Do most Americans still believe in the Constitution anymore?

Dec 2018
4,894
1,340
New England
Yes, the Court's ruling stands, like it or not. You didn't know? (I've posted it all day.) lol
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.
 
Dec 2018
4,894
1,340
New England
Take it up with SCOTUS< its what they said.
Yes, they said the power to tax is an enumerated right and thus not a violation of the 10th.

Where did they say the General Welfare clause supersedes the 10th? (as Rescue' has been arguing all day)
 
Dec 2018
2,605
1,595
Unionville Indiana
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.
OMG! Can you read what's put in front of your nose?

One final time (read the bold):

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare, and did not contravene the 10th Amendment.[1] The Court's 7–2 decision defended the constitutionality of the Social Security Act of 1935, requiring only that welfare spending be for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose. ...

... The Opinion of the Supreme Court in the case was written by Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo. This decision supported the right of the Congress to interpret the "general welfare" clause in the U.S. Constitution.

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.


Helvering v. Davis - Wikipedia
 
  • Like
Reactions: intangible child
Dec 2018
4,894
1,340
New England
This is right in front of our noses (emphasis added):

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.
 
Dec 2018
2,605
1,595
Unionville Indiana
This is right in front of our noses (emphasis added):
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 improvements611 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. ...

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: intangible child
Dec 2018
4,894
1,340
New England
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 improvements611 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. ...

Let's see what today's SCOTUS does with it.
 
Jun 2019
130
59
CA
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.


... 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?
It's not just "hate speech". It's ANYTHING that doesn't conform with their agenda.

The following took place at the University of San Francisco just prior to the 2016 election:

"Early this year, an emergency meeting of [housing department] student leadership and senior staff was called as a response to a student who had placed a Trump poster in the window of his dorm room. In this four hour long meeting, a series of tearful resident advisors appealed to senior staff to forcibly ban all mentions of the bigoted presidential candidate from campus whether satirical or otherwise. Citing a damaged sense of community as a result of the poster, sections of our student leadership criticized the fact that it wasn’t immediately removed by the housing department and stated that allowing for the poster to remain in the window was equivalent to USF openly endorsing anti-immigration policy." Outrage over T-shirts Trumps Free Expression

So let's see. A group of college students tearfully demanded that the school administration remove a campaign poster of a candidate they don't like. I don't know how it's possible for someone to get into college without realizing what a gross violation of Freedom of Speech that is, but apparently it's not only possible, but common.

Judging from the posts I see here regularly, a large number of people have no idea what the Constitution is, what role it plays in our legal system or what the Supreme Court does. It's hard to hold a meaningful conversation about the finer points of due process against such a background of complete ignorance.

What is the US becoming?
I shudder to think.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2019
2,098
552
here and there
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 improvements611 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. ...

So Congress acted upon Hamilton's interpretation of the General Welfare clause instead of Madison who wrote the General welfare clause?

Now why does this not surprise me?