As Story says: ‘The Constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers.’ 13 <– That government was the entity UNITED STATES, 1 of the bodies politic in the constitution.

Again he says: ‘A power to lay taxes for the common defence and general welfare of the United States is not in common sense a general power. It is limited to those objects. It cannot constitutionally transcend them.’ 14

That the qualifying phrase must be given effect all advocates of broad construction admit. Hamilton, in his [297 U.S. 1, 67] well known Report on Manufactures, states that the purpose must be ‘general, and not local.’ 15 Monroe, an advocate of Hamilton’s doctrine, wrote: ‘Have Congress a right to raise and appropriate the money to any and to every purpose according to their will and pleasure? They certainly have not.’ 16 Story says that if the tax be not proposed for the common defense or general welfare, but for other objects wholly extraneous, it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles. 17 And he makes it clear that the powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.

‘There are, indeed, certain virtual limitations, arising from the principles of the Constitution itself. It would undoubtedly be an abuse of the (taxing) power if so exercised as to impair the separate existence and independent self-government of the States, or if exercised for ends [297 U.S. 1, 70] inconsistent with the limited grants of power in the Constitution.’ Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 541. <- another body politic, the states.

But if the plan were one for purely voluntary co-operation it would stand no better so far as federal power is concerned. At best, it is a scheme for purchasing with federal funds submission to federal regulation of a subject reserved to the states. “And/Or the people to complete the phrase.” There is a reference to this in Butler. Which is the Third Body Politic.

There’s a whole lot more. You can read it here, http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Butler/ if you wish

I think you are missing a rather large and obvious point. The passage from Butler that I quoted, and you also quoted here, was used by the Court as a justification for a finding that the Social Security Law as constitutional.
Its pretty obvious that this established the meaning of “general welfare of the United States” in such a manner as to include the actual people. SS is a program for people, after all.

“This has been held since Justice Story. ”
I think that is obviously wrong, for reasons stated above.

In fact even in the Butler decision itself, we see the principle established.
THe Butler decision was one in which there was a tax mandated on food processors, with the money going to farmers to reduce crops, thus raising crop prices. The Court found that the taxation scheme was Constitutional – i.e. that the goal of helping farmers by raising prices for some, while paying others not to plant – i.e. helping the welfare of PEOPLE, was constitutional. The passage about ‘general welfare” comes from that finding. The court went on in that decision to strike down the law because they found that the federal government did not have the power to so closely manage agricultural production – a right of the states. Thus the taxation was a constitutional means to an unconstitutional end.

“Finally, no sir, the people are the final say on what is and isn’t constitutional.”

The final say – sure, in the sense that we elect the representatives at the federal and local level who have the power to vote for constitutional amendments. But thats all. Thats like saying that you get to decide what is legal or not. Technically I suppose, since you have the power to vote for legislators who write laws, you are the ultimate source of the legitimacy of the law. But dont try that argument next time you get stopped going 70 in a 55 zone.

“The 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”

The court only affirmed what I said in my first post, that they Congress could tax for the general welfare of the entity United States. Again, there are three bodies politic in the Constitution, The People, The States and The Entity called the United States. The people are not the subject of that clause; the United States is the subject of that clause. This has been held since Justice Story.

Now lets suppose, they had the power to tax for the general welfare of the PEOPLE. Why then did it take the federal government 150 years to figure out it had that power? Why didn’t they use it at the end of the 1700s and all through the 1800s?

Finally, no sir, the people are the final say on what is and isn’t constitutional. Hence why you see a majority of people against Obamacare.

PS: McCulloch Vs Maryland is the basis for “The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated”

“after having been caught in a lie with his claim that the constitutionality of Social Security was decided before the court-packing fiasco”

Actually, I said the opposite. The very first time I addressed the issue, after Steve had raised it with me, I wrote:

Steve:“When did the court start finding them constitutional? And Why? I’ll give you a hint, it was called the Court Packing fiasco.”

Tano:”Right after the failure of that fiasco.”

Bold added just now given your apparant problems with reading.

And then I went on in that comment to explain how the court, by so ruling on SS, was merely extending the precedent they established earlier, before the court-packing, in US v Butler. As they say in the quoted passage.

Why is this so complicated for you?

What a surprise; Barack Obama resorts to insults after having been caught in a lie with his claim that the constitutionality of Social Security was decided before the court-packing fiasco.

It seems the problem is Barack Obama’s ignorance of history and lack of comprehension of English, not mine. Why does Barack Obama insult peoples’ intelligence and language skills rather than admit his errors? For a white person, that would be inappropriate and unprofessional behavior, yet for a black person, it seems completely normal.

Groan. Is English not your first language or something?

The first case that I quoted, which was decided after the court-packing fiasco, was a case in which SS was upheld as constitutional, because, as it clearly states in the passage I quoted, the Court held that the underlying question about the meaning of “general welfare” HAD ALREADY BEEN DECIDED. Thus, in this case, the SS case, the Court was not breaking any new ground – merely applying a precedent arrived at earlier.
And they point us to the very case- USvButler – decided BEFORE the court-packing fiasco.
That is the relevance of the issue here. The claim is made that because of the threat of the courtpacking, the court was somehow bullied into going along with FDR, and that is why the expansive reading of the “general welfare” clause was adopted. This is clearly false, since the expansive interpretation of the “general welfare’ clause was estabished BEFORE the courtpacking, and in a case where the Court was actually striking DOWN a major pillar of the New Deal.

Maybe you missed the part where the decision you actually quoted, instead of the one that you’re desperately trying to flail about, was AFTER the court-packing scheme.

You were caught lying again, Barack Obama, and instead of admitting you lied, you spun. What a surprise.

My name is Tano, not Barack Obama.

You haven’t said a single thing that isn’t a talking point directly out of Barack Obama’s mouth, and you’re incapable of admitting any facts that run contrary to what Barack Obama’s talking points are. Your name is Barack Obama.

The fact that Barack Obama is so stupid and ignorant that he doesn’t know the Postal Service is a part of the executive branch that he supposedly runs is just another example of how making hiring decisions based solely on race and skin color is a bad idea.

Maybe you missed the part where I said that the Butler decision was BEFORE FDR dreamed up his court-packing scheme – a year before…

“Simply stated, an unconstitutional act does not become constitutional by fiat just because it has been passed over and over again.”

No, I think you really have to come to grips with the force of my first comment to you. Whether something is constitutional or not is decided, in our nation, by rulings of the Court – with the highest authority being the Supreme Court. If the SC says its constiutional, then it IS constitutional.

They ruled that the general welfare clause gave power to the Congress to spend for the general welfare. Thus it is constitutional, irresepective of what you think. They further applied this to the Social Security Law – finding it Constitutional under that provision.
As I said I dont know about Medicare, other than the fact that it hasnt been struck down in 40 years. If you want to have a shot at striking down Obamacare, go for it – the Court’s doors are open.

So that really is the whole story….

You can find many clauses in the constitution when taken alone can mean something different or more. However, when you take them together, an entirely different picture appears. One part of the document is not more important than the other. Simply stated, an unconstitutional act does not become constitutional by fiat just because it has been passed over and over again.

Is this a great country or what? You get to hold and disseminate your own opinions about what the Constitution means.

Unfortunatly, your opinions do not have the force of law. The opinons of the Supreme Court do. So, sorry….

“How many of FDRs programs were found unconsitutional?”

Lots

“When did the court start finding them constitutional? And Why? I’ll give you a hint, it was called the Court Packing fiasco.”

Right after the failure of that fiasco.

Except for one inconvenient fact. If you read the passage I quoted from the SS decision, you will see that the Court did not claim to be settling the larger issue with this case – rather they assert that it was settled in United States v Butler. THat is a case where the Supreme Court STRUCK DOWN a new deal program, the AAA, but in the course of doing so, established the policy on the general welfare clause. This was before the court-packing, and obviously was the fruit of a court in full opposition to the new deal. A snippet:

“The 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.”

“Section 8. The Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ”

LINK (scroll down Article 1 to section 8.

As for your second comment – what exactly is your point?
That we interpret “welfare” as “happiness”? That the government is authorized to secure our happiness? Coool….
Bottom line here is that the Court ruled that Social Security, which is a rather organized effort, qualified as legitimate activity in pursuit of general welfare. I dont know the case law about Medicare, but I suspect that one of you conservatives have probably tried to mount a case against it, and if so, it surely hasnt succeeded.

ND30,
My name is Tano, not Barack Obama. And if you disagree, you are free to adjudicate your case in court. Maybe you can get the SC to agree with you – it is a conservative court.

“In short, the Supreme Court is saying that this is a one-shot deal and applies only to this specific situation.”

No, it says what it says. That each instance has to be determined on its own merits, under the well-established rule that the Congress CAN spend money in pursuit of the general welfare. And that the power to make such determinations (whether the spending is justified) rests with Congress primarily, to be struck down by the courts only in egregious cases.

If you think this one, then file a lawsuit. Thats standard operating procedure for the right, isn’t it? Trying to win in court what you cant win through the legislative process?

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today’s context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

Emphasis mine.

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE