US constitution original intent question

[PLOlover]

if the commerce clause and general welfare little clause allow US fed gov to do pretty much anything, as a lot people think (and is our current law), then what is the point / how can people say the fed const. limits government?

wasn't the point that the fed goverment only had the powers spelled out in the const.? isn't the total anything goes commerce/welfare clauses totally inconsistent with limited powers?

I mean I think the real argument about why US has national welfare system, for example, is that it is extra-constitutional (fraud), but backed up by force, which is why it is followed and applied. and also of course that the people want socialism, plain and simple.

[Taso]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One...ers_of_Congress

Seems obvious to me that the Congress can only lay and collect taxes to do the rest of the things listed after that opening text. Isn't that what that last semi-colon indicates anyways?

[MiloMinderbinder]

[ QUOTE ]
if the commerce clause and general welfare little clause allow US fed gov to do pretty much anything, as a lot people think (and is our current law), then what is the point / how can people say the fed const. limits government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Unfortunately, the framers of the constitution did a poor job limiting govt. Such a poor job in fact that they couldn't even prevent themselves from abusing govt power once they took office. In fact, Madison himself, the Father of the Constitution, was arguing against the document and trying to subvert it's processes already under Washington's administration. So even the framers themselves understood that words on a paper are less relevant than what politicians actions can do, so long as they have the backing of the majority of the electorate.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
if the commerce clause and general welfare little clause allow US fed gov to do pretty much anything, as a lot people think (and is our current law)

[/ QUOTE ]

if this were true, you might have a point...

[Jamougha]

It doesn't matter what the original intent was I think. If you screw up the wording of a law then you can't go back and say "oh that wasn't what I meant." The wording is simply too vague, they goofed, now change it or deal with it.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
if the commerce clause and general welfare little clause allow US fed gov to do pretty much anything, as a lot people think (and is our current law), then what is the point / how can people say the fed const. limits government?

wasn't the point that the fed goverment only had the powers spelled out in the const.? isn't the total anything goes commerce/welfare clauses totally inconsistent with limited powers?

I mean I think the real argument about why US has national welfare system, for example, is that it is extra-constitutional (fraud), but backed up by force, which is why it is followed and applied. and also of course that the people want socialism, plain and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its fair to say that the commerce clause no longer meaningfully limits the powers of the federal government (with a few exceptions), but that's not true about the constitution in general.

If the constitution provided no limits on government, you wouldn't see laws struck down by the courts as unconstitutional, as happens fairly frequently....e.g. congressional terms limits, partial birth abortion ban, line item veto, internet pornography restrictions, etc.

[iron81]

20 years ago, you might have been right. However, under US v Lopez and cases drawing on it, laws passed by the federal government on interstate commerce grounds must have some relevance to interstate commerce.

As for the general welfare clause, the Supreme Court has ruled that clause has no legal effect. The general welfare clause is not used as justification for new laws.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
20 years ago, you might have been right. However, under US v Lopez and cases drawing on it, laws passed by the federal government on interstate commerce grounds must have some relevance to interstate commerce.

[/ QUOTE ]

One ruling is not a trend, and with subsequent cases, they've changed and they've ruled the opposite ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich )... In fact, of the three who consistantly ruled against an expansive definition of the Commerce Clause in these two cases, only one (Clarence Thomas) is still on the bench, so we won't be seeing many correct rulings in the near future.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
if the commerce clause and general welfare little clause allow US fed gov to do pretty much anything, as a lot people think (and is our current law)



if this were true, you might have a point...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the general welfare clause, the Supreme Court has ruled that clause has no legal effect. The general welfare clause is not used as justification for new laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

well what's the constitutional justification for federal welfare then, for wealth transfer programs?

I mean, I can't find it anywhere in the const., and people who can (to best of my knowledge), point to general welfare thingee.

[John Kilduff]

Excerpted:

"James Madison, in explaining the Constitution in Federalist Paper No. 45, said, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

Regarding the "general welfare" clause so often used as a justification for bigger government, Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." Madison said, "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." "

Walter Williams on proposed Enumerated Powers Act

I think the general welfare clause was meant to qualify, not enable, actions by the federal government.

I also think it's a ridiculous sham that the Commerce Clause has been so broadly interpreted. By the way, for those who seem to generally like the idea of a broadly empowered federal government, it's also the Commerce Clause that enables the absurd War on Drugs and vests the federal government with even more of a police-state-like ability and conduct. The Left ought to realize that the Commerce Clause doesn't just enable the quasi-socialistic things they like, it also enables much greater government fascistic behavior and deprivation of liberties which ought to be things the Left doesn't like.

Commerce Clause aside, the article by Williams deals with the proposed Enumerated Powers Act (and I think that Act would be a GREAT idea). He also comments on what he sees as Congress' habitual contempt for the Constitution.

Thanks for reading, and all comments welcome.