No, it does not and never did authorize limitless federal power to engage in activities imagined to advance the general welfare [Roger Pilon, Cato at Liberty]
No, it does not and never did authorize limitless federal power to engage in activities imagined to advance the general welfare [Roger Pilon, Cato at Liberty]
4 Comments
“Indeed, as was often asked: What was the point of enumerating the 17 other powers if Congress could do anything it wanted under this single power? The Framers could have stopped right there. They didn’t because they meant for Congress to have only certain limited powers, each one enumerated in Article I, section 8. And taxing for the general welfare limited Congress even further by precluding it from providing for special parties or interests.”
Sigh… if only people understood this.
I think it’s too late by now. Government size and power is a ratchet: it only goes one way. It never scales back. In the U.S. it hasn’t, not matter who’s been in power. The “tea party” isn’t going to get rid of the U.S. Dept. of Education, however much I’d love to see that happen. The population of the U.S. just gets bigger, dumber and less English-speaking. Constitutional fine points just get left in the dust.
That is strange, since the democrat party leadership tells us that the federal government has the power to regulate, micromanage, and (where appropriate) criminalize all human activity.
I’d hate to lump myself in with all the wacko tea partiers, but even if the General Welfare clause did grant virtually limitless domain to the federal government, what the hell is the 10th Amendment?
Either we’d have to understand that the 10th Amendment is completely empty, never reserved any powers for the states, or the more reasonable point of view, that it curtailed any open-ended delegation of power to the fed.
For Bl1Y: My understanding is that the tenth admendment reserved to the States and the People the right to regulate Slavery.
Withe the stunning increase in life expectancy some way had to be found to provide for age age beyond “living with the kids” or having some child care for you and get the house. Financing a pensions for all through savings alone is impossible, and privatization plans for Social Security are silly. Social Security is a fabulous program. It, and medicare, have to raise eligibility ages, and an extra percent of payroll would be good.
Leaving Social Security to the States would cause problems as each state, other than Florida, would have a strong incentive to get their elders to move to Florida. That makes Social Security a national issue.