The World Health Organization calls for decriminalization of most drugs

[RChildress107]

See my last post, but the term "general welfare" actually was pretty narrowly confined for the first 150 years or so IMO. At least to the extent that it required some basis in another enumerated power.

United States v. Butler shot that down pretty handily with the following language:

"[T]he [General Welfare] clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution. … But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations. … [T]he powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare."

yeah i felt like i might have been overstating the matter when I made that post. The point still stands though. Many portions of the Constitutions have been altered from their initial meaning or initial application/interpretation. It's not tenable, IMO, to go back to the initial meaning or understanding, especially when the current interpretation represents a choice on how to interpret a vague or broad term (such as general welfare).

 

[tjcmd]

The Butler decision makes it pretty clear that we have reinterpreted the Constitution to allow the federal government unlimited power. So now we get to fight with each other over control of that unlimited power. It is no wonder that people are willing to spend unlimited sums to secure friends in the federal government.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

The Butler decision makes it pretty clear that we have reinterpreted the Constitution to allow the federal government unlimited power. So now we get to fight with each other over control of that unlimited power. It is no wonder that people are willing to spend unlimited sums to secure friends in the federal government.

Sure. Butler makes it very clear that for your position to be a tenable one you would have to disregard well-established law which takes us back to 923's eloquently stated post about there being real issues that are actually unconstitutional that are ignored so we can continue to debate well-settled law from 1936.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

yeah i felt like i might have been overstating the matter when I made that post. The point still stands though. Many portions of the Constitutions have been altered from their initial meaning or initial application/interpretation. It's not tenable, IMO, to go back to the initial meaning or understanding, especially when the current interpretation represents a choice on how to interpret a vague or broad term (such as general welfare).

Yeah I entirely agree with this.

 

[tjcmd]

Sure. Butler makes it very clear that for your position to be a tenable one you would have to disregard well-established law which takes us back to 923's eloquently stated post about there being real issues that are actually unconstitutional that are ignored so we can continue to debate well-settled law from 1936.

These issues aren't unconstitutional if the government has the power to do whatever it wants.

 

[RChildress107]

The Butler decision makes it pretty clear that we have reinterpreted the Constitution to allow the federal government unlimited power. So now we get to fight with each other over control of that unlimited power. It is no wonder that people are willing to spend unlimited sums to secure friends in the federal government.

tj, if you are a textual originalist (The Constitution should be interpreted on its face based solely on what is written), how would you interpret "general welfare"?

 

[RChildress107]

These issues aren't unconstitutional if the government has the power to do whatever it wants.

interpreting general welfare broadly is far from saying the government has the power to do whatever it wants. Even if the government argues that NSA practices are for the general welfare, it still doesn't save those practices with possible conflict with the 4th amendment.

You have failed to articulate any such provision that federal taxation conflicts with and in fact have argued that the 16th amendment is somehow invalid because the people who voted for it didn't realize what they were voting for.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

These issues aren't unconstitutional if the government has the power to do whatever it wants.

I mean do you not understand the difference between "the government has the power to do whatever it wants" and "the government can levy taxes consistent with protecting the general welfare where the general welfare is broadly construed?"

Here is 923's list of things that he thinks are unconstitutional that we could pursue rather than continue this discussion that is already settled:

The TSA (the constitutionality doesn't have anything to do with the General Welfare Clause)
The militarized Border Patrol being given extra-constitutional search and seizure powers 100 miles from the border (the constitutionality doesn't have anything to do with the General Welfare Clause)
the use of drones to kill American citizens without a trial (Goes to due process concerns, the constitutionality doesn't have anything to do with the General Welfare Clause)
the NSA (4th amendment and due process concerns, the constitutionality doesn't have anything to do with the General Welfare Clause)
stop and frisk (4th amendment concerns, the constitutionality doesn't have anything to do with the General Welfare Clause)
most of the Patriot Act (4th amendment and due process concerns, the constitutionality doesn't have anything to do with the General Welfare Clause)

You're just comparing apples and oranges. 923's list of issues above have nothing to do with the current topic of the General Welfare Clause. Even if you narrowly construe the Clause, you still can't overcome the other constitutional issues.

 

[tjcmd]

I mean do you not understand the difference between "the government has the power to do whatever it wants" and "the government can levy taxes consistent with protecting the general welfare where the general welfare is broadly construed?"

Here is 923's list of things that he thinks are unconstitutional that we could pursue rather than continue this discussion that is already settled:

The TSA (the constitutionality doesn't have anything to do with the General Welfare Clause)
The militarized Border Patrol being given extra-constitutional search and seizure powers 100 miles from the border (the constitutionality doesn't have anything to do with the General Welfare Clause)
the use of drones to kill American citizens without a trial (Goes to due process concerns, the constitutionality doesn't have anything to do with the General Welfare Clause)
the NSA (4th amendment and due process concerns, the constitutionality doesn't have anything to do with the General Welfare Clause)
stop and frisk (4th amendment concerns, the constitutionality doesn't have anything to do with the General Welfare Clause)
most of the Patriot Act (4th amendment and due process concerns, the constitutionality doesn't have anything to do with the General Welfare Clause)

You're just comparing apples and oranges. 923's list of issues above have nothing to do with the current topic of the General Welfare Clause. Even if you narrowly construe the Clause, you still can't overcome the other constitutional issues.

