capitol hill dome open
That's My Congress
A politically independent journal of the campaigns and legislation of the United States Congress.
  • Home
  • Special Topics
  • Contact
  • Card Game

A Libertarian Ignorance Of General Welfare Challenges Jared Polis

Posted on December 22 2009 by Congress Watcher

It doesn’t take a genius to identify the political ideology of Stephen Bailey, a Republican who is challenging progressive Democrat Jared Polis for Congress in 2010. Bailey fits within the trend within the Republican Party of emphasizing libertarian ideas.

stephen baileyBailey’s frequent references to Ayn Rand are the first big clue. Bailey’s suggestions that practically any action by the federal government is unconstitutional is a confirmation. Bailey explains, “I hold to a strict construction of the U.S. Constitution. Congress’s powers are limited to those enumerated in Article I, Section 8.”

Actually, there are other parts of the Constitution besides that particular section that provide powers to Congress. But, nitpicking aside, what kind of congressional power does Bailey think is unconstitutional, under Article 1, Section 8?

Helping people, actually. Stephen Bailey doesn’t think that the government should be in the business of helping its citizens. He refers to government assistance, paid for with money gathered by taxes, as “enforced charitable giving”:

“As Ayn Rand said: Morality ends where a gun begins. Unconstitutional powers currently exercised by Congress are driven from a mistaken desire to enforce morality on the citizenry through government enforced charitable giving.”

Stephen Bailey seems very certain that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution forbids the spending of tax money in order to help people, but if you actually read Article 1, Section 8 instead of just accepting Bailey’s word for it, you’ll see that he’s just plain wrong. Article 1, Section 8 begins: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States”.

The meaning of this clause is very clear: If a legislative action can be justified as providing for the general welfare of the United States, then Congress has the power to do it (other provisions providing some limitations, such as the guarantees of free speech and so on in the Bill of Rights). There’s no provision anywhere else in the Constitution that forbids Congress from engaging in secular charitable action.

Stephen Bailey’s opposition to health care reform, and other government programs to help Americans, is based upon a profound misunderstanding of the Constitution of the United States of America. It’s the responsibility of Congress to act as one of three coequal branches of the federal government in accordance with the rules established by the Constitution. Bailey’s campaign so far suggests that, in this regard, he is poorly suited to replace Jared Polis in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Tags: ayn rand, colorado, constitution, general welfare, jared polis, libertarian, stephen bailey

5 Responses to “A Libertarian Ignorance Of General Welfare Challenges Jared Polis”

  1. Jack Crawford says:
    January 5, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    It also doesn’t take a genius to understand that the U. S. Constitution was written and adopted to LIMIT the powers of the government. The limits were imposed because people wanted the government to protect their rights, not to take away the money they earned in order to give it to those who hadn’t earned it. Section 8 gives powers to “provide for the … general welfare of the United States” Did you notice that it doesn’t say to provide for the welfare of individuals who are in need? This was argued over two hundred years ago in The Federalist #41. If “helping people” was a primary role of the government, then we would have immediately established some kind of collectivist, statist society instead of an individualist, Capitalist society that we had for so long. It took a long time for people to be corrupted to the point where they do not understand this. But thanks for publicizing Ayn Rand. May her books sell ever more in the future. We need her philosophy, her morality of rational self interest especially, to save us from committing national suicide.

  2. Congress Watcher says:
    January 5, 2010 at 10:16 pm

    Jack, the Constitution was written in order to provide a legal foundation for government powers, not to take powers away from a previously existing government. If you’ll review the history of the document, you’ll find that it was written to correct the problems that took place under the Articles of Confederation, which were much too weak.

    You yourself argue that the general welfare clause would count if only we established a “collectivist” society, but that’s just what we did, to a reasonable extent, with the general welfare clause. The argument that the government can help the general welfare of the nation without helping the actual American people makes no sense, especially when you consider that the system of government established under the Constitution is supposed to be a government of the people.

  3. Jack Crawford says:
    January 7, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    I disagree. The constitution was written to establish a new government with more, but still limited powers than existed under the Articles of Confederation. They limited the government powers specifically because the government of England was trampling over their rights before the revolutionary war was won. To talk about a system that provides welfare for “the people” when you know full well that some people are sacrificed for the benefit of other people is disingenuous at best. To say that Bill Gates would be eligible for food stamps should he ever need them is not very persuasive.

