[This is a continuation of a discussion that was taking place on another thread.]

OK, it's conceivable for governments to do these things, but it's not desirable, and therefore it isn't conceivable that the framers intended the federal government to have the power to do either of those things. Nor do I see any sign that either of them were granted. Nor, in fact, do I think you think they were granted. Which makes me go at this discussion.

I'm not familiar with the details of what Hamilton did in that context and don't want to defend it without that knowledge, especially considering what I do know of the man. But we basically agree that the phrase "provide for the general welfare" is not a power in itself but a limitation on a power. Where we disagree, is that I say it is a limitation on the power to spend, where you say it's a limitation on the power to tax.

But unless the power to spend is implied by the power to tax, that limitation on the power to tax makes no sense. A tax, by itself, is never in service to the general welfare; rather, it's a necessary cost of other actions of the government which are in service to the general welfare. If we could have those actions without taxes, we'd be better off. Unfortunately, that's not possible, so we empower the government to tax.

If you look at the clause in the whole, it makes a lot of sense to include spending as part of it, so that it becomes: "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . [and use the money so collected] to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." The phrase in brackets was not included because it is simply common sense. It's like saying, "I will keep my job so I can pay my bills and feed my family." Well, in reality you pay your bills and feed your family with your paycheck, not your job, it's just that you won't get the paycheck unless you keep your job. So anyone would understand what you're saying there, without needing to insert the phrase, "so I can continue getting my pacheck."

Once again, you need to look at where that semicolon actually appears, and what you are arguing here. You are actually saying that the power to tax, which implies the power to spend, is a separate power, and that is exactly where we disagree. (Of course, you're also saying that "provide for the general welfare" is NOT a separate power, but that's NOT where we disagree.)

I was not making that contention. I was saying, rather, that each of the powers other than this one authorizes acts of government OTHER than spending (possibly excepting the army and navy one). Consider:

"To borrow money on the credit of the United States"

This is not encompassed by the power to spend money.

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

Nor is this. It requires legislative powers, not just fiscal ones.

"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;"

Ditto, ditto.

"To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;"

A post office is an official courier for public mail, and the establishment of one, while it does require spending money, also requires certain other things, including the passage of laws regulating use of the mail. Clearly, while the authority to tax and spend is necessary for this, it is not sufficient.

"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 constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

All of these are powers beyond the spending of money. I mean, look -- suppose I had several billion dollars to spend. Could I use that money to set up a federal court? Of course not; I could buy a building, hire people, etc. but the institution I created would have no judicial standing whatsoever.

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;"

All right, now here we come to the only two enumerated powers (after the first one) that on first glance looks like they MIGHT involve nothing more than spending money. But I contend they do involve more. An army is not just a bunch of guys with guns; it's an official military arm of a nation. If I, with several billion dollars to spend, put together a private army and go and invade Mexico with it, that is not an act of war on the part of the United States. I'm the one in trouble for doing that (and those who participate in my army), not the U.S. government. Again, the power to raise an army includes the power to spend, but it also includes more.

"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

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."

Is it not obvious that every one of these powers transcends the power to spend money? That each of them requires some other authority besides the authority to tax, in order to make them effective? And therefore the power to tax is not properly considered as a general statement of authority, of which the other enumerated powers are particular expressions, but rather as a separate power all on its own, with its own limitations as described in this article and elsewhere: that such spending must be to pay the debts or to provide for the common defense or general welfare of the Untied States, that all imposts and duties must be uniform throughout the United States, and certain other restrictions implied in the Constitution elsewhere. (For example, the government cannot spend money on grants of land to titled nobility, because it would have to grant titles of nobility first and that's prohibited.)

Other restrictions, not immediately obvious, have arisen out of court decisions. For example, in U.S. v. Butler, it was established that the government cannot use spending authority as a way to impose de facto regulations which are not themselves directly authorized.

So this is not an unlimited power. But neither is it a power which in itself is nonexistent, as some would have it.

I hope this clarifies what I've been saying.

Thank you. Is there any actual limit you can ascertain? Or is it a more vague common sense thing?

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

I actually wrote this last, but decide to put it first. It might cut to the chase a bit: I guess one thing I'd like to know is whether you recognize the point of the enumeration of the powers, the notion of limited government. Because I suspect that's the source of the confusion. If you don't see the listed powers as an exclusive list, and rather as a starting that can be expanded for anything that "generally welfary", then THAT's the issue we're actually discussing.


Whether it's a limitation on taxing, or spending, is immaterial. The issue is whether the power to tax implies another power; the power to spend outside the implementation of the enumerated powers.

Why not? You keep saying this, but other powers obviously imply spending. We don't need to make up a new one for the limitations to make sense. They're saying: "They can tax to support the functions of government, as long as they're providing for the defense or general welfare of the nation. In other words, even though they can tax us to raise an army, they can't tax us to fight a war that isn't actually defending us. Or they can tax us to run the post office, or regulate commerce, as long as it provides for the general welfare.

Right, that's more or less what I'm saying... But this in no way lets them off the hook as far as restricting those other actions to the enumerated powers.

Where we disagree is that you're saying the power to tax implies a separate power to spend. And that that must be the case because the power to tax would make no sense without the power to spend. But the power to spend is already there. It's implied by the enumerated powers that require spending. The power to tax doesn't imply a power to spend, it doesn't need to. Spending is already implied by the other powers.

I don't understand where you're going with this. Obviously there's more to governing than spending money. So what?

Of course it's obvious. Are you standing on your head? 'cause you're looking this exactly backwards. These powers encompass the power to spend, not the other way around.

The leap I don't get, is how you end up with the notion that the power to spend, regardless of whether it's implied by the power to tax, or the other enumerated powers, is exempt from the limitations placed on government powers through enumeration.

A little bit. Thanks for starting the new thread.

The question ought to diverge towards reality. Did a bunch of whig wearing elites of the 18th century understand the effects of modern capitalism, the wage society, modern technology, etc. HELL NO.

Therefore, instead of trying to deduce their feeble desires from a document that only continues to exist because it is so feebly vague so as to provide for plenty of bending to modern reality, we ought to ask ourselves what the hell our society would look like without a government empowered to spend outside some vauge notions of 'enumeration.'

__________________

Indeed. Shudder to think.

indeed. whatever the hell it is you mean here.

__________________

Nothing in particular. Just kidding around.

its obvious from your posts.

__________________

There are limits, yes. They are not nearly as restrictive as some would like, but they are there.

First, and most obviously, the government can't do anything that's expressly prohibited. For example, it cannot impart titles of nobility. It can't waive the writ of habeas corpus except in extreme cases. (It was done during the American Civil War, but never before or since then.) It can't impose a state religion, or interfere with free speech or a free press. And so it can't spend money towards any of these ends.

Secondly, the spending of money must be to promote the common defense and the general welfare of the United States -- that is, the defense or welfare of all of the states, all of the people; the government is not allowed to play favorites. (There are some things done by the federal government that might arguably violate this restriction, actually. In my opinion. Don't know whether it's been tested in court.)

Third, the power to spend money is ONLY the power to spend money; it's not the power to legislate by the back door. This came out in the Supreme Court case U.S. v. Butler, in which the Agricultural Adjustment Act was found unconstitutional. The AAA's goal was to regulate agricultural production so as to prop up prices. To do this, the government wanted to get farmers to stop producing so much, to leave some fields fallow. Now the federal government actually has no authority to regulate agricultural production directly; it can regulate the interstate sale or transportation of farm produce, but not production on the farm itself. (The state governments DO have this authority.) What the AAA did, was to levy a tax on food processing plants -- which in itself was constitutional -- and then use the revenue from that tax to provide subsidies to farmers who agreed voluntarily to abide by the restrictions the government imposed. The court ruled that this use of federal spending and taxation amounted to the enforcement of a regulation which the government had no authority to impose, and so was an unconstitutional use of the taxation/spending power.

Today, we have a different system of farm subsidies, which are not tied to attempts to regulate farm production, and so would pass that test (although not IMO the test of common sense -- but that's off-topic). There may be some other things the fed does in the way of conditional grants to the states that might violate the Butler ruling; I'm sure these have been tested in court, but I don't know what arguments allowed them. It's not the method of conditioned spending per se that the Butler decision voided, but rather its use to impose a non-authorized regulation by the back door.

I do recognize the idea of limited government and enumeration of powers. I don't believe that the government can do anything it pleases, as long as it can claim to be serving the common defense or general welfare. To use an extreme example, it cannot decide that the common defense is served by putting all immigrants from the Middle East in concentration camps. (Yeah, it did that to Japanese-Americans once. That was, in my opinion, unconstitutional as all hell.)

The phrase "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" is not a separate power, but a limitation on the power to spend money. The federal government can spend money on anything serving the common defense or general welfare of the United States (except where explicitly prohibited as I described in my last post). But it cannot take any other actions on that justification, except as authorized elsewhere in the Constitution.

I think you're missing the point completely. Interestingly, just after this you say something I completely disagree with, which I'll get to in a moment. My point, though, is that the limitation "provide for the common defense and general welfare" applies to SOMETHING. And it makes absolutely NO sense to apply it to the power to tax. It does, however, make perfect sense to apply it to the power to spend.

Now, let's look at what you said that I think is wrong:

Here is where I think you are completely wrong, and where again the power to tax/spend being a separate power is important. So is the power to raise an army, or to declare war. There is no restriction of "for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" on either of those powers. Congress is entitled to raise an army, period (for no more than two years at a time). And it's authorized to declare war, period. There's nothing in the document to restrict it only to defensive war. (Maybe there should be, in light of recent history, but there isn't.)

Let's suppose that an insurgent movement arose in the state of Oklahoma and started committing widespread acts of terrorism, and grew into a general widespread armed revolt. The president nationalizes the Oklahoma National Guard, and maybe stiffens it with some regular Army forces, and moves to fight the rebels. Is this done for the "common defense of the United States"? Not really, at this stage. It's to defend the State of Oklahoma. The States of, Say, California, or New York, or certainly Alaska or Hawaii, aren't threatened at all. Is this, then, an unconstitutional use of the military? Few would agree that it is.

What I'm saying here is that all those other enumerated powers don't have to be used solely "for the common defense and general welfare." In some cases that restriction wouldn't even make sense. Sometimes they have their own built-in restrictions, other times not; although of course there's always the Bill of Rights. But the "common defense and general welfare" language applies only to the power to tax -- and so to the power to spend.

Again, the ability to establish post offices and post roads, or to regulate commerce, is not restricted by the "common defense or general welfare" clause. These are separate enumerated powers. They are sufficiently narrow in themselves that clearly the framers didn't think they needed any further narrowing.

No, not quite. I'm saying that the power to tax to provide for the common defense and general welfare makes no sense unless it implies the power to spend. And as noted above, those restrictions don't apply to the other enumerated powers. You could not, for example, say that Congress must stop granting patents on the grounds that intellectual property doesn't serve the common good. Some people, of course, DO argue that intellectual property doesn't serve the common good. I'm not saying one way or another about that. In fact, let's assume, arguendo, that they're right. Does that mean the power to issue patents is unconstitutional? No. That power is granted to Congress explicitly, and the only string attached to it is that it is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" -- NOT to provide for the general welfare. That restriction applies ONLY to the power to tax and spend, not to any other enumerated powers.

The point is that the power to spend money on anything promoting the general welfare is NOT equivalent to the power to govern in all respects to promote the general welfare. This is not a "do anything you want" power. It's purely a spend-money power.

It's not. It's ONE of the enumerated powers. The rest of the section details the OTHER enumerated powers. Everything Congress is authorized to do, is enumerated in Article I, Section 8. If it ain't in there, Congress can't do it.

But that article, and those powers, start with the words "The Congress shall have the power," not with the words "To borrow money."

The tipping point is in this debate. If the enumeration of powers is not adhered to, then democracy will run amok, and turn into socialism, and then whatever happens after that. The Framers were well aware of the weakness of democracy, and tried to build in controls through the Constitution, but they also affirmed the need for the soft controls of a society that is moral - that is, not given to take advantage of the system and defined by a culture of individual responsibility. This is the American ideal, although the words now connote an evil taint as interpreted by the left, and almost ridiculed in popular culture. We ain't doing so good.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

Again, you're assuming that the power to tax implies a generic "power to spend", and then insisting that the modifying clause actually applies to the "implied power" and not the taxation power. I don't think it's anything so convoluted. The phrase is a limitation on the power to tax. It says what it means, no funky "implicated powers" need be created to fill in the gaps.

Ok, I don't get this at all. You seem to be drawing some distinction between "taking actions" and spending. What's the difference? Spending money always includes some action being taken. And pretty much all actions of the government involve spending money. Once they have a general spending power they can spend on whatever they want, with the only limitations being the "defense and general welfare" and the Bill of Rights (ignoring the tenth, I suppose). No other powers need be listed.

To clarify, can you answer these questions (according to your interpretation):

If the post office power wasn't listed as a power, could congress vote to set one up under the general welfare clause? Why or why not?

The power to set up a national bank isn't listed, could they do that under the general welfare clause? Why or why not?

If "yes" to both, why is one listed and the other not?

It makes perfect sense to limit the reasons a tax can be levied. What's so hard to understand about that?

Indirectly there is. When read correctly, , there is a restriction on how the can finance it. They can't tax us unless it's to "provide for the defense ...". That's the point of the clause.

To sum up, there's no need to imagine that the power to tax implies a power to spend. It's not written that way, and it makes perfect sense as is. The power to spend is actually covered by the last power which allows congress to do what is "necessary and proper" to act on the other powers (spending, when it's required).

Sorry, but what a load of crap.

There are no fucking limits.

Please tell me, what are the limits?

[i]The 11,610 projects represent a 337 percent increase over the 2,658 projects in fiscal year 2007. The $17.2 billion is a 30 percent increase over the fiscal year 2007 total of $13.2 billion. Only the Defense and Homeland Security bills included earmarks in fiscal year 2007, so comparisons of other bills are made between fiscal years 2008 and 2006. Total pork identified by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $271 billion. The latest installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 18-year exposé of pork-barrel spending includes $3,000,000 for The First Tee; $1,950,000 for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service; and $188,000 for the Lobster Institute in Maine. In the House of Representatives, Republicans want a one-year moratorium but will not unilaterally disarm. Democrats won’t agree because of objections from big porkers such as House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.). On February 11, 2008, Roll Call noted, “Every private entity that received a special project from the Pennsylvania Democrat in last year’s defense spending bill had given him political money at some point since 2005.” At his February 27, 2008 fundraiser for lobbyists, Murtha received a standing ovation. If Washington, D.C. were to export a commodity, it would be rhetoric. Politicians especially love to talk about fiscal responsibility. On March 13, 2008 the Senate had an opportunity to test that rhetoric when Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) offered an amendment to impose a one-year moratorium on earmarks. Pork beat talk as the measure failed by a vote of 29-71.

Citizens Against Government Waste

HOW MANY HOURS HAVE YOU SPENT RESEARCHING GOVERNMENT WASTE, PORK and Lobbying/Campaign contributions?

HERE ARE A FEW TIDBITS ON WASTE.......

1. The Missing $25 Billion

Buried in the Department of the Treasury’s 2003 Financial Report of the United States Government is a short section titled “Unreconciled Transactions Affecting the Change in Net Position,” which explains that these unreconciled transactions totaled $24.5 billion in 2003.[2]

The unreconciled transactions are funds for which auditors cannot account: The government knows that $25 billion was spent by someone, somewhere, on something, but auditors do not know who spent it, where it was spent, or on what it was spent. Blaming these unreconciled transactions on the failure of federal agencies to report their expenditures adequately, the Treasury report con*cludes that locating the money is “a priority.”

The unreconciled $25 billion could have funded the entire Department of Justice for an entire year.

2. Unused Flight Tickets Totaling $100 Million

A recent audit revealed that between 1997 and 2003, the Defense Department purchased and then left unused approximately 270,000 commercial airline tickets at a total cost of $100 million. Even worse, the Pentagon never bothered to get a refund for these fully refundable tickets. The GAO blamed a system that relied on department personnel to notify the travel office when purchased tickets went unused.[3]

Auditors also found 27,000 transactions between 2001 and 2002 in which the Pentagon paid twice for the same ticket. The department would purchase the ticket directly and then inex*plicably reimburse the employee for the cost of the ticket. (In one case, an employee who allegedly made seven false claims for airline tickets professed not to have noticed that $9,700 was deposited into his/her account). These additional transactions cost taxpayers $8 million.

This $108 million could have purchased seven Blackhawk helicopters, 17 M1 Abrams tanks, or a large supply of additional body armor for U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

3. Embezzled Funds at the Department of Agriculture

Federal employee credit card programs were designed to save money. Rather than weaving through a lengthy procurement process to acquire basic supplies, federal employees could purchase job-related products with credit cards that would be paid by their agency. What began as a smart way to streamline government has since been corrupted by some federal employees who have abused the public trust.

