Then why did Madison write that paragraph, if not everything can be construed as the general welfare? You have to agree that public money should not be spent of the general badfare.

Really? But consider:

1) The southern states objected to any infringement on the right to own slaves, or any danger on the horizon that slavery might be abolished by constitutional amendment, or made so difficult and expensive without actual abolition that it was effectively abolished. At the same time, many in the free states saw the Fugitive Slave Act as an infringement on their rights, because it compelled active support of something they found morally abominable. Yet national policy had to be set one way or another. There was no way in this area to let each state go its own way.

2) The southern states also objected to high tariffs, which increased the price of manufactured goods that were mostly made in the industrialized north. The northern manufacturers wanted those high tariffs, though, as protection against foreign competition. Again, national policy had to be set one way or another. Again, each state could not go its own way.

3) The northern industrial interests wanted federal expenditures to help industry, through subsidizing transportation for example (especially railroads). The southern planter interests, who rightly saw industrial capitalists as a rival elite class, wanted to retard the process of industrialization, not help it along. Once again, national policy had to be set one way or another. Again, each state could not go its own way.

In all of these conflicts, to appease the complaints of the southern states was to incur the wrath of the northern states. As long as the south wanted to remain an agrarian society and the north wanted to industrialize, the conflict was irreconcilable, and one side or the other had to be disappointed. Under such circumstances, only a strong authority can prevent dissolution.

Describe one, please.

I think the central government is as strong as it needs to be overall, and in fact in some areas needs to be trimmed. In a few areas, such as health care, it needs more reach and involvement, but generally speaking it's either of the right power (in my judgment) or has too much.

I'm not sure how. But one thing I'm certain of is that you can't break corporate power over the government by breaking the government. Cutting back the functions of the state to pre-Civil War levels would result in chaos.

I suggest reading the essay I wrote and posted in the Economics section here under the title "The value of labor." Particularly, look at the section, "Limits on the labor value gap -- political." The corporations haven't had things entirely their own way; over time, rebellion has forced reform, although not to the point where the corporations have lost influence over the government. The potential is there, the machinery of democracy exists, and the power could be taken from corporate hands by use of that machinery by a sufficiently aroused populace. The question is how to achieve that arousal. I don't have the answer, but it's clear enough that that is the question.

embloden mine


Can you exaplain that please?

Eliminating official poverty can engender market friendly forms of individual liberty. The drug war only denies and disparages individual liberty.

I probably should clarify that just because I think the federal government, in some particular area, has the right amount of power, doesn't necessarily mean I think it's using it in the right way. Very often, I don't.

Why did he write that? A better question is why did you take the sentence out of it's original context?

Your brazen lack of honesty has allowed you to take a quote totally out of context and attempt to try to twist it to fit your obvious agenda. Sorry, can't pull that shit when I am here.

Since you insist on intellectual dishonesty, I will post the quote in context, which shows that Madison was using the line you selected as an example of what can not be done.......

"In a more remote stage, the imports may consist in a considerable part of raw materials, which will be wrought into articles for exportation, and will, therefore, require rather the encouragement of bounties, than to be loaded with discouraging duties. A system of government, meant for duration, ought to contemplate these revolutions, and be able to accommodate itself to them. Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, 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. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

"''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars."

"But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever."

"But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation! "

You are STOOPING to a misconstruction.

Which intellectual dishonesty are you referring to?

Simply because any fallacy will work for the common offense and general warfare, does not mean it is for the general welfare.

Not everything qualifies as the general welfare as has been my contention all along.

Anything involving more compromise and less inflaming extremists on both sides. Lincoln, or his predecessors might have encouraged greater understanding in the North of the financial predicament of the South, while working with the South to replace slavery with a more humane financial base. And if in the end, if in all the infinitude of possible approaches, not one could avoid the secession of the South, it would have been better to let them go than to give in to authoritarian rule.

How exactly are you certain of this? The government upholds the foundation of corporations as legal entities. There are changes we could make to laws that currently give corporations unfair advantage that would undercut their financial dominance. Simply removing a few legal structures could go along way toward breaking the stranglehold. (limited liability, for example)

And I'm sure you've seen all the ways dominant corporations USE government to ensure their success, to inhibit competition, to raise barriers to entry, to manipulate tax laws in their favor. In reducing federal power, corporations would have less ability to dominate, and less incentive to pay lobbyists.

But, there is one way in which more federal government could have a positive impact against corporate dominance. I'd like to see the "equal protection" principle elevated to the level of "prime directive" and implemented as a mandate for federal oversight. It isn't often identified as such, but I find nothing quite so corrupt and anti-egalitarian as the politicking that goes on between corporations and state and local governments, with the corporations bargaining for special treatment and exemptions. It should be an affront to the idea of "equal under the law" for governments to tailor specific laws and legal exceptions to the demands of specific companies or industries in the name of "economic development".

I'll check it out. Sounds interesting. Though I have been trying to focus more on looking for work. BTW, if you hear of anyone in need of a good coder, lemme know.

Your position initially was that the general welfare clause is an enumerated power. The quote you posted from Madison was a direct argument against this position. His argument is that it is not, and that the enumerated powers comprise and exclusive list of congressional powers - that they are NOT merely a list of examples. Seriously, you need to work on your reading comprehension.

It is a specifically enumerated general power that specifies how our tax money is to be spent: for the common defense and general welfare.

The specific enumeration of specific powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by the general welfare and common defense.

That is my consistent contention you are always welcome to call me on.

The point is that the common Offense and general Warfare ("A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances,) must be very singularly expressed by the terms 'to raise money for the general welfare.'"

Not everything qualifies as the common defense or general welfare, as a form of moral and ethic for income transfers and taxation.

The question is whether the general welfare clause implies that taxes levied can be spent to enact legislation that isn't covered by the other enumerated powers. From your comments, it's hard for me to even know for sure what your position on that is. Could you clarify?

It is a specifically enumerated general power that specifies how our tax money is to be spent: for the common Defense and general Welfare. In other words, our tax money is not to be spent on the general Badfare, the common Offense or the general Warfare.


The specific enumeration of specific powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by the general welfare and common defense.

If you stay here long enough you will learn that Daniel Palos goes out of his way to be obtuse. He rarely says what he means and prides himself on being difficult to comprehend.

He does not know the meaning of the phrase, SAY WHAT YOU MEAN.

I'm not sure you understood my question. Or maybe I just don't understand your response. It's kind of fascinating how you manage to be very explicit and completely vague at the same time. In any case, repeating the same phrases does little to clarify.

You're either far too intelligent for me to comprehend, or in way over your head. I'll try to keep an open mind on which one is the case.

Have you read any Bucky Fuller?

What part of any of my arguments need clarification?