Random American wrote:I just read that article, and I don't see that restriction.
Did you know that in the original draft of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause wasn’t included? That would mean that that clause cannot have been intended to authorize federal spending or the original draft of the document would have authorized Congress to raise money but not spend it.
Plus, the Articles of Confederation were ditched because they were too weak, which is why we have the current constitution to begin with. The necessary and proper clause gives congress more power (which is why anti-federalists opposed it), not less, just like the line about the general welfare. It's a list of powers granted by Section 8. Congress can tax to promote the general welfare, and borrow money. The constitution grants a lot more power to the government than the articles did.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ ... transcript
All of these grant Congress power. Necessary and Proper gives Congress the power to act even in ways that aren't explicitly stated in the constitution. This does not dispute my interpretation of the "general welfare" line.
Yes, the Constitution grants the federal government more power than the Articles did, though not as much as people think—mostly, it gave the federal government more power to carry out the tasks it was originally given and it was still designed so that the federal government’s areas of responsibility were limited and defined. I see no reason why that expansion of the enumerated powers would change the meaning of a phrase from what in the Articles was a restriction of authority into a massive grant of authority. Nor does the Necessary and Proper clause change that. It reads:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Congress is authorized to make all necessary laws to carry out the powers the Constitution grants to the Federal government, and
only those powers. The power to collect taxes is one of them, the power to spend money on whatever Congress pleases is not.
This is made clear in the ratification debates. In response to Anti-Federalist fears that the General Welfare clause would be interpreted as you do and Hamilton later did, the Federalists emphasized that the clause was
not any sort of general grant of spending authority. In Federalist No. 41 Madison wrote:
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxa- tion, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitu- tion, 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.
And then during the Virginia ratification debates, when Patrick Henry expressed fears that the General Welfare clause would be interpreted as you do and Hamilton later did, Edmund Randolph responded:
“But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. I contend that no such power is given.”
During the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton tried over and over to push for the creation of a strong central government, and was rebuffed every time, and during the ratification debates the Federalists made clear that the Constitution did
not create the strong central government he dreamed of. It is much easier to believe that Hamilton and his supporters were the first Perfectionists, seeking to achieve through radical reinterpretation of the General Welfare clause what they were unable to achieve in the Constitutional Convention than that the Federalists lied over and over during the ratification debates. Certainly, Madison made it clear during his post-ratification career that he took what he wrote in the Federalist Papers seriously. Point to any statements by Hamilton during the Constitutional Convention and the ratification debates asserting his later interpretation, and other Founders at those times that agreed with him, if you can.
Now back to the reason for this thread....
Here are some numbers and stats from Trump’s Arizona rallies this week:
Goodyear rally- 17,251 sign-ups
- 19.5% NOT Republican
- 35.7% did NOT vote in 2016
Bullhead City rally- 23,591 sign-ups
- 24% NOT Republican
- 45.3% did NOT vote in 2016
And bad news for Biden in Florida:
Biden trails Clinton's 2016 Florida Hispanic support in Telemundo poll: 'He has to at least match' A new Telemundo poll paints a dangerous picture for Joseph R. Biden’s presidential campaign in Florida as it pertains to Hispanic voters.
The Sunshine State’s 29 electoral votes went to then-GOP nominee Donald Trump in 2016 despite 62% of Hispanic voters supporting Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Biden’s campaign holds a 51% to 47% lead over Mr. Trump in Telemundo’s poll, which was conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy and has a 4.5% margin of error in either direction.
Brad Coker, one of Mason-Dixon’s pollsters, told Politico that Democrats are in a dire situation if the numbers are accurate.
“If Biden is going to flip Florida, he has to at least match Clinton’s numbers among Hispanics and that looks like it’s not going to happen,” Mr. Coker said Thursday. “Even if he were to pull most of the undecided vote still out there, Trump is going to do better this time than he did last time.”
Mr. Trump’s campaign has made consistent efforts to woo Florida’s Hispanics, particularly those with Cuban and Venezuelan roots.
The Republican’s campaign even hosted a “Fighters Against Socialism” bus tour featuring UFC fighter Jorge Masvidal.
“Fighting is easy and comes natural for me just like fighting communism and dictatorships comes easy and natural for patriots #thereelection,” the MMA fighter tweeted Wednesday.
Mr. Masvidal’s father risked his life fleeing Cuba on a raft in his 20s before arriving in the U.S. in 1971.
And then there’s the usual dirty tricks. Backing a candidate you and your supporters have no intention of voting for is bad enough, pushing voters to consider a candidate that withdrew from the race and endorsed your opponent a month ago is
way over the line:
Third-party conservatives boosted by outside groups to siphon support from GOP candidates Democrats’ allies are boosting third-party conservatives in U.S. Senate contests in states such as Kentucky and South Carolina in a last-ditch effort to siphon support from Republican candidates.
The meddling includes ads urging people to take a look at the Constitution Party’s Bill Bledsoe, who dropped out of the South Carolina race a month ago and endorsed Sen. Lindsey Graham.
But Mr. Bledsoe’s decision to drop out came too late to get his name off the ballot.
Mr. Graham’s campaign released a pair of ads on Thursday criticizing Jaime Harrison, his Democratic opponent, for promoting Mr. Bledsoe.
“This is Dr. Bill Bledsoe. I’ll be voting for Sen. Graham and I hope you will too,” the former candidate says in a 60-second radio ad.
Earlier this week, Mr. Bledsoe called on Mr. Harrison and other groups to “cease and desist.”
Mr. Graham and Mr. Harrison have been running neck-and-neck in recent polling in the typically red state.
The Harrison campaign did not respond to a request for comment but has previously defended their efforts.
Harrison campaign spokesman Guy King told the Associated Press earlier this month that the campaign was simply “making sure voters know the facts” about Mr. Harrison’s “two opponents on the ballot.”
The anti-Trump Lincoln Project also released a new ad this week touting Mr. Bledsoe as the only candidate South Carolina conservatives can trust.
“Dr. Bill Bledsoe is the real deal: tough on immigration, pro-guns, pro-God,” a narrator says with a slight southern drawl. “He’ll put ‘Christ’ back in ‘Christmas.’”
The group said in a statement Thursday it’s not backing down and that the Washington establishment is trying to “gaslight” Republicans into believing Mr. Graham is a conservative.
“The Lincoln Project will never cease or desist from our unfailing belief that Bill Bledsoe is the only true conservative in the South Carolina Senate race this election cycle,” the statement said.
In Kentucky, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appears to be on his way to a relatively drama-free win over Democrat Amy McGrath in a race national Democrats were bullish on earlier in the cycle.
That hasn’t stopped outside groups from trying to boost Libertarian candidate Brad Barron in hopes of steering would-be McConnell voters away from the Republican.
The pro-McGrath “Fire Mitch, Save America” PAC is responsible for recent mailers saying that there is a “better choice” for U.S. Senate in Mr. Barron.
“Brad Barron will eliminate the IRS, audit the Federal Reserve, and bring our troops home,” the mailer says. “He will shake up Washington.”
A spokesman for Senate Republicans’ campaign arm said the moves smack of desperation.
“This is a last-ditch, desperate effort by these out-of-touch Democrats and their allies to meddle in these elections,” said Nathan Brand, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “But at the end of the day, voters know that Harrison and McGrath don’t share their values, and these dirty tricks are just another reminder why.”
In the presidential race, virtually all of the attention has been on President Trump and Joseph R. Biden, with Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen and Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins struggling to break through.
But White House adviser and presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner has acknowledged talking with rapper Kanye West, whose odd “Birthday Party” White House bid was thought to potentially draw some Black support away from Mr. Biden.
Some operatives working to get Mr. West’s name on the ballot in various states have ties to Republicans or GOP causes.
Mr. Trump denied any part in helping Mr. West, whose wife Kim Kardashian West has praised the president’s efforts on criminal justice reform, get on the ballot.
“Not at all,” Mr. Trump said in August. “I like him. I like his wife.”
Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.
—Edmund Burke
.
- By Godstud
- By Pants-of-dog