- Aug 2019
- 924
- 888
- Albuquerque, NM
Take it up with SCOTUS< its what they said.Seriously?
The power to tax is an enumerated power. Did you not know that?
Take it up with SCOTUS< its what they said.Seriously?
The power to tax is an enumerated power. Did you not know that?
Sigh.Yes, the Court's ruling stands, like it or not. You didn't know? (I've posted it all day.) lol
Yes, they said the power to tax is an enumerated right and thus not a violation of the 10th.Take it up with SCOTUS< its what they said.
OMG! Can you read what's put in front of your nose?Sigh.
The ruling stands not because the General Welfare clause supersedes the 10th amendment; the ruling is valid because the power to tax is an enumerated right and thus is consistent with the 10th.
Holding: The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way. The Social Security Act of 1935 does not contravene the Tenth Amendment, as Congress is permitted to spend for the general welfare.
Does this help resolve any confusion?:This is right in front of our noses (emphasis added):
Let's see what today's SCOTUS does with it.Does this help resolve any confusion?:
With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause;608 Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers; in other words, as little more than a power of self-support.609 From early times, Congress has acted upon Hamilton’s interpretation. Appropriations for subsidies610 and for an ever-increasing variety of “internal improvements”611 constructed by the Federal Government, had their beginnings in the administrations of Washington and Jefferson.612 Since 1914, federal grants-in-aid, which are sums of money apportioned among the states for particular uses, often conditioned upon the duplication of the sums by the recipient state, and upon observance of stipulated restrictions as to their use, have become commonplace. ...
... By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the “general welfare.” The Court accords great deference to Congress’s decision that a spending program advances the general welfare,620 and has even questioned whether the restriction is judicially enforceable.621 Dispute, such as it is, turns on the conditioning of funds. ...
![]()
SPENDING FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE
www.law.cornell.edu
I'm sure the Left would love to repeal the Second Amendment, but they can't muster the support required to do it. So they've made it a plank in the platform to gut it without repealing it instead, which is even worse.
We all know the sentiment out there to repeal the Second Amendment on the Left,
It's not just "hate speech". It's ANYTHING that doesn't conform with their agenda.... but do any of you realize the sentiment to at least partially do away with the First Amendment as well? Many in the poll provided thinks that hate speech should be banned, but what is hate speech? Moreover, who will decide what it is? For example, is calling Trump a "Cheeto" hate speech? Is calling Trump a Dotard hate speech? Is pretending to hold his severed bloody head in your hand hate speech? Is Madonna saying she wants to burn Trump alive in the White House hate speech and should that be banned? If asked this same question, I'm sure most left leaning people would say no, it is OK, but if the same were done to Obama, my guess is the sentiment would swing the other way as it would be viewed as racist. You see, the kind of hate is what is important. Is it a good hate or a bad hate?
I shudder to think.What is the US becoming?
So Congress acted upon Hamilton's interpretation of the General Welfare clause instead of Madison who wrote the General welfare clause?Does this help resolve any confusion?:
With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause;608 Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers; in other words, as little more than a power of self-support.609 From early times, Congress has acted upon Hamilton’s interpretation. Appropriations for subsidies610 and for an ever-increasing variety of “internal improvements”611 constructed by the Federal Government, had their beginnings in the administrations of Washington and Jefferson.612 Since 1914, federal grants-in-aid, which are sums of money apportioned among the states for particular uses, often conditioned upon the duplication of the sums by the recipient state, and upon observance of stipulated restrictions as to their use, have become commonplace. ...
... By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the “general welfare.” The Court accords great deference to Congress’s decision that a spending program advances the general welfare,620 and has even questioned whether the restriction is judicially enforceable.621 Dispute, such as it is, turns on the conditioning of funds. ...
![]()
SPENDING FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE
www.law.cornell.edu