Judge: "Washington must find rooms for homeless families out in cold"

jimmyx


the men that founded this nation didn't want non-landowners to vote, nor women to vote, they also thought it perfectly fine to keep slaves and indentured servants...let's not get too hung up on the glorious morality of our founding fathers, they and their morality are far removed from the society we have today.

Then surely you have no use for the documents they wrote, and never claim you have any protected rights then, correct?

The DOI and Constitution dont exist in jimmyx's world, right?

doubletap

I explain it the same way the founding fathers meant it when they wrote it.....spending within those few and enumerated areas that will benefit the whole. It most certainly doesnt apply to every little social program those jackasses in DC come up with.

Incorrect on timing.

doubletap

“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


Now, assuming you know the definition of the word benevolence, the man known as the father of the Constitution just blew your premise right out of the water with that quote. Unless you think you know their intention better than James Madison did.

Madison spoke this an similar statements well after the constitution was written. As you conveniently omit above, he spoke that quote January 10th, 1794 during a session of congress, many years after providing the basic text for that clause...which he did not exclusively write or edit...lest you are contending that Madison was the sole author of the constitution? Alas..If strict Constitutionalists would have their way we would forgo the constitution for selected passages from the Federalist Papers...which of course our founders wisely and plainly chose NOT to do for good reason.

But more importantly is the context. Madison was embroiled in a political battle at the time with Alexander Hamilton's definition of the General Welfare clause...Hamilton was also in attendance of the Philadelphia Convention and ALSO an author of the Federalist Papers and defined the Welfare Clause as broader than a strict reference to Military Spending, Postal Roads etc.

Madison's definition of the clause...not articulated until years after the constitution and in the context of political positioning...was consistently rebutted in the courts, starting as early as 1811 with Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story..

Associate Justice Joseph Story relied heavily upon The Federalist as a source for his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. In that work, Story excoriated both the Madisonian view and a previous, strongly nationalistic view of Hamilton's which was rejected at the Philadelphia Convention. Ultimately, however, Story opined the broader spending view of Hamilton, as described above, was the correct construction.

At the end of the day...you will argue Madison and I Hamilton. Hamilton's view was policy in the first Administration under George Washington and has remained so for the entire history of our nation and been upheld by the courts for the life of the United States. I lend little credibility to the partisan interpretations of Madison after the constitution was ratified.

With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause; Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers, in other words, as little more than a power of self–support.

From an early date Congress has acted upon the interpretation espoused by Hamilton. Appropriations for subsidies and for an ever increasing variety of “internal improvements” constructed by the Federal Government, had their beginnings in the administrations of Washington and Jefferson. Since 1914, federal grants– in–aid, sums of money apportioned among the States for particular uses, often conditioned upon the duplication of the sums by the recipient State, and upon observance of stipulated restrictions as to its use, have become commonplace.

www.law.cornell.edu...

The irony is that it is the same as it ever was. The party that holds the White House practices the Hamiltonian view of General Welfare, and those in opposition argue the Madisonian view of less authority for an Admin to implement change. Jefferson being a great example...Hamiltonian while in office, Madisonian when not.

That then leaves us the courts...and since the first challenges soon after the constitution was ratified, they have unbiased interpreted the clause as favoring Hamilton's broader definition. And hell..with Justice Story in 1811, Madison was still living and had failed to convince the courts that his definition was credible.

reply to post by doubletap

Finally, in United States v. Butler, the Court gave its unqualified endorsement to Hamilton’s views on the taxing power. Wrote Justice Roberts for the Court: “Since the foundation of the Nation sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the numerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers.

Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained 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.

Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court had noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position.

We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice.

Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of Sec. 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. 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.”

www.law.cornell.edu...

deadcalm

Getting your children back would be a hell of a motivator for people to get their lives back together.

reply to post by doubletap

 

Of course...your absolutely correct.

Take their kids until the parents wise up...and if they don`t or can`t because your economy is in shreds and only getting worse...too bad for them and the kids....after all...what value is their in a family staying together if they can`t pay?

What happened to you Americans that stripped you of your humanity??

Lets look that this...

You are a homeless family and the Government puts you in a ratty motel to get you off the streets.

Many undesirables most likely live and work there too, like prostitution, drugs, sex offenders etc. You need to leave your kids in a ratty motel room by themselves as you go out to get a job/food etc. I'm sure nothing would happen....

You still need to feed them, so I guess it is McDonalds 3 times a day if they are lucky... Not like you can cook or anything. No school, no where for them to go, but just the room....

And foster care is worst then this?

Xtrozero

Lets look that this...

You are a homeless family and the Government puts you in a ratty motel to get you off the streets.

Many undesirables most likely live and work there too, like prostitution, drugs, sex offenders etc. You need to leave your kids in a ratty motel room by themselves as you go out to get a job/food etc. I'm sure nothing would happen....

You still need to feed them, so I guess it is McDonalds 3 times a day if they are lucky... Not like you can cook or anything. No school, no where for them to go, but just the room....

And foster care is worst then this?

Hmmm...And families left homeless and jobless from natural disaster? Just to explore the expanding possibilities aside from economic disaster which effected so many in our recent near economic collapse.

Do you imagine these families as all being single parent households? No one to tend to the children's needs while mom or dad search for work?

Or do you simply think the criteria of geographic proximity to "undesirables" like "prostitution, drugs, sex offenders " warrants seizing children from their families. Or is it the consumption of "McDonalds" that is the horrible offense that allows the government to take people's children.

It is a slippery slope and a frightening world some of you imagine. A world where government seizes children based on their parents current income.

Families struggle. And families that survive economic struggle often emerge stronger for it. They often produce stronger bonds and stronger, more productive and successful citizens.

Small children have a very vague perception of poor and rich. But they understand love and family from the moment they are born.

If there is no clear, present, demonstrable danger to the child (e.g. A mother who is abusive or is addicted to drugs) then the government has no business tearing families apart. Government DOES have a business in helping those families recover...because while the government policy of using our tax dollars to assist banks that are "too big to fail" should be appropriately questioned..the idea of using our tax dollars to assist American Families suffering from the same calamity those very banks created should not be questioned.

You are a homeless family and the Government puts you in a ratty motel to get you off the streets.

reply to post by Xtrozero

According to some reports, there are now an estimated five vacant properties for every homeless person in the U.S., many left empty as the result of the foreclosure crisis.

5 empty homes for every homeless person....why are they in ratty hotels again? Instead....they sit empty and rot.

Makes total sense to me.

You still need to feed them, so I guess it is McDonalds 3 times a day if they are lucky... Not like you can cook or anything. No school, no where for them to go, but just the room....

SEE ABOVE

And foster care is worst then this?

If the government gave even a quarter of the money that they give to the banks each month in welfare ( 65 BILLION per month)....there would be no need for these kids to be ripped from their parents. But I guess Americans would rather have their money given to wealthy corporations that could care less about the US or it's people....than to actually help it's own citizens.


So I say again....what happened to the American people that not only robbed them of their humanity...but their common sense as well??

deadcalm

So I say again....what happened to the American people that not only robbed them of their humanity...but their common sense as well??

In short...economic crisis. Lizard brain...fight or flee. We are wired to over-ride our higher level thinking in times of crisis. It serves us well if we are in the woods...better to run from the bear than ponder it's size, intent..the color of it's fur. Not so much in the modern world. The USA population panicked during the financial crisis and had barely recovered their senses from 9-11. Many people that were pre-disposed to do so, distanced themselves even further from their humanity. It's a fear driven survival response. It showed itself in everything from politics to religious intolerance to invading Iraq. It is an interesting time in history. The sentiment by some in the USA supporting Putin's seizure of Crimea is another example of the mind-set. Still, I place my bet on the light vs. the darkness..

The point in history at which we stand is full of promise and danger. The world will either move forward toward unity and widely shared prosperity - or it will move apart.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Indigo5


Hmmm...And families left homeless and jobless from natural disaster? Just to explore the expanding possibilities aside from economic disaster which effected so many in our recent near economic collapse.

Do you imagine these families as all being single parent households? No one to tend to the children's needs while mom or dad search for work?

The typical family nucleus is dead. Mom and dad is not so typical anymore and the more "single parent" the situation is the better the chance that they fall in this category. People do not find themselves in this situation because everything is peachy and they are here ONLY due to the economy. The peachy family fallen on hard times is a minority of all this, so what we have typically is a mix of hard times augmented by poor family life. Also, if mom and/or dad had a place to put the kids then this is all moot, wouldn't you think?

Or do you simply think the criteria of geographic proximity to "undesirables" like "prostitution, drugs, sex offenders " warrants seizing children from their families. Or is it the consumption of "McDonalds" that is the horrible offense that allows the government to take people's children.

I have kids and I think living out of a cheap motel or car is by far the worst situation I could put them into, so ya if the parents had just a little bit of responsibility they would welcome a place to safely put their kids as they get back on their feet, but we all know that in many of these cases the parent(s) never quite gets back up.

When it comes to food etc, as a parent I want the best I can provide for my kids, and I do not have a lot of confidence that in many of these troubled families they feel the same, 8 year olds raise 4 year olds etc.

