No. Although I should have mentioned this occurrence of the phrase in my answer, so my bad there.
The language in Art I, Sec 8, clause 1 has never been directly adjudicated by the Supreme Court as conferring any additional powers on the federal government.
Jefferson wrote that "…the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.” And Madison, in The Federalist 34, said that “general welfare” was likewise limited in scope to the specific powers afterward listed:
In fairness, I should report that Hamilton (who was reliably against what Jefferson was for, and for what Jefferson was against) said in Federalist 30 that a broader view was intended, but no Supreme Court case has ever validated that view.
Is your view the we ought to fund everything that promotes the ‘general welfare’?
People like ponies. If more people had ponies then they would be happier. Therefore, we ought to use the general welfare clause to rationalize buying everyone a pony.
Congress should move out of that pointlessly fancy-schmancy dome thing and into a modern business complex that will be cheaper to maintain, secure and update.
Yes. But the question was what kinds of thing constitute the general welfare. Madison’s and Jefferson’s view was that the general welfare was executed by the powers the rest of the document grants to Congress. Congress could not, in their view, create a new duty, call that duty part of “helping advance the general welfare,” and run with it.
The Supreme Court has likewise never found any independent power for Congress in the phrase.
Does buying everyone a pony help result in a industry that produces $750,000,000 trade surplus every year like our culture and arts exports do?
Lets be clear, without the federal government directly funding the arts you would have no Star Wars, a brand that is large enough that Disney made a $4 billion investment a few years ago.
Promoting large Domestic industry growth is the ‘general welfare’.
I am concerned with principles, not trade. The principle being that the job of the government isn’t, and shouldn’t be, to provide arts to the public even if there may be economic benefits. (A side note, if everyone had a pony, that would certainly increase trade trade in quite a few ways)
Would you support the government funding brothels? It would, likely, increase the trade surplus. If not, why?
Can you cite the direct government funding Star Wars received? I cannot find any information on it. Also I can live without Star Wars or any other movie that may have received government money.
Additionally, there are all sorts of things that could be done that ‘promote the general welfare’ by ‘Promoting large Domestic Industry Growth’ that shouldn’t be done.
So I asked you the opposite question in an effort to understand where ‘general welfare’ ends. It is clear that caring for petsprovides health benefits. That would seem to fall under ‘general welfare’. So, where does it end? Why fund art and not ponies?
No, definitely not. Of course not. The Constitution doesn’t direct, it allows Congress. It permits Congress. Congress may, at its discretion, fund the arts. It is certainly not directed to do so unless we, the people, direct it so. The citizens, the voters, direct Congress to do or not do things.
Many people wish to direct Congress not to fund the arts.
Why is this a big mystery? This isn’t that hard to understand, despite septimus’s dubious “But it’s only a coupl’a bucks!” argument.
This thread has been hijacked. Debates which are on topic here:
[ul][li] Does it improve society if government finances education (including education in the humanities) and promotes arts and pure sciences through programs like NEA and NSF?[/li]Of course this item has many sub-debates. I happen to regard science programs like LIGO as good, but acknowledge that it spends about as much money with less to show for it, than the entire NEA budget. If you choose to defend LIGO but to attack NEA please start a BBQ Pit Thread “Why am I so ignorant about the smallness of LIGO’s return in applications?”
[li] If government spending on arts and pure science is appropriate, should it be spent by federal government or by local governments? There are very strong arguments why federal spending is more efficient and effective. Please address those if you prefer state financing.[/li]The rich slave-owners who wrote the Constitution may have been geniuses compared with most who post on message-boards, but their views are irrelevant in this thread unless accompanied with a cite that their words were inspired by a Supreme Deity. Note that South Carolina did not even fund public schools (for whites only of course) until some counties did 23 years after it ratified the constitution.
[li] Are the right-wingers who want to abolish the NEA actively supporting new state-level funding to make up the gap? Without a cite to that affect, for the purpose of this thread, abolishing the NEA will be treated as abolishing government support for the arts.[/li][li] The thread title question itself: Why do the right-wingers want to abolish the NEA? Presumably many believe that building one (1) new Tomahawk missile is a worthier use of money than helping tens of thousands of underprivileged youngsters acquire a love of the theater, and for such a belief your word is your cite. But is this, after all, what motivates GOP Congresspeople?[/li][/ul]
Topics off-limits for this thread — please start your own thread rather than hijacking this one — include
[ul][li] Debates among rich slave-owners who have been dead for 200 years.[/li][li] Pigs’ entrails, fortune cookies, and the placements of commas near the words “general welfare” in the Constitution. For the purpose of this thread, assume you are on a Constitution-redrafting committee and are deciding whether to allow or ordain funding for the NEA.[/li][/ul]
Is your view that the government should spend $10 trillion/year on the military?
See I can do it to.
In both cases, the spending is constitutional and a legitimate government purpose. In both cases our elected representatives should have deliberations to determine the appropriate amount of that spending.
Often times threads take a direction that wasn’t predicted. Let’s avoid junior modding. As it were, this far in the thread, constitutional arguments about the validity of funding and congressional authorization are in my view, directly on topic. If people want to adhere to the guidelines you’ve laid out they are free to do so, or not.
But I think the discussion about why conservatives might disagree needs to absolutely include the issues related to constitutional permissibility. If that objection cannot be discussed, then the inference arises that a poster simply opposes NEA / NEH type spending because he dislikes the arts or wishes to discomfit liberals, as opposed to enjoying the arts but believing the federal government is legally constrained.
Again, I would now argue that the government’s spending power is constitutional as applied to NEA/NEH funding, but I agree that there is another side to that argument.
Wrong. Not everyone likes ponies. There’s no sign that access to ponies is something that is a good investment in public welfare. Plenty of people–including myself–would hate to have a pony.
But show me a government program that increases access to ponies for low-income children who’d like that access–say, a summer camp scholarship program–and show me that it results in positive outcomes for those children that would not otherwise occur, and I’m likely to support it.
I’m much more interested in outcomes and facts than in ideology and abstractions.
There doesn’t appear to be any appreciable demand for ponies (outside the eight-year-old-girl lobby which, while loud, doesn’t vote much). If there were a serious proposal on the table to provide or subsidize ponies or other assistance animals for people who need them, I would certainly entertain that. I would expect some evidence of cost effectiveness but I certainly wouldn’t dismiss it on its face as being beyond the scope of government.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk