TheStatutoryApe said:So then for them to fund ACORN the constitution should say "Organizations named ACORN will be funded by federal monies"? I asked for further explanation of your rationale (that it is not covered by any of the enumerated powers), not a reiteration of your claim.
The quote you posted provides the basis for how such programs are allowed to be funded. Furthermore, it is a reality and a historical fact that social funding is done using that as a Constitutional basis. In essence, it means exactly the opposite of what you think it means. You're arguing against reality here.skippy1729 said:Several people have mentioned Article 1, Section 8. Here is what Thomas Jefferson has to say about that provision...
So, I will repeat, There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing such funding.
Skippy
http://www.answers.com/topic/general-welfare-clauseAt the time the Constitution was adopted, some interpreted the clause as granting Congress a broad power to pass any legislation it pleased, so long as its asserted purpose was promotion of the general welfare. One of the Constitution's drafters, James Madison, objected to this reading of the clause, arguing that it was inconsistent with the concept of a government of limited powers and that it rendered the list of enumerated powers redundant. He argued that the General Welfare clause granted Congress no additional powers other than those enumerated. Thus, in their view the words themselves served no practical purpose.
In his famous Report on Manufactures (1791), Alexander Hamilton argued that the clause enlarged Congress's power to tax and spend by allowing it to tax and spend for the general welfare as well as for purposes falling within its enumerated powers. Thus, he argued, the General Welfare clause granted a distinct power to Congress to use its taxing and spending powers in ways not falling within its other enumerated powers.
The U. S. Supreme Court first interpreted the clause in United States v. Butler (1936). There, Justice Owen Roberts, in his majority opinion, agreed with Hamilton's view and held that the general welfare language in the taxing-and-spending clause constituted a separate grant of power to Congress to spend in areas over which it was not granted direct regulatory control. Nevertheless, the Court stated that this power to tax and spend was limited to spending for matters affecting the national, as opposed to the local, welfare.
russ_watters said:The U. S. Supreme Court first interpreted the clause in United States v. Butler (1936). There, Justice Owen Roberts, in his majority opinion, agreed with Hamilton's view and held that the general welfare language in the taxing-and-spending clause constituted a separate grant of power to Congress to spend in areas over which it was not granted direct regulatory control. Nevertheless, the Court stated that this power to tax and spend was limited to spending for matters affecting the national, as opposed to the local, welfare.
skippy1729 said:No. Cheers, Skippy
PS If you want to continue this conversation please re-read the opinion of Jefferson, read the enumerated powers and tell me which one of those powers covers such an expenditure.
The decision is more than 70 years old. If were ever going to be reversed it would have been by now!skippy1729 said:At the time of this ruling the Supreme Court was under pressure from FDR to allow his social programs or have him pack the court with new justices until it did. This was more in the nature of a coup d'etat than a reasoned judicial interpretation of the Constitution. If the Supreme Court were ever to dare to reverse that decision the Congress, robbed of their "cash cow" would surely move to pack the court.
TheStatutoryApe said:I read the quote from Jefferson. I have read the enumerated powers. It would seem to fall under '...provide for the [...] general welfare...'. I see nothing in Jefferson's quote that would say otherwise.
So if you believe other than what is accepted as congress's power to provide such monies I think the burden is on you to demonstrate it.
Duh, indeed. It is clear and it clearly means the exact opposite of what you claim. This is a straightforward issue. You are arguing against reality. Also, parroting is seen here as being intentionally argumentative: ie, trolling. This is also not allowed.skippy1729 said:Duh!
Try reading it again. I could try re-writing it but I doubt if I can make it clearer than Mr. Jefferson.
russ_watters said:Duh, indeed. It is clear and it clearly means the exact opposite of what you claim. This is a straightforward issue. You are arguing against reality. Also, parroting is seen here as being intentionally argumentative: ie, trolling. This is also not allowed.
Hi Skippy, please post sources for all of your claims in this thread before you post again. We require any statement of fact to be backed up by proof. Or you can opt to retract if these are opinions and don't have documented sources.skippy1729 said:At the time of this ruling the Supreme Court was under pressure from FDR to allow his social programs or have him pack the court with new justices until it did. This was more in the nature of a coup d'etat than a reasoned judicial interpretation of the Constitution. If the Supreme Court were ever to dare to reverse that decision the Congress, robbed of their "cash cow" would surely move to pack the court.
Our founding fathers attempted to have three co-equal branches of government but the Congress is the most powerful of the three. For example, the 14th amendment was illegally ratified by a voice vote in the House of Representatives after failing to be ratified by the states.
Cheers, Skippy
Evo said:Hi Skippy, please post sources for all of your claims in this thread before you post again. We require any statement of fact to be backed up by proof. Or you can opt to retract if these are opinions and don't have documented sources.
