![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Why does the US section stop at 1936? The General Welfare Clause has played an important role in recent cases, such as the 2012 case, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I have begun a new page on this as a general concept, see Talk:Taxing and Spending Clause for discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The United States section starts out saying that, "the U.S. Supreme Court has held: ... that Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction of the Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clause—as elaborated in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States—is the correct interpretation. Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government."
But it ends saying, "Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law."
While the former statement might have been true in the 1800s, it is no longer true and should be made consistent witht he latter statement. 75.166.210.164 ( talk) 03:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Now finally, the section I changed referred to the Supreme Court ruling and opinion that endorsed the Hamiltonian view, as it was espoused in Justice Story's interpretation. I cited the exact document that the Supreme Court referenced, which document is also referenced in the article. Whatever footnotes are in Story's document are utterly irrelevant, the Supreme Court was endorsing Story's INTERPRETATION, not his FOOTNOTES. Esplainin2do ( talk) 23:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
There's no cause to cut out a reliably and verifiably sourced portion on how there are two mention of general welfare in the constitution, and that the primary legal focus is on the latter. Additionally, there's no cause to make a statement here in the talk page and then wait an unreasonable short amount of time to make the edit changes. The world doesn't revolve around you, and people have lives. You need to build consensus. Don't expect it will be done overnight, or even within a few hours. Make your claim here on the talk page, then wait a while to see if you get a well-argued response. Consensus usually takes more than a week to build. If you're lucky, it doesn't take more than a month. (I've experienced longer waits, myself.) Thankfully, I don't have much to do right now outside of work, so I can respond reasonably quickly. However, tonight I happened to be busy. So, let's work as a team, not at cross-purposes as antagonists, ok? Further, bolding your statements for emphasis doesn't help you any. It looks like you are trying to bully as opposed to attempting to advocate. Relax. We'll get this worked out, but I'm getting a vibe that you have an "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude, and that's got to stop. I'm willing to grant that's not your intent, but that's how you are coming across. For now, keep it to the talk page and we'll get it sorted. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 08:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
FooFighter, you did not undo your revert. I did it for you. If you still have questions, please TALK about them. In the meantime, you should perhaps consider reading (or re-reading as the case may be) the following reference #2; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause#References Esplainin2do ( talk) 02:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
To respond to the other questions presented above, Espy: it appears from Story's own work (cited in the draft above) that he actually adopted Jefferson's view of both the clause as a whole and the taxing power, but squeezed in Hamilton's view of the spending power; Justice Roberts may have elided that in the Butler opinion. However, in order to say that in the article, there would have to be a reliable and verifiable, independently published thrid-party making that statement. Alas, this issue is such small legal potatoes that I doubt I'd find one. Thus, I stick to what the sources themselves say, and make no implications. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 20:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
WHOOPS. I made some further edits (which by now should be non controversial), but I forgot to log in. User editing from 71.63.252.230 is me! Esplainin2do ( talk) 22:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, removed/inserted sources the article referenced, but did not detail. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 16:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Referring to the Madisonion Interpretation:
Upon reading this, and upon reading the Court's language, the resolution to this conflict should be obvious. Esplainin2do ( talk) 19:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is in the page: While the Federalist papers are considered an important contemporary account of the views and intentions of the founders[17], they are widely considered to have had little effect on the actual passage of the constitution.[18][19][20]
Reading reference 18, I do not see the claim that the Federalist papers had little effect. Matter of fact, I see the contrary claim. What does seem factual is that the Constitution had sufficient votes to pass prior to New York voting. However, I don't see this as evidence that the Federalist Papers (and the ideas expressed in them and presented in the convention while published in New York) had little effect. And there is NO support that this is "widely considered". I will strike the second half of this sentence unless there is some objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.177.43.149 ( talk) 18:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Is it?
Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=General_Welfare_clause&diff=501845877&oldid=501822482
These are not fixes, this is a wholesale revert, his third in two days. User has utterly failed to support the language he defends. Esplainin2do ( talk) 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:General welfare clause/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
==WP Tax Class==
I tentatively classed the article as a start article, but I think it could go up to a B article because it is well referenced and delves into the topic in depth. I think the article can go into a good article class if an impact section were added that detailed how the clause as impacted the country in question. EECavazos 20:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC) ==WP Tax Priority== Mid priority because it is an importance concept within the country wo which it applies. EECavazos 20:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC) |
Substituted at 21:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on General welfare clause. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Why does the US section stop at 1936? The General Welfare Clause has played an important role in recent cases, such as the 2012 case, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I have begun a new page on this as a general concept, see Talk:Taxing and Spending Clause for discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The United States section starts out saying that, "the U.S. Supreme Court has held: ... that Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction of the Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clause—as elaborated in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States—is the correct interpretation. Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government."
But it ends saying, "Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law."
While the former statement might have been true in the 1800s, it is no longer true and should be made consistent witht he latter statement. 75.166.210.164 ( talk) 03:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Now finally, the section I changed referred to the Supreme Court ruling and opinion that endorsed the Hamiltonian view, as it was espoused in Justice Story's interpretation. I cited the exact document that the Supreme Court referenced, which document is also referenced in the article. Whatever footnotes are in Story's document are utterly irrelevant, the Supreme Court was endorsing Story's INTERPRETATION, not his FOOTNOTES. Esplainin2do ( talk) 23:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
There's no cause to cut out a reliably and verifiably sourced portion on how there are two mention of general welfare in the constitution, and that the primary legal focus is on the latter. Additionally, there's no cause to make a statement here in the talk page and then wait an unreasonable short amount of time to make the edit changes. The world doesn't revolve around you, and people have lives. You need to build consensus. Don't expect it will be done overnight, or even within a few hours. Make your claim here on the talk page, then wait a while to see if you get a well-argued response. Consensus usually takes more than a week to build. If you're lucky, it doesn't take more than a month. (I've experienced longer waits, myself.) Thankfully, I don't have much to do right now outside of work, so I can respond reasonably quickly. However, tonight I happened to be busy. So, let's work as a team, not at cross-purposes as antagonists, ok? Further, bolding your statements for emphasis doesn't help you any. It looks like you are trying to bully as opposed to attempting to advocate. Relax. We'll get this worked out, but I'm getting a vibe that you have an "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude, and that's got to stop. I'm willing to grant that's not your intent, but that's how you are coming across. For now, keep it to the talk page and we'll get it sorted. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 08:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
FooFighter, you did not undo your revert. I did it for you. If you still have questions, please TALK about them. In the meantime, you should perhaps consider reading (or re-reading as the case may be) the following reference #2; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause#References Esplainin2do ( talk) 02:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
To respond to the other questions presented above, Espy: it appears from Story's own work (cited in the draft above) that he actually adopted Jefferson's view of both the clause as a whole and the taxing power, but squeezed in Hamilton's view of the spending power; Justice Roberts may have elided that in the Butler opinion. However, in order to say that in the article, there would have to be a reliable and verifiable, independently published thrid-party making that statement. Alas, this issue is such small legal potatoes that I doubt I'd find one. Thus, I stick to what the sources themselves say, and make no implications. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 20:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
WHOOPS. I made some further edits (which by now should be non controversial), but I forgot to log in. User editing from 71.63.252.230 is me! Esplainin2do ( talk) 22:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, removed/inserted sources the article referenced, but did not detail. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 16:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Referring to the Madisonion Interpretation:
Upon reading this, and upon reading the Court's language, the resolution to this conflict should be obvious. Esplainin2do ( talk) 19:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is in the page: While the Federalist papers are considered an important contemporary account of the views and intentions of the founders[17], they are widely considered to have had little effect on the actual passage of the constitution.[18][19][20]
Reading reference 18, I do not see the claim that the Federalist papers had little effect. Matter of fact, I see the contrary claim. What does seem factual is that the Constitution had sufficient votes to pass prior to New York voting. However, I don't see this as evidence that the Federalist Papers (and the ideas expressed in them and presented in the convention while published in New York) had little effect. And there is NO support that this is "widely considered". I will strike the second half of this sentence unless there is some objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.177.43.149 ( talk) 18:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Is it?
Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=General_Welfare_clause&diff=501845877&oldid=501822482
These are not fixes, this is a wholesale revert, his third in two days. User has utterly failed to support the language he defends. Esplainin2do ( talk) 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:General welfare clause/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
==WP Tax Class==
I tentatively classed the article as a start article, but I think it could go up to a B article because it is well referenced and delves into the topic in depth. I think the article can go into a good article class if an impact section were added that detailed how the clause as impacted the country in question. EECavazos 20:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC) ==WP Tax Priority== Mid priority because it is an importance concept within the country wo which it applies. EECavazos 20:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC) |
Substituted at 21:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on General welfare clause. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)