A world where government seizes children based on their parents current income.

Not current income, but the inability to support.

Families struggle. And families that survive economic struggle often emerge stronger for it. They often produce stronger bonds and stronger, more productive and successful citizens.

Only in the movies....

Reading through these pages, I see typical heartlessness from a predictably judgmental group.

Always the concern for money... DEEP DEEP concern for money. The earth not so much. Actual people suffering and in need? F 'em. Rip the families apart, who cares... The bond between mother and child? Too bad. Let's judge them, rip them apart, and complain about the cost.

*Your quotes abbreviated for relevance, succinctness and relevance*

Xtrozero

The typical family nucleus is dead.
The peachy family fallen on hard times is a minority of all this

Opinion, not fact and a sour one at that.

Xtrozero
I have kids and I think living out of a cheap motel or car is by far the worst situation I could put them into

I can think of an infinite number of worse situations you could put them in (you should watch the news sometime), not the least of which is having state officials come take them from their family.

Xtrozero
When it comes to food etc, as a parent I want the best I can provide for my kids, and I do not have a lot of confidence that in many of these troubled families they feel the same, 8 year olds raise 4 year olds etc.

Sour, bias, presumption without statistics, fact or reality to support it.

Xtrozero
Indigo5 Wrote: Families struggle. And families that survive economic struggle often emerge stronger for it. They often produce stronger bonds and stronger, more productive and successful citizens.

Xtrozero: Only in the movies....

No...I don't live in la-la land, and don't confuse facts with opinion...

Scientific Findings

The primary scientific findings on Grit come from Duckworth and colleagues’ examination of Grit as an individual difference trait capable of predicting long-term success.[3] It was proposed that individuals who possess a drive to tirelessly work through challenges, failures, and adversity to achieve set goals and are uniquely positioned to reach higher achievements than others who lack similar stamina. In a series of six studies Duckworth et al. proposed, developed, and tested a two-factor Grit scale with notable results. In addition to validating their Grit scale, the authors also found support suggesting that Grit provided incremental predictive validity for education and age above and beyond the Big Five personality traits (Study 2); that higher levels of Grit were more highly associated with cumulative grade point average (GPA) in an Ivy league sample when compared to those with lower Grit levels (r = .25, p < .01; Study 3); that Grit predicted retention after their first summer in two classes of cadets at the United States Military Academy (Study 4); and that participants in a National Spelling Bee with higher Grit scores typically work harder and longer than less Gritty peers, ultimately resulting in better performance. This series of studies provides empirical evidence that an individual difference conceptualized as Grit can account for significant variance in performance across a variety of settings. Grit predicts beyond the typical and unrelated cognitive construct of IQ and can account for variance over and above what is observed in the Big 5 personality construct of conscientiousness.

en.wikipedia.org...(personality_trait)

Also research...the book "How Children Succeed"...Children and "resilience" and Children and "grit"..

The number one factor that determines success is not intelligence.

Economic hardship (long-term) is detrimental to children. economic hardship (short term) builds resilience and grit...qualities that statistically are much greater predictors of long-term success than intelligence, GPA or practically any other measure.

Xtrozero
but we all know that in many of these cases the parent(s) never quite gets back up.

Again...What you think you know ...

Homeless with families...70% of them...less than 3 months
futureofchildren.org...

Average time families are homeless 5-8 Months.
www.nytimes.com...

Indigo5

Also research...the book "How Children Succeed"...Children and "resilience" and Children and "grit"..

The number one factor that determines success is not intelligence.

Economic hardship (long-term) is detrimental to children. economic hardship (short term) builds resilience and grit...qualities that statistically are much greater predictors of long-term success than intelligence, GPA or practically any other measure.

Depends on the parents.... We are not typically talking short term since the vast majority that are short term are most likely not on the streets. Ya, there are some cases where all the parents/relatives are dead or out of their lives, but short term can be overcome a multi-number of ways.

What point are you trying to prove? I'm sure grit is a national standard and not something someone dreamed up... but in any case I'm not talking short term, but longer term.

wow heaven forbid they try to keep homeless people alive and in warm safe places.

only read the first few replies and faith in humanity is shot dead.
let's break up families! who cares if mom and pop had good jobs before losing them and sadly ended up in the streets. it can happen to anyone.

im not a cruel hearted person
but sometimes i really wish those who slam the poor would end up in their shoes. empathy, people. EMPATHY.

ohhh i dislike the first few replies on here. hopefully more will have caring understanding empathic folk who feel as I do.


because every single homeless person and familis are there because drugs. hahaha. wow.

reply to post by sarra1833


Good reply. Where is the empathy? Apparently that's a bad word now.