Can't the government say that the TSA protects and promotes the general welfare?

 

[RJKarl]

If you are truly being a "literalist", the term "general welfare" should mean everyone gets welfare.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Can't the government say that the TSA protects and promotes the general welfare?

The constitutionality of the TSA is not confirmed merely because taxes go towards it. I'm guessing that 923 is talking about the 4th Amendment concerns related to the TSA and not the appropriation of tax dollars to a cabinet department.

 

[RJKarl]

Why wouldn't the TSA be covered by the Constitution? Its only reason for existence is national security.

 

[RChildress107]

Can't the government say that the TSA protects and promotes the general welfare?

interpreting general welfare broadly is far from saying the government has the power to do whatever it wants. Even if the government argues that NSA practices are for the general welfare, it still doesn't save those practices with possible conflict with the 4th amendment.

You have failed to articulate any such provision that federal taxation conflicts with and in fact have argued that the 16th amendment is somehow invalid because the people who voted for it didn't realize what they were voting for.

..

 

[RChildress107]

If you are truly being a "literalist", the term "general welfare" should mean everyone gets welfare.

yeah no

 

[tjcmd]

The power to tax without limit sure seems to me to be the power to totally destroy. If you can tax me to bail out Detroit or to give MRAPs to local P.D.s or to start wars based on some politician's personal vendetta, why can't you just tax me to have would be Barneys feel me up at the airport? I guess if you want to stop that kind of thing you just need to get the Supremes to narrowly interpret that part of the Constitution while broadly interpreting the taxing authority. In the long run, you will not win this battle.

 

[BeachBumDeac]

fuck all y'all who respond to rj and tjcmd and let them derail threads that could've been interesting discussions

edit: including myself in this since I responded to tjcmd once

 

[RChildress107]

The power to tax without limit sure seems to me to be the power to totally destroy. If you can tax me to bail out Detroit or to give MRAPs to local P.D.s or to start wars based on some politician's personal vendetta, why can't you just tax me to have would be Barneys feel me up at the airport? I guess if you want to stop that kind of thing you just need to get the Supremes to narrowly interpret that part of the Constitution while broadly interpreting the taxing authority. In the long run, you will not win this battle.

how would you interpret the phrase "provide for the general welfare"?

You seem to be conflating the government's power to tax (absolutely constitutional, theoretically up to rates of 100%) and the power to spend tax revenue however it pleases (restrained by numerous provisions in the constitution).

You may have legitimate points about how the government is spending tax revenue, either from a policy or constitutional standpoint, but those points do nothing to bolster an argument that because of irresponsible or illegal spending the government for some reason loses its ability to tax you.

 

[TownieDeac]

fuck all y'all who respond to rj and tjcmd and let them derail threads that could've been interesting discussions

edit: including myself in this since I responded to tjcmd once

It is too bad

Not that the US would ever listen to the recommendations of the WHO in matters of criminal policy, but it's a pretty big benchmark when considering drugs from a public health policy standpoint.

 

[Deacon923]

I don't understand why it is difficult to understand that the Constitution authorizes the government to do a wide variety of things necessary to operate a country of over 300,000,000 people, and also understand that the Constitution simultaneously limits the methods the government can use to accomplish those things (primarily through the Bill of Rights). That's why the Bill of Rights was enacted, to limit the power of the government conveyed in the original text. It is not true that the Constitution exists solely to limit government power - after all, it was enacted to give the central government MORE power after the previous attempt, the Articles of Confederation, failed miserably. It is also true that the Constitution has provisions that limit government power. Try to hold two opposing ideas in your head simultaneously, guys. It's easy if you practice.

 

[tjcmd]

I don't understand why it is difficult to understand that the Constitution authorizes the government to do a wide variety of things necessary to operate a country of over 300,000,000 people, and also understand that the Constitution simultaneously limits the methods the government can use to accomplish those things (primarily through the Bill of Rights). That's why the Bill of Rights was enacted, to limit the power of the government conveyed in the original text. It is not true that the Constitution exists solely to limit government power - after all, it was enacted to give the central government MORE power after the previous attempt, the Articles of Confederation, failed miserably. It is also true that the Constitution has provisions that limit government power. Try to hold two opposing ideas in your head simultaneously, guys. It's easy if you practice.

It apparently doesn't really limit those methods, either. It has been thrown open to wide ranging interpretations to suit whoever is in power. That is the danger. Right now maybe you think there are limits but they can be reinterpreted in ways that do not suit you.