Talk:Taxing and Spending Clause

message: This article, formerly "Taxing and Spending Clause", was moved to General Welfare Clause because, firstly, the former gets only 3,130 Google hits and the latter gets 2,270,000 27,300.  Moreover the article's own first reference supports the new name as primary, and doesn't even recognize the old one. Squee23 19:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you left off a quotation mark, but 27,000 is still much larger than 3,000. Publicola 20:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops! Squee23 21:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not so sure WP:NC agrees. Next time, though, please move the talk page too.  MilesAgain (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You can not simply swap redirects and copy-paste to move a page because that looses the article history, which violates the GFDL; you have to use the "move" tab.  When that doesn't work, or the move is contentious as this one clearly is from above, you have to go to WP:RM and follow the instructions there.  Given the google hit count on the two names, I don't think you have much of a chance, so I "moved" the article back the way you did. FarmBoi (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with FarmBoi here, per Wikipedia:ANI#History_merge_needed. The article should be moved back to what it was before the cut-and-paste move (General Welfare Clause) and a request should be made at WP:RM that people can discuss. MilesAgain (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from "Taxing and Spending Clause"

message: While this article currently provides basic information about what the clause is, it could be improved by explaining its significance. As I understand it, the expansion in interpretation of this and the Interstate Commerce Clause is the main legal basis by which the US federal government has grown in centralized power over the last century or so. This article would be better if it got into the context of the 1930s debates over the Constitution and the New Deal. -Kris Schnee 02:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Significance

message: The entire clause per se is named TSC. The GWC is the following only: "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;" and the Uniformity Clause is only: "but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." If the you guys want to have the GWC as its own article, fine. But don't move the whole TSC to the GWC article. They are not the same thing. GWC is but a component of the TSC; what you guys are doing is like redirecting an article about Automobiles to an article about Tires. I recommend that if you want the GWC to be its own article that you move only the GWC part of this article, and then summarize (but not remove) the GWC portion of the TSC article. The reason I put GWC in this article is that I felt it was too short to be on its own, and it also has a big ifluence on the operation of the TSC. Foofighter20x (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are really not allowed to move things this way -- if you obscure the article's history you violate the GFDL which requires attribution.  The way things stand now, you will need to have an admin do a history merge :( MilesAgain (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's section 4(I) among other places. See Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. MilesAgain (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved GWC back to TSC

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
====Support====
* Strong support for move, as requester, and per discussion below. MilesAgain (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * In response to your concern #1, I have re-tabulated the hit count below to include only those articles which also include "United States Constitution" or as with "U.S." or "US". I have also tabulated the uses by the U.S. government itself. As you can see, the ratios are still heavily weighted in favor of "General Welfare Clause."  In response you your concern #2, you have not explained why sources such as this or this refer to the entire clause as the GWC and do not even list the TSC as a synonym.  Your concern #3 doesn't seem to have a lot to do with this article, which is not about a power.  Would there need to be an "establishment power" for there to be an Establishment Clause? MilesAgain (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *The point of the copious sources cited in the first instance is not merely that some hits may refer to a different "general welfare clause", but that a "general welfare clause" is a generic concept, whereas there is only one "Taxing and Spending Clause". Also, the Establishment clause grants no powers whatsoever - there is therefore nothing more logical to call it. The Taxing and Spending Clause grants the power to tax, and the power to spend; that is its chief purpose. bd2412 T 17:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: * Strong support for move, as requester, and per discussion below. MilesAgain (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *Strong oppose. bd2412 T I base this on three considerations:
#First, a "general welfare clause" is a common provision of any Constitution (or even a city charter, and in some cases of an individual statute) that provides for the general welfare of the people thereunder. See, e.g.:
#*"Home rule charter cities simply include a general welfare clause or "all powers clause" within the provisions of their charters."
#*"Alabama adopted a new Confederate Constitution, which "affirmed that the states were 'sovereign and independent' and omitted a general welfare clause. "
#*"Minneapolis is a home-rule-charter city with a general welfare clause, and as such has some power to enact traffic regulations..."
#*"The fact that the legislature has the ability to do pretty much anything it wants under the State's general welfare clause, as Representative Valihura told me, just doesn't make it right for them to walk in and stomp on the property rights of restaurant, casino, hotel, and bar owners."
#*"Under the provisions of municipal charters which are known as the general welfare clauses, a city, by virtue of its police power, may adopt ordinances to the peace, safety, health, morals and the best and highest interests of the municipality."
#*"Under its general welfare clause a municipality may regulate the sale of milk". William Wheeler, The Law of Pure Food and Drugs, National and State (1912) p.135.
#*"There was also a general welfare clause allowing the parties to present evidence on '[a]ny other factors which reasonably relate to the public health, safety and welfare.' Id. (quoting Milwaukee Code of Ordinances § 90-5-8(c-1))." Daley v. Gorajec, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57842 (S.D. Ind. 2007).
#*"Section 34 [of the Ohio Constitution] grants the General Assembly authority to pass laws 'providing for the comfort, health, safety, and general welfare of all employees...' Lima argues that the general welfare clause grants the General Assembly authority to pass laws addressing 'employment issues directly related to the working environment.' The general welfare clause states laws may be passed 'providing for the comfort, health, safety, and general welfare of employees.'" City of Lima v. State, 2007 Ohio 6419, P26 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007).
#*§ 5(S) of the Maryland Constitution is "a 'general welfare' clause that had been broadly construed to permit charter counties to legislate beyond the powers expressly enumerated in the Express Powers Act". Tyma v. Montgomery County, 369 Md. 497, 511 (Md. 2002).
#*"Although police powers are not without limitation, Pennsylvania courts have recognized that municipalities have the power to enact legislation aimed at protecting the health, safety, and welfare of citizens under the general welfare clauses contained in municipal codes". Taylor v. Harmony Township Board of Commissioners, 851 A.2d 1020, 1024-1025 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004)).
#:Thus, if we move to that title, eventually we'd have to disambiguate it. General welfare clauses are ubiquitous - a Lexis search of cases decided in the past ten years turned up 18 hits for "general welfare clause", at least half of which referred to state or city provisions. For the same period, there are 46 hits for "taxing and spending clause", all of which refer to Art. I, § 8, of the United States Constitution.
#Second, the "general welfare" provision is only part of the "Taxing and Spending Clause". Having the article at this title would be sort of like having "Bill of Rights" at "First Amendment".
#Third, there is no "general welfare" power. General welfare is one of the purposes towards which Congress can use its power of taxing and spending.
::* In response to your concern #1, I have re-tabulated the hit count below to include only those articles which also include "United States Constitution" or as with "U.S." or "US". I have also tabulated the uses by the U.S. government itself. As you can see, the ratios are still heavily weighted in favor of "General Welfare Clause."  In response you your concern #2, you have not explained why sources such as this or this refer to the entire clause as the GWC and do not even list the TSC as a synonym.  Your concern #3 doesn't seem to have a lot to do with this article, which is not about a power.  Would there need to be an "establishment power" for there to be an Establishment Clause? MilesAgain (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *The point of the copious sources cited in the first instance is not merely that some hits may refer to a different "general welfare clause", but that a "general welfare clause" is a generic concept, whereas there is only one "Taxing and Spending Clause". Also, the Establishment clause grants no powers whatsoever - there is therefore nothing more logical to call it. The Taxing and Spending Clause grants the power to tax, and the power to spend; that is its chief purpose. bd2412 T 17:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: Using our free Westlaw service, I found that GWC was used in 11 and TSC in 9 SCOTUS cases.  Here are the cases with citation and year:
GWC
*Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)
*Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968 dissenting opinion)
*Fortson v. Morris, 385 U.S. 231 (1966)
*Ivanhoe Irr. Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275 (1958 overturned but not for use of the GWC term)
*Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Ala., 353 U.S. 448 (1957)
*Silesian Am. Corp. v. Clark, 332 U.S. 469 (1947)
*Helvering v. Davis 301 U.S. 619, (1937)
*U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, (1936)
*Water, Light & Gas Co. of Hutchinson, Kan. v. City of Hutchinson, 207 U.S. 385 (1907)
*City of Richmond v. Smith, 82 U.S. 429 (1872)
*Smith v. Turner, 48 U.S. 283 (1849)
TSC
*Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 2553 (2007)
*DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006)
*Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988)
*Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982)
*Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 (1974)
*U. S. v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974)
*Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U.S. 1316 (1973)
*Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972)
*Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968 majority opinion)
Buckley v. Valeo appears to be a goose in the pattern.  Flast v. Cohen is the only to contain both and that is divided between the dissent by Harlan and the majority by Warren. Legis Nuntius (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for looking into this. I maintain that the article should not be moved, but instead split between the two titles in that GWC should focus on spending and its typical employment as a phrase conducive to governmental expansion, and the rest of the article should remain as is (i.e. about taxation and its restrictions). Foofighter20x (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare the 18 Supreme Court cases referencing the "taxing and spending power" to the zero for Supreme Court cases referencing the "general welfare power" (compared again to the 38 state supreme court decisions mentioning the "general welfare power, none of which refer to the U.S. Constitution). bd2412 T 23:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't believe that I missed this discussion - where was I?! In any case, I would have joined BD and Foo in the most strenuous opposition. As I recently noted in comments below, the U.S. Congress does not have the power to make law for general welfare; the U.S. Government is a government of enumerated powers. Calling this a "general welfare clause" would be completely inaccurate. State Constitutions have general welfare clauses, precisely because, purusant to the framers' express intent, only state governments have the power to regulate for the general welfare, i.e. "police power." Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the terms "General Welfare Clause" and "Taxing and Spending Clause" by SCOTUS

message: lol. What happened now? :) -- Foofighter20x (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.acslaw.org/files/KF%20Chapters/ACS_KeepFaith_Chap%204.pdf
As one can see, halfway down the second page in the chapter, even the scholars on the left call it TASC and not GWC, which is a component part of the TASC. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved back to GWC?

message: I changed a single word in the "Power of the purse, generally" section which was strongly worded with the word "any" in the context of "... serves as a constitutional check and balance on the legislature itself, prohibiting any spending that does not have broad support. I hope everyone agrees that changing 'any' to 'some' is a better description for this sentence. It is widely accepted that riders, special interest spending and buying votes are a part of negotiations which are accepted however individual expenditures will lack "broad support" on there own merits.  —Preceding dedes016 comment added by 72.243.144.121 (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the word implicit. The point being made by that sentence is one of political theory, and not necessarily one of actual fact. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Power of the purse, generally" section 

message: Substituted at 07:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Taxing and Spending 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806204245/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse2002.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse2002.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified