I'm always amazed at those who say that they are so disgusted with 'our broken and/or rigged system' -- that they will never support another Democratic Candidate again. Not unless that Candidate 'says Uncle', in precisely the way that suits their principles.
What amazes me is this: even though Democratic Candidates are as flawed and imperfect -- as conflicted -- as most human beings tend to be, they still will have a lasting impact on the nation -- even if they end up with a so-so list of Executive accomplishments (or Not).
They still get to choose WHO sits on the Supreme Court of the land [et al.] -- positions that keep on impacting the nation, for the lifetime of those Justices. Congress may write the Laws, it is the Supreme Court that interprets WHAT those Laws really mean, in their larger context. That is a LOT of power. And that is an "arc of history" has been skewing decidedly Conservative as of late.
[See: McCutcheon, Hobby Lobby, and Citizens United decisions, for examples of this recent Supreme Court trend.]
If for no other reason than that, I will keep voting Democratic -- at least until a more 'Progressive' viable option comes along.
Here is a case in point. A Supreme Court Decision (from another Roberts Court, about 80 years ago) that weighed and imparted meaning to the always controversial constitutional phrase "promote the general Welfare."
I've always taken that to be one of the key Mission Statements of America; as a benchmark to control and direct spending. Does this expenditure "promote the general Welfare," or not? Does it meet the standard of "promoting the national well-being of All the People," or not?
Or is the phrase "promote the general Welfare" just a set of meaningless words -- that "simply authorize" the Congress to 'tax and spend' -- and it has no meaning whatsoever, whenever the question is asked: Spend on what?
It seems the debate regarding the meaning of this somewhat vague "American mission statement" has been going on almost as long as the Republic itself. Perhaps ever since the words were first penned ...
Preamble -- constitutionus.com
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It is one of the reasons given, for Congress to "collect Taxes," again in the American Constitution, Article 1 -- Section 8:
Section 8 -- constitutionus.com
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;
General Welfare -- legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of government. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution cites promotion of the general welfare as a primary reason for the creation of the Constitution. Promotion of the general welfare is also a stated purpose in state constitutions and statutes. The concept sparked controversy only as a result of its inclusion in the body of the U.S. Constitution.
The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare States." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinction -- the limitation of federal power -- eventually inspired important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.
According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years.
In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
[...]
So you see the "promote the general Welfare" debate has quite a long history. Much of what we argue about now, regarding
the 'functions and limitations' of Government --
they argued about back then, when our grand Constitutional "experiment"
to govern ourselves, was just beginning.
And in the Supreme Court decision of 1936, "United States v. Butler," that all-important 'supreme' judicial guidance on this quintessential topic, was given ...
The 1936 "United States v. Butler" case was about the extent of Government Power. Could an agency of the U.S. Government -- in this case the Dept of Agriculture -- could its Secretary of Agriculture "set limits on production of certain crops and impose taxes on production in excess of these limits" -- even when authorized by the 'emergency legislation' of Congress, through the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933?
Such are the weighty decisions that the Supreme Court routinely has to make. And in this case, they ruled that the Government overstepped its constitutional bounds. The summary details of the case can be found at onelbriefs.com.
But what was noteworthy about that ruling, was the way they interpreted and applied that all-important phrase "promote the general Welfare." In this Butler case they ruled in favor of Butler -- AND in favor of the Alexander Hamilton interpretation (ie. the more liberal one) -- the one that "maintained the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation."
The catch in this case was this: they also ruled that what crops were grown where, was a "Local" welfare issue, best left to the states -- and not a "National" welfare issue, under the purview of Congressional spending. In other words, Congress does have the power to 'tax and spend' to promote the National Welfare -- it's just that, according to that Roberts court via the Ten Amendment, they ruled that the Federal Government is not explicitly granted the power to micro-manage local crop production; that that is an enterprise best left to the states:
United States v. Butler -- law.cornell.edu
297 U.S. 1
United States v. Butler (No. 401)
Argued: December 9, 10, 1935
Decided: January 6, 1936
[...]
ROBERTS, J., Opinion of the Court [Owen Roberts]
MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, we must determine whether certain provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, 1933, [n1] conflict with the Federal Constitution.
[...] Mr. Justice [Joseph] Story points out that, if it were adopted, it is obvious that, under color of the generality of the words, to "provide for the common defence and general welfare," the government of the United States is, in reality, a government of general and unlimited powers, notwithstanding the subsequent enumeration of specific powers. [n11]
The true construction undoubtedly is that the only thing granted [by Article I, § 8, of the Constitution] is the power to tax for the purpose of providing funds for payment of the nation's debts and making provision for the general welfare.
Nevertheless the Government asserts that warrant is found in this clause for the adoption of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The argument is that Congress may appropriate and authorize the spending of moneys for the "general welfare"; that the phrase should be liberally construed to cover anything conducive to national welfare; that decision as to what will promote such welfare rests with Congress alone, and the courts may not review its determination, and finally that the appropriation under attack was, in fact, for the general welfare of the United States.
The Congress is expressly empowered to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare. Funds in the Treasury as a result of taxation may be expended only through appropriation. (Art. I, § 9, cl. 7.) They can never accomplish the objects for which they were collected unless the power to appropriate is as broad as the power to tax. The necessary implication from the terms of the grant is that the public funds may be appropriated "to provide for the general welfare of the United States." These words cannot be meaningless, else they would not have been used. The conclusion must be that they were intended to limit and define the granted power to raise and to expend money. How shall they be construed to effectuate the intent of the instrument?
Since the foundation of the Nation, sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. [...] This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction {Madison vs Hamilton}. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. [n12] We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.
But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations.
As Story says:
The Constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers. [n13]
Again, he says:
A power to lay taxes for the common defence and general welfare of the United States is not, in common sense, a general power. It is limited to those objects. It cannot constitutionally transcend them. [n14]
That the qualifying phrase must be given effect all advocates of broad construction admit. Hamilton, in his [p67] well known Report on Manufactures, states that the purpose must be "general, and not local." [n15] Monroe, an advocate of Hamilton's doctrine, wrote:
Have Congress a right to raise and appropriate the money to any and to every purpose according to their will and pleasure? They certainly have not. [n16]
Story says that, if the tax be not proposed for the common defence or general welfare, but for other objects wholly extraneous, it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles. [n17] And he makes it clear that the powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.
[...]
We are not now required to ascertain the scope of the phrase "general welfare of the United States," or to determine whether an appropriation in aid of agriculture falls within it. Wholly apart from that question, another principle embedded in our Constitution prohibits the enforcement of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The act invades the reserved rights of the states. It is a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. The tax, the appropriation of the funds raised, and the direction for their disbursement are but parts of the plan. They are but means to an unconstitutional end.
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. [n18] The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden.
[...]
A lot is going on in that under-appreciated SCOTUS
Butler decision.
Primary within it: That the Federal Government cannot tell the States 'what to do' locally.
Unless (secondarily), those actions 'extend to matters of national welfare', as granted by the "promote the General welfare" clause.
And thirdly, it is up to "Congress alone" to decide what is "conducive to national welfare" -- those decisions should serve as a limit to its (non-debt related, non-defense related) spending.
And fourthly, the Supreme Court has reserved for itself the power to "ascertain the scope of the phrase 'general welfare of the United States,' [and] to determine whether an appropriation in aid of agriculture [et cetera] falls within it."
As I said earlier, if you have no other reason to vote Democratic, than this:
The President get to choose WHO sits on the Supreme Court of the land -- a position that keep on impacting the nation, for the lifetime of that Justice.
-- Then that is "reason enough." I hope it is for you too. The alternative of withdrawing from everything of "national scope," is rather lacking.
Future SCOTUS will see to that.