the purpose of conveying further concepts or ideas. Once we start talking in terms of concepts we are usually forced to keep talking in those terms. As you can see in the relevant quote it becomes rather infectious. The reason we do so for the purpose of brevity.

The problems begin when we want to explain our concepts in terms of categories, i.e actual people who might make the general welfare. We then are forced to explain why something IS the case (concept) and how or why it ought or ought not apply to particular situation.

In the end SCOTUS will become involved, as it usually does.

Tut

SCOTUS had so perverted the "concept " as to be beyond recogition from the founding definition (even in Hamiltonian broader standards of interpretation). I have ,and still maintain that if the Congress and we the people wanted the Constitution to evolve ;then the founders put the remedy for that in the document too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

SCOTUS had so perverted the "concept " as to be beyond recogition from the founding definition (even in Hamiltonian broader standards of interpretation). I have ,and still maintain that if the Congress and we the people wanted the Constitution to evolve ;then the founders put the remedy for that in the document too.

---

Hi Tom,

I don't disagree with the majority of what you are saying. The problem is that concepts are very much easily perverted. They are easily perverted when we think that somehow they actually refer to something concrete and tangible.

Let me give you an example, using Australia.

If I have never been to Australia I might want to see and learn as much as possible about the country. The tourist guide might take me on a comprehensive tour of every state. He shows me everything.

When the tour is over I might say to him, "Well, that was very interesting you showed me all of the relevant physical features, all the significant monuments, seats of government, but when are you going to show me 'AUSTRALIA'

The error is to think that Australia actually exists as something over and above all the things I have been shown. In other words, there is somewhere a thing that is 'AUSTRALIA'

This is not a moot point and it becomes significant when we think that we can talk about concepts in terms of other concepts. I will quickly add there is no problem with this provided we don't mistakenly think that there is something physically real about the concepts we are talking about.

So the CONCEPT,'general welfare' as applied to the CONCEPT, United States, tells us very little, don't you think?

Tut

Have you started that amendment yet that says congress cannot tax what you don't want them to tax? Have you started the proper process that enumerates what you want the constitution to limit? The process is there for a reason and we all have access to it.

We really do not have to debate what the founders meant, or didn't mean, that's a schoolhouse debate. They put the process in place to make amendments to the constitution to evolve as the people evolved because they knew that it would become irrelevant if it didn't.

The question becomes not what the founders meant but what they envisioned and obviously they envisioned a constitution that could be the structure to be built on as we grew into a nation.

They knew other great, smart guys would come along and debate how best to expand and grow this country. Pretty obvious also, that while we were free to worship at our own pleasure, the church should never be bigger than the government. The government defined by we the people,and that covers whatever our general welfare is. It even accounts for those that worship nothing, and those that worship MONEY.

Jefferson, and all them guys were smart, but the federalist papers are but their arguments of the time, not the law. The law is in the constitution, a guide to the states for their governance. Like it or NOT, SCOTUS has the last word.

Keep trying Tom, within the law of course, let me know when you get enough signatories to your petition to the courts to make the government subject to the religion of your choice.

Quote:

---

Have you started that amendment yet that says congress cannot tax what you don't want them to tax? Have you started the proper process that enumerates what you want the constitution to limit? The process is there for a reason and we all have access to it.

---

I of course am in no position to do that expect through the power of free speech. What I would like to avoid is what I see beginning to happen ,which is bad for the country is States beginning to assert their power of nullification. As you know ;there were some nullification crisises before the Civil War . They usually happen when Congress makes unconstitutional law backed by SCOTUS.

I contend ,that it is your side that wants the constitution to expand and resolve and therefore it is your side that should initiate the process and not rely on a judiciary that will twist words into pretzels to rule in favor of a preconceived outcome.

Quote:

---

Keep trying Tom, within the law of course,

---

Well then that brings us right back to the OP . I ,you ,and nobody else ,has no obligation to comply to immoral law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

As you know ;there were some nullification crisises before the Civil War . They ususally happen when Congress makes unconstitutional law backed by SCOTUS.

---

Hello again, tom:

It's true.. But, THOSE differences were based on POLICY and not POLITICS. This is PURE politics... However, if you're saying that those Republican run states are ready to secede from the nation because of Obamacare, then I say BRING IT ON...

I also say, bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

They don' t need secession to nullify laws any more than a jury needs it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

they don' t need secession to nullify laws any more than a jury needs it.

---

Hello again, tom:

If these cockamamie governors want to REFUSE to take federal money that will BENEFIT their own citizens, then they'll face the wrath of them at the voting booth. Their Tea Party existence will be like a fart in a windstorm..

excon

PS> That would BE, of course, if they all waited in line, and spent the money to get their ID's.

In less than a decade ,they will be proven to be the wise ones .The other states will set up an infrastructure to expand Medicaid only to see the rug cut out from under them by Congress ;and they will be left to find the funding .
But I was talking of the immoral law that tells the Catholics to fund abortion pills and contraception for their employees.

We will see in a decade, and we will also see that your words "funding contraceptives" is totally inaccurate. They partially fund standard insurance premiums. If your words are accurate, that would apply to dispensing Viagra.

No wonder your interpretation of the constitution is off. The right is semantically challenged it seems. No matter, the progressives will protect you from yourselves like we always do.