Thanks.
russ_watters said:According to the Wiki article, the "court packing" bill failed miserably and the allegations of a deal to avoid it by the sitting USSC fail due to the fact that the cause and effect don't overlap in time.
That article does not support your position on that issue.
To save some time, if you would like to post the Wiki article on the 14th amendment, please note that it also directly refutes your claim about it.
Agreed - no one is saying that the power is absolute. Unfortunately for your argument, though, neither the Constitution nor that Federalist paper define what it means for a law to "promote the general welfare", but nevertheless that's one of the enumerated powers. And that's where the court came in with the decision I brought up. It provided at least one constraint to what the "general welfare" must include (previously mentioned).skippy1729 said:If the "general welfare" phrase is interpreted to allow any expenditure which the Congress deems beneficial then the enumerated powers become meaningless.
The true power of this phrase was "to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare"; the actual provisions were intended to be limited to those enumerated.
Skippy
Please read THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE OF THE ARTICLE.skippy1729 said:The legislation was unveiled on February 5, 1937. Several weeks later the Supreme Court upheld a Washington minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish[4] by a 5–4 ruling, after Associate Justice Owen Roberts joined with the wing of the bench more sympathetic to the New Deal. Because Roberts had previously ruled against most New Deal legislation, his apparent about-face was widely interpreted by contemporaries as an effort to maintain the Court's judicial independence by alleviating the political pressure to create a court more friendly to the New Deal. His dramatic move came to be known as "the switch in time that saved nine".
This is a direct quote from the wikipedia article. The court folded their tent and the legislation was allowed to die.
Skippy
TheStatutoryApe said:So then for them to fund ACORN the constitution should say "Organizations named ACORN will be funded by federal monies"? I asked for further explanation of your rationale (that it is not covered by any of the enumerated powers), not a reiteration of your claim.
Jasongreat said:I believe we would have to convert our present constitution into a napoleonic constitution for it to have to be worded that precisely, but according to our present constitution it has to be enumerated or it is left to the states or to the people(individuals not a collective).
I would assume that skippy was trying to say that it is possible that an organization that by their own admission only speaks for 400,000 members, in 1,200 neighborhoods, in 75 cities across 40 or so states, could hardly be considered as general(applying to all or most of a group) welfare(benefit: something that aids or promotes well being). Since I believe the general welfare clause is the most prostituted clause and would be the enumerated power stated to empower the federal or more accurately the national government to fund Acorn or any other private enity non-profit or for-profit. How can it be justified as general welfare when it encompasses so few? In those 40 or so states it is a lot closer match, in the 75 cities still closer, in the 1,200 neighborhoods its closer and when we reach the 400,000 members it is a perfect match as to general. I also think it fits pretty good for welfare, the members get the satisfaction and joy of giving, the recipients get the benifit of the help, and this is 100% voluntary, 100% charity as opposed to .5% voluntary, 10% charity and 89.5% coercion(all percentages are guestimites).
IMHO Acorn should lose the national governments funding, as there is not anywhere it is enumerated, although that could change if a large enough group of states agree and ammend the constitution. Acorn may have a case with getting state, city or other local government funding, but that's as high up the chain they should go.
Acorns' mission statement pretty much says they want to organize a low to moderate income majority, because those are the best advocates for their communities. That doesn't sound like general welfare to me, more like general misery.
http://www.acorn.org"
http://www.constitutionus.com"
TheStatutoryApe said:You're numbers are speaking of members? ACORN supposedly helps anyone who is 'disadvantaged' to get welfare, homes, and become registered voters so as to be productive and active members of our society. The money that goes to them I am sure flows out to and helps more than only 400,000 people in our country.
I understand that I was speaking of members, apparently only 400,000 people care enough about what acorn stands for to become members, yet they force millions with the backing of government to support them through taxes. I think we already have government programs to help the disadvantaged get welfare, loans on homes, and to get people registered to vote(although they probably wouldn't help a pimp setup his buisiness). In my opinion people without homes and that arent registered to vote can still be productive and active members of society, but I don't know if I would add welfare recipients to that list. I am sure that Acorn "helps" more than 400,000 people, but do they help enough people to be considered general welfare? I don't understand why they can't find private funding if they really are offering an important contribution, there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from supporting them, why do I have to be forced into it?
But do they address issues of national importance? I am fairly certain to say that they do.
If it is of national importance, why are they only in 40 states(I wouldn't doubt to find that these states follow party lines)? And out of those 40 states they are only in 75 cities, why only 75 cities, why not all cities? And why just cities, there are poor in every community not just cities. If it is just because they don't have the funding, have you contributed to acorn? If what they do is so important, why not create a government institution? Instead of funding them through the back door.
When people are poor, do not have jobs, or do not have homes they become a burden on the society that they are part of.
I know plenty of people without homes that contribute to the society they live in, I also know a lot of "poor" people that are also big contributors to society, and just being without a job does not make someone a burden on society. Now if they are poor and sticking a hand out, or without a job and sticking a handout, or having the taxpayers pay for their home, then yes they would be a burden to society, but I would argue that if the government programs they are tapping into didnt exist then they would no longer be a burden, they would also have more incentive to progress than to regress or to stay the same.
(note that even being in a relatively prosperous area while I was living in my car [not for lack of a job] I was hassled by the police and told that I was unable to sleep in my car on public land [which I was paying taxes towards even]).
That sounds about right, not just, but right as far as the gov. goes. It also bugs me, when after paying federal taxes, I have to pay an entrance fee into a national park.
Eventually the level of unemployed and homeless will drag their community down to the point that it is no longer advantageous for these people to be there and they will move along to another location. If that location is similarly unable to deal with the situation the cycle will continue as these people leave damage and misery in their wake moving from one place to the next hoping that someone somewhere will be able to help them realize a stable lifestyle(have you seen/read Grapes of Wrath?). For this reason the issue of the poor and disadvantaged becomes one of national import.
Tax (or certain taxes) as theft (forcibly payed) is an entirely different argument all together. I have had those discussions and they are rather round about in nature. I am only hoping to give you an idea of why your taxes going to these people may be beneficial to you even if the idea of being forced to pay for it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. I certainly don't like to be forced into anything. I would have preferred that we did not go to Iraq or possibly even Afghanistan though that does not change the fact that my taxes have helped pay for it. If there are in fact people in those countries that are greatful than at least I feel a bit better about it.Jason said:there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from supporting them, why do I have to be forced into it?
I am assuming that they have placed themselves in the locations that could most greatly benefit from their help and where they will be most effective (and where they are most welcome).Jason said:If it is of national importance, why are they only in 40 states(I wouldn't doubt to find that these states follow party lines)? And out of those 40 states they are only in 75 cities, why only 75 cities, why not all cities? And why just cities, there are poor in every community not just cities. If it is just because they don't have the funding, have you contributed to acorn? If what they do is so important, why not create a government institution? Instead of funding them through the back door.
You are right that a prime motivator is to survive. That also means to survive by any means necessary and often at the least expense in work and difficulty. Many people unfortunately have a rather limited scope of the future and prefer immediate gratification. This often leads to crime. Even if it is only a relative few who indulge in criminal activity to get by they will have a rather detrimental effect on society as a whole and its ability to recognize and respect the law (or common social contract). I am sure that you can respect this since you were rather strong in support of rehabilitation and education as a means of preventing crime in our other thread. Unfortunately education and rehab in and of itself is not enough. We need also to prevent people from reaching the point where they have nothing left to loose. A society burdened by the unemployed will also be burdened by crime and that crime will adversely effect the ability of the society to prosper creating a vicious cycle. A society burdened by unemployment and crime most often will not be capable of sustaining itself and hence incapable of dealing with such issues as unemployment and homelessness which contribute to crime, instability, and lack of prosperity which exacerbate the problem. A regular snow ball effect. The easiest and cheapest way to deal with this problem (tbhe only option left to a poor and downtrodden community) is to attempt to remove it, which generally pushes it off onto someone else. This is why it may become a national epidemic.Jason said:This scenario you have described would never happen if they couldn't get their hands into the community purse in the first place. They would have to take responsibility for themselves, I've heard that in all creatures the prime mover is the instinct to survive, is that true or not? If survival means all you have to do is put your hand out, that's all they will do. No I haven't seen or read grapes of wrath, I do agree with you that the poor are a national problem, but I still believe the best source of help would come from the communities they live in, not from a politician or government 3,000 miles away. The states should be able to keep their resources so they can help their own, instead of sending their resources to washington then standing in line to get it back, after it has been reduced by paying the people that get to send it back to them.
TheStatutoryApe said:The general story of The Grapes of Wrath is that during the great depression when there were few jobs available and an incredibly high unemployment rate there was an economic boom in California's agricultural industry. This meant jobs for relatively uneducated and minimally skilled workers. There was a mass exodus to California by people who needed to start over. Due to the sheer numbers of people arriving looking for jobs the market dried up and left several people who had just spent their life's savings to get there SOL, and even depressed the value of the work for those that were already there. I mention it only as a rather poignant example of the consequences, on a national scope, of what can happen when unemployment and homelessness is left unchecked.
TheStatutoryApe said:Tax (or certain taxes) as theft (forcibly payed) is an entirely different argument all together. I have had those discussions and they are rather round about in nature. I am only hoping to give you an idea of why your taxes going to these people may be beneficial to you even if the idea of being forced to pay for it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. I certainly don't like to be forced into anything. I would have preferred that we did not go to Iraq or possibly even Afghanistan though that does not change the fact that my taxes have helped pay for it. If there are in fact people in those countries that are greatful than at least I feel a bit better about it.
You are right about the tax and force statement being entirely a different argument and as such I shouldn't have included that question. However, I am not interested in things that may be beneficial, only in things that are beneficial. Also I am in complete agreement about the wars, but I think we need to find a higher standard than people being grateful. If you were to give a drug dependent person a thousand dollars, they would be grateful, but I doubt it would be beneficial.
I am assuming that they have placed themselves in the locations that could most greatly benefit from their help and where they will be most effective (and where they are most welcome).
I agree that they have probably set up where they are most welcome, and that's my point, if they are welcome there let the welcoming parties pay for their services.
As for setting up a government agency would that not infringe even more so on your feeling that the government is overstepping its bounds? So long as it is an organization of the people and by the people the government is only assisting them rather than controlling where and how such funding is used. A private organization is more dynamic and can more easily channel funds where they are needed than a government organization that does everything by committee and may be sending much needed funds to the wrong areas due to bureaucracy. I would think that that would appeal to your conservative sensibilities more than an organization that is run by the government.
I probably would vote against anyone that supported creating the acorn division of the government, but atleast the politicians would be following the rules they are bound by and not just making a justification that acorn fits into the general welfare clause. It would also happen in full view of the country since it would take a constitutional ammendment in my opinion to get it done. Anyways the problem right now as I see it is acorns funding, so I will fight against that at this juncture, and if it ever came to the government wanting to add acorn to the constitution I would argue against that the same as I have been arguing against acorns funding.
I agree with everything you said about private companies, and that's what scares me. Private enities are far more efficient than a governmental counterpart, and when their revenues are tied to how much governmental money they can give out, I am sure they will give tons of it away, right or wrong be damned.
You are right that a prime motivator is to survive. That also means to survive by any means necessary and often at the least expense in work and difficulty. Many people unfortunately have a rather limited scope of the future and prefer immediate gratification. This often leads to crime. Even if it is only a relative few who indulge in criminal activity to get by they will have a rather detrimental effect on society as a whole and its ability to recognize and respect the law (or common social contract). I am sure that you can respect this since you were rather strong in support of rehabilitation and education as a means of preventing crime in our other thread. Unfortunately education and rehab in and of itself is not enough. We need also to prevent people from reaching the point where they have nothing left to loose. A society burdened by the unemployed will also be burdened by crime and that crime will adversely effect the ability of the society to prosper creating a vicious cycle. A society burdened by unemployment and crime most often will not be capable of sustaining itself and hence incapable of dealing with such issues as unemployment and homelessness which contribute to crime, instability, and lack of prosperity which exacerbate the problem. A regular snow ball effect. The easiest and cheapest way to deal with this problem (tbhe only option left to a poor and downtrodden community) is to attempt to remove it, which generally pushes it off onto someone else. This is why it may become a national epidemic.
So the reason to support acorn is that if we don't the people they would of helped are going to rob us instead? That sounds like extortion to me. How about a reason like, if we support acorn, unemployment will go away. I don't see anything they do that has any effect on unemployment, except to maybe extend the problem, oh wait I guess they did help 15(imaginary) underage el salvadorian minors get work as prostitutes.
I wholeheartedly disagree that education is not the solution, education is the only thing that separates the well off from the not so well off. When I say education I am speaking of what John Locke called "breeding", the knowledge you receive from your parents and others during your upbringing. If we could give "underpriveliged" people the same monetary and life skills education that the "overpriveliged" have been receiving the lower classes would disappear. Instead of us giving them a useful education such as the harder you work the more satisfaction you will receive, or that anyone can pull themselves up out of poverty, we have been giving them the educaton that its not their fault, that just getting a bigger paycheck is the way to happiness and its the mean employer holding them back, since its because they make so little that they can't excape poverty.
The general story of The Grapes of Wrath is that during the great depression when there were few jobs available and an incredibly high unemployment rate there was an economic boom in California's agricultural industry. This meant jobs for relatively uneducated and minimally skilled workers. There was a mass exodus to California by people who needed to start over. Due to the sheer numbers of people arriving looking for jobs the market dried up and left several people who had just spent their life's savings to get there SOL, and even depressed the value of the work for those that were already there. I mention it only as a rather poignant example of the consequences, on a national scope, of what can happen when unemployment and homelessness is left unchecked.