  4. Congressional Aid says:
    January 7, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    Jack, for centuries now the Supreme Court has agreed with the Hamiltonian (as in Alexander Hamilton) understanding of the general welfare clause in the U.S. Constitution. I understand you disagree with the Supreme Court’s understanding of the Constitution, but that’s not really going to get you far in a practical sense.

  5. Jack Crawford says:
    January 7, 2010 at 6:20 pm

    The Supreme court also disagreed with the proposition that the draft was involuntary servitude. If you remember, a republican president was in office and got rid of the draft a few years ago, probably before you were born. For all I know neither the Supreme Court nor Charlie Rangel (who wanted to reinstitute the draft in this century) are against slavery.

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Toothless Anti-Slavery Resolution Is An Insult
Putting the Parker Griffith Party Switch in Context
  • red congress banner
  • Recent Comments

    • R. C. Jackman on Roll Call: 88 Tea Party members of Congress vote for Unrestrained War Powers
    • Richard Page on Jones and Cleaver Try To Convert Churches Into Political Tools
    • Viv Szabo on Status of the Equal Rights Amendment
    • James on Fact Check: Do 70 Members of Congress Belong to Socialist Party of America Caucus?
  • RSS Legislative News

    • Barack Obama Supports Big Brother Spying Powers Against Americans. Do You?
    • 5 Year Extension Of Warrantless Surveillance On Americans Advanced By Secret Senate Hearing
    • Beloved Defender of the Constitution Ron Paul Just Voted Against the Constitution Again
    • New Sanctions Against Iran Smelling Very Oily
    • 77 Democrats Sacrifice Medicare To Protect Military Spending
    • Dozen Democrats Join House GOP To Demolish Nuclear Nonproliferation
  • Legislative Scorecards

    112th Congress of 2011-2012:

    Senate Scorecard

    House Scorecard



    Historical Records
    111th Congress
    ...House
    ...Senate
    110th Congress
    ...House
    ...Senate
    109th Congress
    ...House
    ...Senate

  • This Week In Congress Newsletter

    Receive our This Week in Congress Newsletter by e-mail:



    Our Privacy Commitment: We will not sell or give your e-mail address to any other person or company. We will only send you our This Week in Congress Newsletter, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

  • Recent Posts

    • Congress Preparing To Extend Electronic Spy Dragnet For Five More Years
    • Arkansas Liberals Find An Alternative To Blue Dog Democrats
    • Does Super PAC Pay Aguilar Family Member’s Salary on Ground Campaign?
    • Connie Mack Lunches With A Lobbyist
    • 79 House Democrats Vote To Keep Afghanistan War Going On Even Longer
    • Silly Season And Serious Season In The U.S. House
    • Michael Grimm Taking Money In Private Cigar Club Tonight
    • Terrorists and Heart Disease: Who in Congress Focuses on the Real Harm?
  • Search For Legislation

     

     
  • Tags

    afghanistan barack obama blue dogs california campaign finance christianity climate change congress constitution cosponsorship deepwater horizon democrats dennis kucinich economy energy environment equality fisa amendments act florida global warming Green Party gulf of mexico health care house house of representatives lgbt lobbyists marriage military new york obama offshore drilling oil oil spill patriot act pollution religion republicans senate separation of church and state spending spying surveillance taxes war
  • Categories

    • Activism
    • All Articles
    • campaign gear
    • caucuses
    • Ethics
    • Events
    • Featured
    • House campaigns
    • House hearings
    • House legislation
    • Ideas
    • Links
    • Personalities
    • Podcasts
    • Power Plays
    • questions
    • Senate campaigns
    • Senate hearings
    • Senate legislation
    • Site News
  • Older Articles

  • Newsfeeds

    RSSTMC Articles
    RSSComments
    RSS5 Most Liberal Senators
    RSS5 Most Conservative Senators
    RSS5 Most Liberal Representatives
    RSS5 Most Conservative Representatives

  • Archives

    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • April 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
    • December 2008
    • November 2008
    • September 2008
    • August 2008
    • July 2008
    • June 2008
    • May 2008
    • April 2008
    • March 2008
    • February 2008
    • January 2008
    • December 2007
    • November 2007
    • October 2007
    • August 2007
    • May 2007
    • April 2007
    • March 2007
    • November 2006
    • October 2006
    • September 2006
    • August 2006
    • July 2006
    • June 2006
    • May 2006
    • April 2006
    • March 2006
    • February 2006
    • January 2006

Admin


Log in

Copyright © 2012 That's My Congress - Wordpress Theme developed by Web Hosting Fan