The Forgotten Founders

[citizenzen]

You have consistently argued that the "general welfare clause" found both in the preamble, and later in the "taxing and spending clause", empowers congress to tax for any purpose it likes, so long as it can make the case that it is doing so to promote the general welfare. I do not agree, I believe that the general welfare clause is intended specifically to clarify the mission of our government WITHIN THE LIMITS SPECIFICALLY IMPOSED UPON CONGRESS BY THE ENUMERATED POWERS.

First an excerpt from wikipedia...

General Welfare Clause

“to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”

Of all the limitations upon the power to tax and spend, the General Welfare clause appears to have achieved notoriety as the most contentious. The dispute over the clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."

The two primary authors of the Federalist Papers essays set forth two separate, conflicting theories: the narrower view of James Madison that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax; and the broader view of Alexander Hamilton that spending is an enumerated power that Congress may exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.

[skipping to conclusion]

To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law. Historically, however, the Anti-Federalists were wary of such an interpretation of this power during the ratification debates in the 1780s. Due to the objections raised by the Anti-Federalists, Madison was prompted to author his contributions to the Federalist Papers, attempting to quell the Anti-Federalists' fears of any such abuse by the proposed national government and to counter Anti-Federalist arguments against the Constitution.​

So, in other words, there's been debate over this issue since the very inception of our nation. And for the last century the Hamiltonian view has predominated. It's not so simple for you to talk about the intent of our Founding Fathers, when just like today, their intentions spanned the political spectrum. They were debating about this as much about as we are today.

So after two hundred years we're still debating it. Am I "right"? I have no idea. I'm just making the best guess that I can based on my morals and sense of justice. I'll bet you are too. And as I've said before, it's the balance between our two camps that keeps this country on better footing than if any one of us had complete say.

Now let's go have a beer.

 

[OldTrapper]

So, in other words, there's been debate over this issue since the very inception of our nation. And for the last century the Hamiltonian view has predominated. It's not so simple for you to talk about the intent of our Founding Fathers, when just like today, their intentions spanned the political spectrum. They were debating about this as much about as we are today.

So after two hundred years we're still debating it. Am I "right"? I have no idea. I'm just making the best guess that I can based on my morals and sense of justice. I'll bet you are too. And as I've said before, it's the balance between our two camps that keeps this country on better footing than if any one of us had complete say.

Now let's go have a beer.

One of the reasons I rarely use wiki is it's lack of reliability, and accuracy.

It has not been the Hamilton view that has predominated, it has been a bastardized use of that view.

This is an especially long paper, however, it shows exactly what Hamilton said in various papers, and how the left has bastardized what he said.

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2009/10/alexander-hamilton-and-general-welfare.html

 

[citizenzen]

One of the reasons I rarely use wiki is it's lack of reliability, and accuracy.

One reason I use it is it provides a good starting point. I do not view it as authoritative by any means, merely as one source that most everyone can access easily. If you wish to refute the findings, be my guest. If the deepest we ever delved into an issue was wikipedia, we'd all be the poorer for it.

I will gladly read the article you linked to.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

So, in other words, there's been debate over this issue since the very inception of our nation. And for the last century the Hamiltonian view has predominated. It's not so simple for you to talk about the intent of our Founding Fathers, when just like today, their intentions spanned the political spectrum. They were debating about this as much about as we are today.

The "Hamiltonian" view has only dominated since Roosevelt (America's 2nd fascist president) threatened to stack the supreme court with allies after they declared the majority of his agenda unconstitutional in 1937. As Justice Owen Roberts later said, (paraphrasing) I had to vote against the constitution in order to save the Supreme Court. Roosevelt effectively crushed the separation of powers that stood in his way. Up until then the constitution was read for what it says rather than what progressives wanted it to say. Since then, (Roosevelt appointed something like 8 judges during his 3 terms) our Supreme Court has operated as if "the switch in time that saved nine" was valid precedent. It has only stood for so long, because the court from Roosevelt's presidency until just recently has been dominated by progressive justices. Once we give Obama the boot, we should be able to bring the court farther back to it's roots, and perhaps we can have the new deal struck down before it's to late to save our Republic.

So after two hundred years we're still debating it. Am I "right"? I have no idea. I'm just making the best guess that I can based on my morals and sense of justice. I'll bet you are too. And as I've said before, it's the balance between our two camps that keeps this country on better footing than if any one of us had complete say.

I'm sorry but I cannot agree. The fundamental building blocks of our constitutional republic have been weakening ever since Roosevelt's New Deal. If people like you could just operate within the federalist system, then we would have no problem. You guys can create your little fascist utopias in Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island etc, and the people who don't like it can escape it by moving to states that govern based on our constitution. But such a system isn't good enough for you guys. You have to have to be all powerful. You have to have 100% control over all American citizens, and there are no limits to what you'll do to achieve it. I reject the idea that I must compromise what is right with what is wrong. This idea that there is no greater truth than the truth of consensus is ridiculous. 2 + 2 is 4, and that is true even if 99 people out of 100 think the answer is 5. I will never compromise the truth, and in the grand tradition that forged the greatest nation in the history of human civilization, I will not surrender my liberty without a fight.

