Charity: Not in the Constitution

[Dr.Who]

Acorn, all this ranting and raving about the income tax, and "charity" being unconstitutional is simply bogus. You need to read the 16th amendment. Makes it quite clear that taxing income is allowed, and that the expenditures of such revenue does not have to be apportioned.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Before the 16th congress could tax but they had to do so fairly (apportioned = same amount from each state even though each state had different populations and therefore different amounts of income). The fed was stuck, if they took the same amount from each state then they would have to take a different amount from individuals in different states. If they took the same amount from each person then different states would owe different amounts. The 16th allowed them to do so unfairly making it much easier to have an income tax.

It still does not allow them to spend the collected taxes on anything at all. There would have been no complaints to the Bush war if he were allowed to do anything at all.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The second part of that question is, "What do you think would happen if they quit doing all of those things?

Thank you for supporting my contention that the govt should have straightforwardly put the question to the people via a Constitutional amendment (as the Constitution REQUIRES), rather than try to sneak around and cobble up excuses that didn't need Constitutional approval. If they had done that, then your question wouldn't have come up. Hopefully they will take a lesson from this... but frankly I doubt it. Thieves tend to repeat their crimes rather than go straight.

And, come to think of it, wasn't FDR elected after the great depression was already underway? Wasn't the new deal a response to that?

Yes... and a poor one. As I've already pointed out, FDR took a depression, and turned it into The Great Depression, by impulsively cobbling together huge numbers of regulations, restrictions, and makework programs that stretched what would have been a normal depression (2-5 years) into a fifteen-year depression.

You'd think that, after the countless examples we've had of well-intentioned govt programs making things worse instead of better, the government would learn not to mess with the economy.

But that is one lesson govt has NEVER learned, and probably never will.

(Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.)

 

[Dr.Who]

These are worth reading. If the libs skip it then the conservatives will have the advantage by having read them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Reorganization_Bill_of_1937


Basically they tell how there was a showdown between the president who wanted to violate the long established interpretation of the constitution and how he forced the court to go along with his idea by threatening its very existence and trying to stack the court by creating new judges. The president won the showdown and America lost. Ever since then the court has interpreted the constitution completely opposite to the way they did before.

I meant to link an article I had read about the constitutional revolution but I did not find it.

For more info look up the Constitutional Revolution in relation to Roosevelt or Court packing.

 

[PLC1]

Thank you for supporting my contention that the govt should have straightforwardly put the question to the people via a Constitutional amendment (as the Constitution REQUIRES), rather than try to sneak around and cobble up excuses that didn't need Constitutional approval. If they had done that, then your question wouldn't have come up. Hopefully they will take a lesson from this... but frankly I doubt it. Thieves tend to repeat their crimes rather than go straight.


Yes... and a poor one. As I've already pointed out, FDR took a depression, and turned it into The Great Depression, by impulsively cobbling together huge numbers of regulations, restrictions, and makework programs that stretched what would have been a normal depression (2-5 years) into a fifteen-year depression.

You'd think that, after the countless examples we've had of well-intentioned govt programs making things worse instead of better, the government would learn not to mess with the economy.

But that is one lesson govt has NEVER learned, and probably never will.

(Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.)

Did you ever read the Grapes of Wrath?

 

[Bunz]

Several posts on how "big" govt can get, whether it can collect income taxes, etc. None of which have anything to do with the subject of the thread: Whether the Fed govt can engage in "charity", and the related subject of whether it can engage in anything it wants, especially things not included in the Constitution.

The answer is that there is nothing that says it cannot. Then depending on ones interpretation of the general welfare clause you have more or less grant permission to assist citizens in whatever fashion Congress can agree on and have the President sign it.

There may be no limit to how "big" govt can get, within the bounds of the Constitution. It can raise a gigantic army, and spend the entire GDP on it, without violating the Constitution. Though it may ruin the country by doing so.

What is advisable at any given time, and how much money Congress spends is another issue entirely. There is nothing except common sense between us now, and us having say a Department of Outer Galaxy Transporation and Communication, or some other department that is absurd and pointless.

But to the Fd govt running the various programs mentioned by PLC1, the answer is NO - they are left to the states to run if they wish.

No, this is incorrect on a number of accounts. Firstly, there isnt much mention of any Departments in the document. These were to be created by the legislative process. Article 1 Section 1 and Section 8 cover this.
It is left open ended on purpose.

Unfortunately,l the politicians have spent their time evading the Constitution, instead of leading the people in a effort to modify it. Does the Const contain language authorizing the space program, moonshot etc.? No. Should it? Why not put that question to the people, by Congress passing an amendment and sending it to the states for ratification, instead of sneaking around and hoping nobody will notice you're breaking the Law of the Land?

art 1 sec 1 covers this. They are the only legislative body for nation issues and have a fairly wide scope of interests. There is nothing unconstitutional going on. Because something is not specifically mentioned in the document does not mean that Congress is out of its powers to create legislation and spend money to do so later.

We have a lot of catching up to do. IMHO we need an amendment allowing the Fed to have an Environmental Protection Agency... and specified in writing so that it can be limited to only matters that clearly and directly cross state borders. An amendment adding the Air Force and Spacecom to the military. And maybe one for the space program, though civilian groups are now starting to take that over.

Have you ever thought about the consequences of something like this actually happening? Again I think it is worth reading what Art 1 Sec 2 says:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Those aside, we could maybe use one that puuts the word "explicitly" into the 10th amendment, so that liberals can no longer pretend that "implied" powers are permitted; and one that reduces the 2nd amendment to only "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (It means that already, but anti-gun-rights people have wasted untold amounts of time pretending otherwise, so let's end the debate).

Please tell me, what departments do you consider somehow allowable under the Constitution?

Are some amendments worth more than others?

In a representative democracy as we live, we elect Congress to make those decisions for us.

 

[Dr.Who]

The answer is that there is nothing that says it cannot. Then depending on ones interpretation of the general welfare clause you have more or less grant permission to assist citizens in whatever fashion Congress can agree on and have the President sign it.

Nope. One hundred percent wrong. There is ample evidence that we have a gov of limited powers. It cannot do what it has not specifically been empowered to do in an enumerated list.

Think about what you are saying. If the gen welfare clause allows the gov to do whatever it wants then there is no reason for a constitution in the first place to limit what it can do. Now where have I heard that before?

 

[PLC1]

Nope. One hundred percent wrong. There is ample evidence that we have a gov of limited powers. It cannot do what it has not specifically been empowered to do in an enumerated list.

Think about what you are saying. If the gen welfare clause allows the gov to do whatever it wants then there is no reason for a constitution in the first place to limit what it can do. Now where have I heard that before?

In that case, we need to dump the FAA, NASA, the FDA, ATF, the FBI, and shut down the interstates. There is nothing in the Constitution allowing the feds to be involved in any of the above.

 

[Bunz]

Nope. One hundred percent wrong. There is ample evidence that we have a gov of limited powers. It cannot do what it has not specifically been empowered to do in an enumerated list.

I am fully aware of what the Constitution forbids.
If you read Article 1 Section 9
" The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."

Then read the 16th Amendment:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

There is nothing that says they cannot add new departments or what they can spend money on. This was left open ended to accomodate things that were unaccounted for when the document was penned. Article 1 Section 8 lays this out. Some key paragraphs from that section...

"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;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

"To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

"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."

This literature in the document would make me lean towards saying that providing charity is allowable versus it being forbidden. I hope this will clear up the fundamentalist cloud that seems to lurk.

Think about what you are saying. If the gen welfare clause allows the gov to do whatever it wants then there is no reason for a constitution in the first place to limit what it can do. Now where have I heard that before?

I didnt mean to suggest that Congress could do anything...firstly there are clearly some things they cannot do. Charity is not something that is spoken of directly, but the structure of the government and document would allow such an expenditure.

Then of course there is the hurdles of actually passing legislature. Then there is the checks and balances involved with having the President sign the bill. Of course if both of those houses of government are in cahoots, then there is the judicial branch whose role it is to regulate such matters.

