# Rebublican use of the term "class warfare" **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 18, 2011, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727 "2011-09-18T18:12:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/121 "2011-09-22T21:23:39Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > “Well-being” appears no where in the Constitution. “Welfare” meant “well-being” at the time the Constitution was written. It didn’t mean handouts from the government. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/122 "2011-09-22T21:25:31Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > Why would they be empowered to tax, but not to spend? That doesn’t even make sense. They are empowered to tax in order to support the enumerated powers that they have. Giving handouts to the poor is not one of such powers. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/123 "2011-09-22T21:27:28Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I believe it was you, in this thread, who stated that “I think that they [Republicans] can then fairly be accused of “Class warfare” when they want to cut taxes and then eliminate social programs for the poor.” > > You were then told (correctly) that the desire to eliminate federal “social programs” is not “class warfare” but adherence to the Constitution. If you think the discussion was derailed, you should not have opened the derailment with your comment. OK then, thank you very much for your fringe theory of the Constitution, one that is not recognized by the vast majority of the population nor the Supreme Court. Now that we have had this valuable contribution to the thread let’s move on shall we? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/124 "2011-09-22T21:31:17Z")
> [@user\_hostile](#): > > In the strictest sense, sure. But even in the 19th Century, the US Government created agencies that did not fall under the interpretation you call out above. For example, Congress created the US Geological Survey (1879). This is long before the creation of “big” government. As far as my Google-fu can tell me, there was no debate concerning the constitutional legitimacy of this agency. As far a everyone was concerned, this was a legitimately sanctioned expression of Congress power’s under Article One. > > Note that most states have a geological agency. So why don’t states argue that the USGS is violating the Xth Amendment? > > Under your interpretation, the USGS is unconstitutional. No. The two legitimate purposes of USGS is delineation, classification and exploration of public (federally owned) lands, and the examination and assessment of natural resources. The justification of the first is obvious, the justification of the second is interstate commerce clause. But if you find that the US federal government created unconstitutional agencies prior to 20th century (when those hugely proliferated), how is that an argument for their constitutionality? And I do love your “in the strictest sense”. What is “strict” about “Here is the section of the Constitution that says what powers Congress has. All other powers are delegated to the States”? Basically - for the proponents of the wide-open “general welfare clause” thing - what do you think is the purpose of the 10th amendment? Which powers does the Congress NOT have? The “general welfare clause” implies that Congress’s power is unlimited, so how could the 10th have any meaning? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/125 "2011-09-22T21:34:43Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > “Welfare” meant “well-being” at the time the Constitution was written. Again with your personal opinion. I say it meant much more than a warm and fuzzy feeling, and justifies much of the social spending of the last 200 years. Once again, I have the Supreme Court on my side; who do you have? ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/126 "2011-09-22T21:38:46Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > No. The two legitimate purposes of USGS is delineation, classification and exploration of public (federally owned) lands, and the examination and assessment of natural resources. The justification of the first is obvious, the justification of the second is interstate commerce clause. > > But if you find that the US federal government created unconstitutional agencies prior to 20th century (when those hugely proliferated), how is that an argument for their constitutionality? > > And I do love your “in the strictest sense”. What is “strict” about “Here is the section of the Constitution that says what powers Congress has. All other powers are delegated to the States”? > > Basically - for the proponents of the wide-open “general welfare clause” thing - what do you think is the purpose of the 10th amendment? Which powers does the Congress NOT have? The “general welfare clause” implies that Congress’s power is unlimited, so how could the 10th have any meaning? Please be specific–which article/sections/clauses? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/127 "2011-09-22T21:44:38Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Again with your personal opinion. I say it meant much more than a warm and fuzzy feeling, and justifies much of the social spending of the last 200 years. Once again, I have the Supreme Court on my side; who do you have? Thomas Jefferson: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” Thomas Jefferson: “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” Thomas Jefferson: “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” James Madison: “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” James Madison: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” James Madison: “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/128 "2011-09-22T21:45:39Z")
> [@user\_hostile](#): > > Please be specific–which article/sections/clauses? Be more specific in your question. ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/129 "2011-09-22T21:49:32Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Be more specific in your question. I can see this is going nowhere fast; I’m outta here. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/130 "2011-09-22T22:02:38Z")
> [@user\_hostile](#): > > I can see this is going nowhere fast; I’m outta here. Argumento Ad Nauseum - a favorite among the SDMB’s Affirmative Action beneficiaries. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/131 "2011-09-23T13:11:59Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > They are empowered to tax in order to support the enumerated powers that they have. Giving handouts to the poor is not one of such powers. “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” They are empowered to tax to provide for the general Welfare. Since general welfare isn’t otherwise defined, it’s left open to interpretation. Occam’s razor says that your interpretation is probably not the correct one. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/132 "2011-09-23T13:12:55Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > This thread is about the wisdom of the Republican leaders stance when they start calling a small tax hike on the wealthy “class warfare”. Maybe “warfare” is a bit strong, but when you base your policy of imposing X on ONLY THOSE GUYS OVER THERE, you draw battle lines between “those guys” on one side and “not those guys” on the other side. If the policy was that we all have to chip in more, then that would at least be fair. To say that only certain people pay more based on their income would cause a rift based on class, no? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/133 "2011-09-23T13:38:13Z")
So many right wingers engage in Founding Father fetishism, as if those white 18th century aristocrats had all the answers that we need today. Thomas Jefferson knew a thing or two about the Constitution, yet his most significant act as president was the Louisiana Purchase. Precisely where in the Constitution is the authority to add territory? And if one of the (cue the heavenly choir) Founding Fathers (cut the choir sound effect) spent so much public money on something not specifically authorized by the Constitution when the ink was barely dry on it, why in heaven’s name is it sacrosanct now? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/134 "2011-09-23T14:05:46Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Maybe “warfare” is a bit strong, but when you base your policy of imposing X on ONLY THOSE GUYS OVER THERE, you draw battle lines between “those guys” on one side and “not those guys” on the other side. > > If the policy was that we all have to chip in more, then that would at least be fair. To say that only certain people pay more based on their income would cause a rift based on class, no? There is already a progressive tax system, wherein income at different levels is taxed at different rates, no? So why NOW is is “class warfare”? Plus, the term “class” is typically used in social systems where it is difficult, if not impossible to change your class. Does this imply that the extremely wealthy are a distinct type of person - a type that you and I can never aspire to be? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/135 "2011-09-23T14:27:57Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” It’s absurd to claim that “to pay the Debts” is a power. Thus it isn’t. Neither is to “provide for the common Defence” or “general Welfare”. Those are not Congress’s powers. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/136 "2011-09-23T15:02:34Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > It’s absurd to claim that “to pay the Debts” is a power. Thus it isn’t. Neither is to “provide for the common Defence” or “general Welfare”. Those are not Congress’s powers. Article I Section 8 enumerates these specifically as powers of Congress; in fact along with levying taxes they are the first powers listed. It seems as though you’re confusing this with similar language in the Preamble. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/137 "2011-09-23T15:26:08Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > Article I Section 8 enumerates these specifically as powers of Congress; No, it doesn’t. Levying taxes is a power. Paying debts etc. is the reason this power is given Congress. You really have to twist yourself into a pretzel to pretend that “paying Debts” is in any way a “power”. Thomas Jefferson: “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/138 "2011-09-23T16:05:35Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Thomas Jefferson: “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” I can find no credible, primary source that confirms Jefferson ever said any such thing. Please provide a cite, other than a libertarian blog. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/139 "2011-09-23T16:12:46Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I can find no credible, primary source that confirms Jefferson ever said any such thing. Please provide a cite, other than a libertarian blog. > **[Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s25.html)** “Whereas, our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.” Now that I did provide a cite, did that make a difference? No? I thought so. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/140 "2011-09-23T16:19:49Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > [Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s25.html) > > “Whereas, our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.” Thank you. So, on what Constitutional basis did Jefferson enact the Louisiana Purchase? He would never be inconsistent in his beliefs about enumerated powers, would he? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727.md?page=8)