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?

[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.

[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...

[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.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think I was being overly nitty. According to Wiki you're right: the general welfare clause is the justification for social spending. I was interpreting the phrase "pay the debts" to be a separate clause.

The Supreme Court ruled in US v. Butler (1936) that the general welfare clause constituted an independent power of Congress to spend money on whatever it wants. Probably not coincidentally, this decision was handed down shortly after the implementation of the New Deal and the Court Packing Scheme.

[lehighguy]

Indeed. Most of the important supreme court decisions handed down in the 30s were unconstitutional. FDR literally threatened to destroy the court if it didn't do what he said.

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed. Most of the important supreme court decisions handed down in the 30s were unconstitutional. FDR literally threatened to destroy the court if it didn't do what he said.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the only choices the Court had in the 1930s was to:

1. Submit to FDR and rule his way, thus destroying the Constitution (as you libertarians erroneously claim it would have been doing)

or

2. Refuse to submit to FDR and thus have the court “destroyed” by his Court Packing Plan

what did the Court have to lose by ruling against FDR? At least ruling against FDR (and thus maintaining the Constitution as you libs say it would have been doing) would have been a symbolic victory.

[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.