A recent audit revealed that employees of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) diverted mil*lions of dollars to personal purchases through their government-issued credit cards. Sampling 300 employees’ purchases over six months, investigators estimated that 15 percent abused their government credit cards at a cost of $5.8 million. Taxpayer-funded purchases included Ozzy Osbourne concert tickets, tattoos, lingerie, bartender school tuition, car payments, and cash advances.

The USDA has pledged a thorough investigation, but it will have a huge task: 55,000 USDA credit cards are in circulation, including 1,549 that are still held by people who no longer work at the USDA.[4]

4. Credit Card Abuse at the Department of Defense

The Defense Department has uncovered its own credit card scandal. Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used govern*ment-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 for admission to entertainment events, $48,250 for gambling, $69,300 for cruises, and $73,950 for exotic dance clubs and prostitutes.[5]

5. Medicare Overspending

Medicare wastes more money than any other federal program, yet its strong public support leaves lawmakers hesitant to address program effi*ciencies, which cost taxpayers and Medicare recip*ients billions of dollars annually.

For example, Medicare pays as much as eight times what other federal agencies pay for the same drugs and medical supplies.[6] The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently com*pared the prices paid by Medicare and the Depart*ment of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care program for 16 types of medical equipment and supplies, which account for one-quarter of Medicare’s equip*ment and supplies purchases. The evidence showed that Medicare paid an average of more than double what the VA paid for the same items. The largest difference was for saline solution, with Medicare paying $8.26 per liter compared to the $1.02 paid by the VA.[7] (See Table 1.)

Top 10 Examples of Government Waste

# A White House review of just a sample of the federal budget identified $90 billion spent on programs deemed that were either ineffective, marginally adequate, or operating under a flawed purpose or design.

# The Congressional Budget Office published a “Budget Options” book identifying $140 billion in potential spending cuts.

# The federal government spends $23 billion annually on special interest pork projects such as grants to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, or funds to combat teenage “goth” culture in Blue Springs, Missouri.

# The federal government made $20 billion in overpayments in 2001.

# The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s $3.3 billion in overpayments in 2001 accounted for over 10 percent of the department’s total budget.

Examples of wasteful duplication include: 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; and 72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water.

The Advanced Technology Program spends $150 million annually subsidizing private businesses, and 40% of this goes to Fortune 500 companies.

# The Conservation Reserve program pays farmers $2 billion annually to not farm their land.

# Washington spends $60 billion annually on corporate welfare, versus $43 billion on homeland security.

# The Department of Agriculture spends $12 billion to $30 billion annually on farm subsidies, the vast majority of which go to agribusinesses and farmers averaging $135,000 in annual income.

# Massive farm subsidies also go to several members of Congress, and celebrity “hobby farmers” such as David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Scottie Pippen, and former Enron CEO Ken Lay.

# Congressional investigators were able to receive $55,000 in federal student loan funding for a fictional college they created to test the Department of Education.

# The Army Corps of Engineers has been accused of illegally manipulating data to justify expensive but unnecessary public works projects.

# Food stamp overpayments cost $600 million annually.

# School lunch program abuse costs $120 million annually.

# Veterans’ program overpayments cost $800 million annually.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm839-list.cfm

Please tell me..........

WHAT ARE THE FUCKING LIMITS?

Democracy can't "turn into" socialism. Democracy is a political system. Socialism is an economic system. The two can very easily coexist.

No. A post office requires certain legislative backing, not just money. I guess Congress could set up something equivalent to UPS or FedEx with just the power to spend, but not equivalent to the USPS.

Yes and no. The problem here is that if there were no legislative powers, just spending powers, then none of the laws which permit banks to exist in the first place could exist. If we assume the existence of those laws, somehow or other, then yes, establishing a bank requires nothing more than the spending power. But there's no reason to do so, and without them neither the government nor any private agency could establish a bank.

It might be interesting in this context to look at what powers were invoked to set up the Federal Reserve. I'll get back on that.

If you look at anything advanced as a (more specific) "reason a tax can be levied," you always get to some kind of thing the money is to be spent for.

Norrin, I don't feel like wading through another of your rants. Of course there are limits on the federal government. They may not be the ones you'd like to see, but they do exist.