PDA

View Full Version : Are You a "Tenther"?




clb09
09-04-2009, 07:16 PM
http://pr.thinkprogress.org/2009/09/pr20090901



DISTORTING THE DOCUMENT: Tenthers derive their narrow vision of the Constitution from a strained reading of the Tenth Amendment, which provides that the Constitution contains an itemized list of federal powers and anything not contained in that list is beyond Congress' authority. In the tenthers' eyes, Congress' powers must all be read too narrowly to allow most federal statutes to exist. However, the tenther constitution bears little resemblance to the words of the document itself. Contrary to tenther claims that federal spending programs like Medicare or Social Security are unconstitutional, Article I of the Constitution empowers Congress to "lay and collect taxes" and to "provide for...the general welfare of the United States," which unambiguously authorizes it to spend money in ways that benefit the nation. Similarly, Congress' broad authority to enact regulatory schemes that "substantially affect interstate commerce" easily encompasses laws like the federal minimum wage and the requirement that businesses do not discriminate on the basis of race. As Roosevelt chided tenther-like conservatives from his era, "The Constitution of 1787 did not make our democracy impotent."


http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/04/posey-tenther/


Earlier this week, Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) held a health care town hall meeting in Melbourne, FL, which attracted well over 2,000 attendees. Posey is most famously known for introducing the “birther” bill — legislation that would require presidential candidates to submit their birth certificates to prove they are really U.S. citizens. But the “birther “conspiracy wasn’t the right-wing fringe theory that Posey spent his time discussing on Wednesday night.

Instead, Posey expressed his allegiance to “tentherism” — a stance adopted by many right-wing activists which posits that health care reform is an unconstitutional infringement on states’ rights. In an interview with ThinkProgress following the event, Posey told us in no uncertain terms that he believes Obama’s health care reform proposal is unconstitutional.

Posey’s “tenther” views found strong support among the crowd. Indeed, one of the questions posed to him from a town hall attendee wondered “how are any federal solutions to the health care problems constitutional?” (Posey responded that “there are some definite constituational questions.”)

Austin
09-04-2009, 07:27 PM
Man I'd love to amend the constitution and get rid of that damned general welfare cause... Even though we know that it doesn't really mean anything, others will always use it to justify the encroachments of the federal government.

Objectivist
09-04-2009, 07:27 PM
"general welfare"? Want to show me where you find that in the United States Constitution?

"Insure domestic tranquility" comes before that in the Pre Amble.
look at my sig.

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.

1000-points-of-fright
09-04-2009, 07:32 PM
Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Any other questions? Not that I agree with the abuse of the term, but you did ask.

Objectivist
09-04-2009, 07:34 PM
Do you understand the definition of tranquility? SO it seems to be a wash on taxes as taxes disrupt my peace or tranquility.

Objectivist
09-04-2009, 07:37 PM
Any other questions? Not that I agree with the abuse of the term, but you did ask.

At the writing the term welfare did not refer to government handouts to losers. Otherwise we would have had free healthcare two hundred years ago.

clb09
09-04-2009, 07:39 PM
At the writing the term welfare did not refer to government handouts to losers. Otherwise we would have had free healthcare two hundred years ago.

THANK YOU!

From Wikipedia:


History

In the Roman Empire, social welfare to help the poor was enlarged by the Caesar Trajan[2]. Trajan's program brought acclaim from many including Pliny the Younger.[3]

In the Jewish tradition, charity represented by tzedakah, justice, and the poor are entitled to charity as a matter of right rather than benevolence. Contemporary charity is regarded as a continuation of the Biblical Maaser Ani, or poor-tithe, as well as Biblical practices including permitting the poor to glean the corners of a field, harvest during the Shmita (Sabbatical year), and other practices. Voluntary charity, along with prayer and repentance, is regarded as ameliorating the consequences of bad acts.

The concepts of welfare and pension were also introduced in the early Islamic law[4] of the Caliphate as forms of Zakat (charity), one of the Five Pillars of Islam, since the time of the Abbasid caliph Al-Mansur in the 8th century. The taxes (including Zakat and Jizya) collected in the treasury of an Islamic government were used to provide income for the needy, including the poor, elderly, orphans, widows, and the disabled. According to the Islamic jurist Al-Ghazali (Algazel, 1058-1111), the government was also expected to store up food supplies in every region in case a disaster or famine occurs.[4]

There is relatively little statistical data on welfare transfer payments until at least the High Middle Ages. In the medieval period and until the Industrial Revolution, the function of welfare payments in Europe was principally achieved through private giving or charity. In those early times there was a much broader group considered in poverty compared to the 21st century.

Early welfare programs included the English Poor Law of 1601, which gave parishes the responsibility for providing welfare payments to the poor.[5] This system was substantially modified by the 19th-century Poor Law Amendment Act, which introduced the system of workhouses.

It was predominantly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that an organized system of state welfare provision was introduced in many countries. Otto von Bismarck, Chancellor of Germany, introduced one of the first welfare systems for the working classes. In Great Britain the Liberal government of Henry Campbell-Bannerman and David Lloyd George introduced the National Insurance system in 1911,[6] a system later expanded by Clement Attlee. The United States did not have an organized welfare system until the Great Depression, when emergency relief measures were introduced under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Even then, Roosevelt's New Deal focused predominantly on a program of providing work and stimulating the economy through public spending on projects, rather than on cash payments.

1000-points-of-fright
09-04-2009, 07:40 PM
I agree. But you asked...


"general welfare"? Want to show me where you find that in the United States Constitution?

So I showed you. Don't get mad at me for answering your question.

Objectivist
09-04-2009, 07:48 PM
I agree. But you asked...



So I showed you. Don't get mad at me for answering your question.

No problem just to make the point of "tranquility". My tranquility comes before anyone else's "welfare".

Original_Intent
09-04-2009, 07:53 PM
Also, welfare (redistribution of wealth) is NOT GENERAL meaning that it benefits all equally, or at least benefits all to some extent. All manner of wealth redistribution, subsidies and so forth are SPECIFIC welfare not general.

Also by interpreting "general welfare" as ut us currently, there is no meaningful limit on government at all, since anything can be argued "to be for your own good, you are just to stupid to understand how it is benefitting you".

1000-points-of-fright
09-04-2009, 07:59 PM
I find it hard to believe that the founders wrote "general welfare" to mean what the progressives think it means and yet be so specific with the powers of the government and even go so far as to reinforce in the 10A that it can only do those things and nothing else.

I also just noticed this...

In Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 it says...


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

But then it goes on to say...


but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Does that mean that taxes do not have to be uniform? That doesn't seem fair.

AutoDas
09-04-2009, 07:59 PM
Does this make them Tenth Amendment deniers?

Matt Collins
09-04-2009, 08:08 PM
The GWC is a restriction on federal power, not another grant thereto. Everything the federal government does must be for the general welfare, as opposed to the welfare of a specific few. If the feds build a road, it must be for everyone use, not just a special class of people.


Whoever wrote the op's link is an idiot and clearly has not studied the document nor the history surrounding it.