Speaking of which I have reviewed the new taxes that you have taken issue with, and they are so narrowly targeted, YOU will not be affected at all, unless of course you scam the system and incur medical bills without insurance coverage, or fail to report sales of over 600 dollars, or produce the proper paper work that goes with those you claim as a deduction, which as you know was and has been the law for a few decades already. Now I am currently looking for the new IRS hires you say will be needed to accomplish this, but it appears the IRS has gone HI TECH, so they can handle the additional paper work.

About that extra paper work, it was eliminated for small businesses that have electronic filing capability which comes with the Microsoft 2010 program that requires a scanner. But that's been around for the last 8 years, because that's how I have filed my own taxes. Matter of fact, all my doctors (4) share files and result with each other, eliminating redundant tests, and wear and tear running to different labs to have those extra tests done.

As more doctors, hospitals, and clinics learn the fine points of networking, which they will, practicing defensive medicine will be a thing of the past. If you conservatives on the far right weren't so afraid of your own shadows, and used a calculator instead of counting on your fingers and toes, you could realize the savings that's channeled through the complexities of the new bill. To some of us, its not rocket science, or complex, just targets that are evaluated, and adjusted to. A structural guideline if you will.

The only congress that will take away the whoppin', eye poppin' saving to state budgets, are the yahoos you righties elect to do battle against your own fiscal interests.

Don't worry my conservative buddies, the progressives will share the benefits of being of the people with you, no matter the GOD(S) you choose to worship.

Quote:

---

They partially fund standard insurance premiums. If your words are accurate, that would apply to dispensing Viagra.

---

And you talk of semantics ?

Those are not semantics, just the accurate use of language so don't twist them for your own nefarious feeding of your fears, or agenda, because the qualifier is "standard insurance premiums", which is different from funding, or paying for.

I doubt you get the same price for a premium insurance policy, or a special one that's tailor made for churches. Indeed, fact is, most states don't allow that kind of discrimination by law. You obey the guidelines of their exemptions, or you don't offer insurance.

How come you guys never thought of suing the states? Oh that's right! I forgot you guys are trying to sling mud at the president,and not the governors, mostly REPUBLICANS who started this years ago. And the number of states are filling suit!

That's not semantics either. You have proved you CAN read and spell, but you have to work on the comprehension required for nuanced complex communications. Then you wouldn't go nuts over words like, TAX, FEES, OR PENALTIES.

Quote:

---

nuanced complex communications

---

lol that is what the founders were guarding against... the expansion of Federal Power though nuanced complex parsing of language . In retrospect ,the Anti-Federalists had it right.

Quote:

---

But it is said, by some of the advocates of this system, "That the idea that Congress can levy taxes at pleasure, is false, and the suggestion wholly unsupported: that the preamble to the constitution is declaratory of the purposes of the union, and the assumption of any power not necessary to establish justice, etc. to provide for the common defence, etc. will be unconstitutional.
I would ask those, who reason thus, to define what ideas are included under the terms, to provide for the common defence and general welfare? Are these terms definite, and will they be understood in the same manner, and to apply to the same cases by everyone? No one will pretend they will. It will then be a matter of opinion, what tends to be the general welfare; and the Congress will be the only judges in the matter.

---

(Brutus, Essay VI, 27)
As I wrote earlier ,Madison argued that the power to tax and spend did not confer upon Congress the right to do whatever it thought to be in the best interest of the nation, but only to further the ends specifically enumerated. History has proven him wrong ,and the Anti-Federalists right. That is the legacy that progressives have left us.

Well there you go, all we have to do is take the motors off the wheels, and go back to doing farming and pick cotton.

If the Constitution only is about the 13 original colonies, then what should the rest of us do? I know, you guys can be the past, and the rest of us will keep building the future. Bet you miss those knickers and three cornered hats.

Of course all you want is to be tax exempt. Good luck with that. I didn't know your free market ideas were restricted to just corn.

Well there are some people in those eastern states you could ask for advice, I hear they are big on horse power

The Constitution works very well in the 21st century... you should try it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

lol that is what the founders were guarding against ... the expansion of Federal Power though nuanced complex parsing of language . In retrospect ,the Anti-Federalists had it right.

(Brutus, Essay VI, 27)
As I wrote earlier ,Madison argued that the power to tax and spend did not confer upon Congress the right to do whatever it thought to be in the best interest of the nation, but only to further the ends specifically enumerated. History has proven him wrong ,and the Anti-Federalists right. That is the legacy that progressives have left us.

---

Hi Tom,

Yes, I think it is pretty clear as to the intention. We are obviously talking about things that need to be set aside from the general welfare. Congress can only further some ends, not all of them.

I think this is pretty clear, but as I said before it creates a problem. The problem becomes, 'the general welfare of the United states'. If there intention was to enumerate then they should have left these words out altogether.

How many things can we add or take away from 'the general welfare' before it no longer becomes, 'the general welfare?' It is of course an impossible question to answer. It would have been better to leave it out given their intention.

Tut

That is why I go further and read the Federalist Papers ,the Anti-Federalist Papers ,and the ratification debates . Madison made it clear that the general welfare can only be advanced in accordance to the defined and ,limitted powers that are clearly enumerated .