General welfare and Unemployment

[The Straight Story]

In explaining this section, known as the “general welfare clause,” Thomas Jefferson stated: “he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

Yes, Thomas Jefferson — a founding father — stated that Congress can tax for the general welfare. In Helvering, the Supreme Court interpreted the general welfare clause expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power (an absolute power) to impose taxes and spend money for the general welfare. The Court held that the unemployment insurance program does not violate the 10th Amendment.

Writing for the majority, Justice Cardozo stated,

“. . .there is need to remind ourselves of facts as to the problem of unemployment that are now matters of common knowledge. . .the roll of the unemployed, itself formidable enough, was only a partial roll of the destitute or needy. The fact developed quickly that the states were unable to give the requisite relief. The problem had become national in area and dimensions. There was need of help from the nation if the people were not to starve. It is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose than the promotion of the general welfare.” (Emphasis added).

These cases are clear. The unemployment benefits program is constitutional. No serious constitutional scholar or politician, no matter which side of the political aisle they fall on, seriously challenges the constitutionality of these programs. While a person may have a philosophical disagreement regarding the role of the federal government in administering this or other programs, it cannot be claimed with any seriousness that it is unconstitutional.

http://www.themudflats.net/2010/09/08/unemployment-benefits-unconstitutional-time-to-divorce-joe-miller/

Thought I would put this out there since I have been dealing with a lot of rw nut cases on FB saying that the program is unconstitutional.

[The Straight Story]

1. late night kick (nt)