Congress has a pretty wide berth when it comes to the general welfare clause, regulating foreign and interstate commerce. Then you add in the powers concerning the debt, spending, and legislation. Plus the postal infastructure responsibility. Im sure you have read Art1Sec8 but it allows a justification of most of the expenditures in DC for the last 100 years or so.

 

[Bunz]

In that case, we need to dump the FAA, NASA, the FDA, ATF, the FBI, and shut down the interstates. There is nothing in the Constitution allowing the feds to be involved in any of the above.

All of those mentioned are easily justified in the regulation of interestate commerce, build postal infastructure and of course providing for the defense and promoting the general welfare.

 

[PLC1]

All of those mentioned are easily justified in the regulation of interestate commerce, build postal infastructure and of course providing for the defense and promoting the general welfare.

Yes, they can, and a national health care plan can be justified in the same way, can't it?

 

[Dr.Who]

In that case, we need to dump the FAA, NASA, the FDA, ATF, the FBI, and shut down the interstates. There is nothing in the Constitution allowing the feds to be involved in any of the above.

Don't jump too quick.

The purpose of the FBI for example would be to protect rights. I think the FDA is authorized by the const. As are interstate highways.

I don't know about the ATF.

NASA should probably be gone.

 

[Dr.Who]

I am fully aware of what the Constitution forbids.
If you read Article 1 Section 9
" The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."

Then read the 16th Amendment:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

There is nothing that says they cannot add new departments or what they can spend money on. This was left open ended to accomodate things that were unaccounted for when the document was penned. Article 1 Section 8 lays this out. Some key paragraphs from that section...

"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;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

"To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

"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."

This literature in the document would make me lean towards saying that providing charity is allowable versus it being forbidden. I hope this will clear up the fundamentalist cloud that seems to lurk.

I didnt mean to suggest that Congress could do anything...firstly there are clearly some things they cannot do. Charity is not something that is spoken of directly, but the structure of the government and document would allow such an expenditure.

Then of course there is the hurdles of actually passing legislature. Then there is the checks and balances involved with having the President sign the bill. Of course if both of those houses of government are in cahoots, then there is the judicial branch whose role it is to regulate such matters.

Congress has a pretty wide berth when it comes to the general welfare clause, regulating foreign and interstate commerce. Then you add in the powers concerning the debt, spending, and legislation. Plus the postal infastructure responsibility. Im sure you have read Art1Sec8 but it allows a justification of most of the expenditures in DC for the last 100 years or so.

Well you just posted a long list of things they are allowed to do. Which supports the idea that the gen wel clause is not a blank check.

Then you come to the conclusion that charity is allowed when nothing in your list above authorizes it.

But if you can lay your finger on the clause in the constitution that authorizes charity you will have accomplished what others could not.

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
--James Madison

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
-- President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
-- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, they can, and a national health care plan can be justified in the same way, can't it?

Not without stretching the meaning of the constitution so far as to make it meaningless.

But go ahead. Make a reasonable argument that national health care needs to be enacted as a way for the fed to fulfill its obligation for the regulation of interstate commerce, build postal infrastructure and of course provide for the defense.

 

[PLC1]

Not without stretching the meaning of the constitution so far as to make it meaningless.

But go ahead. Make a reasonable argument that national health care needs to be enacted as a way for the fed to fulfill its obligation for the regulation of interstate commerce, build postal infrastructure and of course provide for the defense.

Since neither airplanes, space shuttles, nor modern health care were available at the time the Constitution was written, we have the choice of putting those things under the "promote the general welfare" clause, amending the Constitution, or not having a NASA, an FAA, or a national health care plan.

 

[Dr.Who]

Since neither airplanes, space shuttles, nor modern health care were available at the time the Constitution was written, we have the choice of putting those things under the "promote the general welfare" clause, amending the Constitution, or not having a NASA, an FAA, or a national health care plan.

Nonsense. The cons was written in broad language meant to stand the test of time.

Airplanes were not created then but the const. authorizes a military and therefore the use of airplanes in a military.

The congress can make laws about airplanes, space shuttles and modern health care as long as it has authority to do so to protect the rights of citizens or some other enumerated clause.