The Mother of all Bailouts and the 10th Amendment

The general welfare clause can and is only applied to the powers delegated by the constitution to the Government. If the powers are not delegated, than that part of general welfare can not be applied. Bailout, subsidizes, welfare, medicare and medcaid etc are not part of the delegated powers for the Federal Government, but they could be part of the powers retained by the states and certainly the people. If wish to subsidize a poor smuck of a farmer or banker, that is my right and the responsibility of my actions falls on me and no one else.

RatFink - good comment, and this is a very common question.

Article 1, section 8 absolutely starts out how you've written here, but it's followed by the 18 things that congress is authorized to do to carry out those duties you've listed here.

The other option is to define it like you have. But then, "general welfare" will always be defined by whomever has more power.

For example, one decade could see bailouts as for the general welfare, another could require participation in a government run health care program, another could see religious zealots claiming that mandatory church attendance is best for the general welfare, or just about anything.

The bottom line question is pretty simple - who defines what's general welfare, and what happens if those people define it differently than you?

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;"

Not having a 1929 like meltdown of the banks, would fall under the umbrella of the General welfare of the country regardless of how badly handled and poorly executed it was.

"since that what it is. As much as I disagree with the bailout, it is inane to act like this is something other than a purchase from private organizations, as is the case with (for example) arms manufacturers. Now, what the government happens to be purchasing is essentially worthless, if not worse, so it’s something of a bad trade, in my opinion, but I can’t see how that makes it unconstitutional."

There is no power granted by the Constitution that allows the Federal government to tax people for the purposes of propping up private industries. There is a difference between purchasing equipment for the purposes of something like maintaining a Navy (which is a Constitutional role of the government) and purchasing bad debt for the sake of meddling in the economy (not a Constitutional role). That is the difference.

"since that what it is. As much as I disagree with the bailout, it is inane to act like this is something other than a purchase from private organizations, as is the case with (for example) arms manufacturers. Now, what the government happens to be purchasing is essentially worthless, if not worse, so it’s something of a bad trade, in my opinion, but I can’t see how that makes it unconstitutional."

There is no power granted by the Constitution that allows the Federal government to tax people for the purposes of propping up private industries. There is a difference between purchasing equipment for the purposes of something like maintaining a Navy (which is a Constitutional role of the government) and purchasing bad debt for the sake of meddling in the economy (not a Constitutional role). That is the difference.

"So tell me: where in the United States Constitution is the Imperial Federal Government delegated power to buy up toxic debt from private banks?"

translates to:

"So tell me: where in the United States Constitution is the Imperial Federal Government delegated power to make purchases from private organizations?"

since that what it is. As much as I disagree with the bailout, it is inane to act like this is something other than a purchase from private organizations, as is the case with (for example) arms manufacturers. Now, what the government happens to be purchasing is essentially worthless, if not worse, so it's something of a bad trade, in my opinion, but I can't see how that makes it unconstitutional.

Where is it in the Constitution that the federal government has to provide health care for everyone?

Great post Savage. Why are so few of us speaking out about this?