You could have saved yourself a lot of legal blah blah blah, I did mention the supreme court found country welfare to be a person welfare. That doesn't make it right. The court also once found Dred Scott to be a non citizen. That brought us the 14th amendment. The court often misuses that. You're working on the premise of the way things are and I, or we, are working on the way things were intended or should be. All social systems or democracies run out of money or collapse when the people are able rob the treasury and vote free stuff for themselves.<quoted text>
Back to this again, Teaman? It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same t-bagger sht it doesn't make it true.
Do you understand the meaning of "res judicata"? The meaning of "general welfare" has been debated, settled and is not open to further judicial review.
Helvering v. Davis,(1937) Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo. This decision slams shut further judicial review of Congress' right to interpret the "general welfare" clause. It also gives you the reason why the Court insists in interpreting this way.
[Excerpts of Helvering v. Davis]
"Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare'[...] There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views[...] The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event[...] The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law."
"The problem [social security] is plainly national in area and dimensions. Moreover, laws of the separate states cannot deal with it effectively. Congress, at least, had a basis for that belief. States and local governments are often lacking in the resources that are necessary to finance an adequate program of security for the aged. This is brought out with a wealth of illustration in recent studies of the problem. Apart from the failure of resources, states and local governments are at times reluctant to increase so heavily the burden of taxation to be borne by their residents for fear of placing themselves in a position of economic disadvantage as compared with neighbors or competitors. We have seen this in our study of the problem of unemployment compensation[...] A system of old age pensions has special dangers of its own if put in force in one state and rejected in another. The existence of such a system is a bait to the needy and dependent elsewhere, encouraging them to migrate and seek a haven of repose. Only a power that is national can serve the interests of all."
In other words, the United States Supreme Court has decided on multiple occasions (Helvering v. Davis, supra., United States v. Butler,(1936), et.al.), that Congress decides what's "general welfare" and what's "necessary and proper" - not the Constitution.
Why do you folk keep beating the same dog? It sounds pretty rhino to me, Teaman.
Move on, man....
"that Congress decides what's "general welfare" and what's "necessary and proper" - not the Constitution"
Think real long and hard about what you said there. The constitution was supposed to limit the power of congress. What is the difference between 535 dictators and one dictator whether they are voted in or not? It was congresses's decision on what is "necessary and proper" that brought us the financial crisis with their push for low income home ownership.
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
Alexis de Tocqueville
BTW, using the word, teabagger, isn't very professional for a lawyer.