posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:22 PM
James Madison, Federalist #41
reply to post by beezzer
it hasn't " been covered " so answer the question
Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the
idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and
mislead, is an absurdity.
Article I, Section 8 has the general welfare as part of that sections preamble. The rest of section 8 specifically spells out what congress can spend
If the authors of the Constitution intended Congress to have unlimited powers of spending then why bother spelling out limits on that spending right
under the preamble ?
In general its been an opinion used to allow this kind of spending, that it be on a national basis, OK, that justification would seem to disallow all
the exemptions and bribes, I mean special payments to a few states. Of course that's even if I bought that theory in the first place.
To me the whole issue goes right back to intent, not the bastardization going on for along time that allows "feel good" spending contrary to the body
and language of section 8
If reading the Constitution correctly instead of picking out words or phrases from the body and misusing them - then much government spending is
technically unconstitutional including ACA.
Its just like anti 2nd amendment people cant read correctly either as they ignore that comma.
In the case of section 8 they are picking words out and running with them in ignorance of what is well enumerated below - why - because it allows
edit on 7-12-2013 by Phoenix because: add