On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 19:08:05 -0700, "Ray Keller" DESPERATE RIGHTARD
TROLL wrote:

Provide for the General Welfare ...
There is much confusion about what is or is not in the Constitution and how
it applies to those in service to We the People. Frankly I attribute this to
the public education of this countries youth since at least the 1950's.

Many have queried this writer on the context of the following quote;


"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but
only those specifically enumerated."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton argued this point. Eventually,
Hamilton's view won, and it was solidified in the US v. Butler case
(1936). As Hamilton's view was explained in the Federalist Papers, and
as it now functions in our law, it provides an expansive view of
Congress's power to spend tax money.

Jefferson, BTW, was referring to the second instance of the "general
welfare" clause in the Constitution. You probably think it was the
first one. You'd know that if you'd actually read Constitutional
history.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/7/2012 6:50 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 19:08:05 -0700, "Ray Keller"DESPERATE RIGHTARD
TROLL wrote:

Provide for the General Welfare ...
There is much confusion about what is or is not in the Constitution and how
it applies to those in service to We the People. Frankly I attribute this to
the public education of this countries youth since at least the 1950's.

Many have queried this writer on the context of the following quote;


"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but
only those specifically enumerated."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton argued this point. Eventually,
Hamilton's view won, and it was solidified in the US v. Butler case
(1936). As Hamilton's view was explained in the Federalist Papers, and
as it now functions in our law, it provides an expansive view of
Congress's power to spend tax money.

Jefferson, BTW, was referring to the second instance of the "general
welfare" clause in the Constitution. You probably think it was the
first one. You'd know that if you'd actually read Constitutional
history.



You mean you could tell that this guy doesn't really know the first
thing about the constitution? I'm amazed. It sounded like he really knew
what he was talking about.

Hawke