Now let's go have a beer.

Now here's some common ground.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

"The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress, or, in other words, of the national legislature, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended."

A. Hamilton

Wow... I had no idea you felt that way Hammy.... all these years I thought you were the man who sowed the seeds of our Republic's destruction, and then here you are SAYING EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TELL CITIZENZEN WAS THE INTENDED MEANING OF THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE.

My opinion on Hamilton just made a complete 180.... how about you CZ?

 

[citizenzen]

I will gladly read the article you linked to.

I am reading the article that OT linked to. The beginning is quite funny...

Two words struck fear into the hearts of Americans after their fight for Independence had concluded, and during the formation of the great Constitution under which we have since prospered despite the best efforts of those in Washington. Those dreaded words that caused consternation were none other than “General Welfare”.​

Really? The words “General Welfare” were dreaded by Americans and struck fear into their hearts?

Geeze, could we get more hyperbolic?

It leads me to wonder... if those two words were so feared and dreaded, why did the Founders use them in the constitution and actually task congress to provide for it?

Okay... on to more of the article.

 

[citizenzen]

More from the article...

Likewise the federal government is also granted the power to coin money. But nowhere in the Constitution is it explicitly given the power to put the money it coins into circulation. By implication under the necessary and proper powers granted the federal government it must also have the power to do this otherwise the money would just pile up never to be used. And technically the government or its agents would not even have the authority to pile up the money either since such a power was not granted explicitly if such a severe restriction on authority were adopted. It would, literally, without the necessary and proper clause, be required to let the coins fall where they may and never touch them once they had been minted.​

Genius.

"Boss, I minted the coin, but the Constitution didn't say I could pick it up and put it in the stack of other coins."

"Now Nathan, you know about the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article I, Section 8. You not only can mint the coin, you can stack it and later put in in a sack."

"Ummm, boss?"

"Yes Nathan?"

"What does the Constitution say about me needing to go #2?"

"Nathan, I think that also falls under the Necessary and Proper Clause... so long as you don't do it on the mint's floor."

"Is this a great country, or what?"​

 

[citizenzen]

More from the article...

Further, while doing this important step, to simultaneously cast even more light on the subject logic dictates that there is no middle ground option. So let us cast aside such a silly notion. Either the term is narrowly and precisely defined or it is indefinite in scope.​

Typical conservative black and white world. Since when is finding middle ground "silly"?

Only in the minds of simpletons.

Either Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton in their strict interpretation are correct or those with devious purposes and who promote their liberal interpretation are correct.​

And of course, anybody who doesn't see it his way don't just have a difference of opinion, they are "devious".

 

[citizenzen]

Okay. I read the article. Though I skipped the last part that was simply a rant against healthcare. I'll bet the writer needed to clean his monitor after he was done from all the spit and foam coming out of his mouth. But he sure was passionate. I didn't realize that my liberal ways were bringing about the utter destruction of all that is good and holy. Imagine my surprise.

Anyway, I thought this was a key passage...

…the Founding Fathers knew that it was with the help of those who desired to liberally interpret the general Welfare clause and at some later point play upon the ignorance of some and the simple search for power of others. The battles started early and were fought often over the expansion of the term “general Welfare” from a small, defined set of government powers. Sometimes the battles were won and other times they were lost as justification for such expansion was not in short supply...​

And over 200 years later we continue that debate today. Your strict constructionist view couldn't hold much past the Constitution's ink drying. I know you guys hate to hear this, but it's the give and take between constructionism and liberalism that is the most healthy state for this county to be in.

If it were all up to you the mint's floor would be littered with uncirculated coins. If it were up to liberals the coins would all be given away to the poor. Somewhere in between those two extremes lies a rational middle ground that adheres to the constitution while also being flexible enough to respond to changing times.

But there I go again. Seeking a rational, middle ground... it's so damn... socialist.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

CZ, you are entirely within your rights to make your case that the constitution is outdated, and needs to be interpreted loosely, or whatever fool thing it is that you happen to be saying at the moment. The point is that you were arguing that YOUR vision was also the vision of the FOUNDERS. The only weak hold you had on such an argument was the idea that Hamilton agreed with you. It has now been shown conclusively that he did not. So I say again, you can make whichever arguments you like in support of how you think our government SHOULD be run. What you can no longer say and expect to be listened to with any degree of respect as an intellectual, is that the constitution supports your vision for America.

You cannot name a single framer of the constitution who backs up your interpretation of the so called "general welfare clause". You have therefore lost the debate.

good game.

 

[OldTrapper]

Anyway, I thought this was a key passage...

…the Founding Fathers knew that it was with the help of those who desired to liberally interpret the general Welfare clause and at some later point play upon the ignorance of some and the simple search for power of others. The battles started early and were fought often over the expansion of the term “general Welfare” from a small, defined set of government powers. Sometimes the battles were won and other times they were lost as justification for such expansion was not in short supply...​

And over 200 years later we continue that debate today. Your strict constructionist view couldn't hold much past the Constitution's ink drying. I know you guys hate to hear this, but it's the give and take between constructionism and liberalism that is the most healthy state for this county to be in.

If it were all up to you the mint's floor would be littered with uncirculated coins. If it were up to liberals the coins would all be given away to the poor. Somewhere in between those two extremes lies a rational middle ground that adheres to the constitution while also being flexible enough to respond to changing times.

But there I go again. Seeking a rational, middle ground... it's so damn... socialist.

What is rational about it? Has there ever been a time when the leftwing has ever compromised with the strict constructionist?

Think hard on that one because while the leftwinger might forego a certain action for the time being, he is sure to bring it to the forefront when the time appears appropriate to him. FDR did that with welfare programs, and the expansion of the power of the federal government; and now the left is trying to do the same with healthcare which they first proposed in the 1800's, and then under Teddy Roosevelt in 1903.


BTW, wasn't it LBJ that began the "War on Poverty" thing close to 50 years ago. How is that working out?

 

[Capitalist Pig]

Okay. I read the article. Though I skipped the last part that was simply a rant against healthcare. I'll bet the writer needed to clean his monitor after he was done from all the spit and foam coming out of his mouth. But he sure was passionate. I didn't realize that my liberal ways were bringing about the utter destruction of all that is good and holy. Imagine my surprise.

Anyway, I thought this was a key passage...

…the Founding Fathers knew that it was with the help of those who desired to liberally interpret the general Welfare clause and at some later point play upon the ignorance of some and the simple search for power of others. The battles started early and were fought often over the expansion of the term “general Welfare” from a small, defined set of government powers. Sometimes the battles were won and other times they were lost as justification for such expansion was not in short supply...​

And over 200 years later we continue that debate today. Your strict constructionist view couldn't hold much past the Constitution's ink drying. I know you guys hate to hear this, but it's the give and take between constructionism and liberalism that is the most healthy state for this county to be in.

If it were all up to you the mint's floor would be littered with uncirculated coins. If it were up to liberals the coins would all be given away to the poor. Somewhere in between those two extremes lies a rational middle ground that adheres to the constitution while also being flexible enough to respond to changing times.

But there I go again. Seeking a rational, middle ground... it's so damn... socialist.

There is right, and there is wrong. I reject the notion that I should compromise what is right, to make people who are wrong feel better about themselves.

Your vision for America would be rapists and rape victims coming together in a bipartisan fashion, and respectfully compromising on what the laws governing rape should be.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

What is rational about it? Has there ever been a time when the leftwing has ever compromised with the strict constructionist?

Think hard on that one because while the leftwinger might forego a certain action for the time being, he is sure to bring it to the forefront when the time appears appropriate to him. FDR did that with welfare programs, and the expansion of the power of the federal government; and now the left is trying to do the same with healthcare which they first proposed in the 1800's, and then under Teddy Roosevelt in 1903.


BTW, wasn't it LBJ that began the "War on Poverty" thing close to 50 years ago. How is that working out?

Exactly. The problem with CZ's ideas of compromise is that it is simply evolution to his goal rather than revolution. When the union makes a bargain, do they stick to it? No, they don't. There is no bargaining with your ilk CZ, because the bargaining never ends. Whatever you get, its only enough for a a little while, and then the next round of bargaining begins with your newly gained ground as your starting point. When the income tax was first proposed, it was only supposed to effect the top 1% of citizens, and it was no more than 10%. That sounded reasonable to people at the time. But look where we are now? Successful people are considered villains despite surrendering over half of their income annually, and providing for this entire house of cards that the progressives have built. There can be no more compromise with people like you CZ. America needs to push back socialism, not make more bargains with it.

 

[citizenzen]

What you can no longer say and expect to be listened to with any degree of respect as an intellectual, is that the constitution supports your vision for America.

OMG. You mean brain-geniuses like you and OT will no longer respect my views?

[SARCASM]Oh please... PLEASE reconsider, because in this brief time that I've known you I've glimpsed the awesomeness of you knowledge and wisdom. If only the world could know of your brilliant minds, people would dance in the streets, goodness would flow in abundance, and flowers would fly from everybody's a$$.[/SARCASM]

[SERIOUS]You don't want to listen to me or respect me, you go right ahead. Guess how much respect I have for you. No... go on, try. Well guess what? In reality, it's even a little less than that.[/SERIOUS]

See you at the polls, fools.

 

[Gipper]

OMG. You mean brain-geniuses like you and OT will no longer respect my views?

[SARCASM]Oh please... PLEASE reconsider, because in this brief time that I've known you I've glimpsed the awesomeness of you knowledge and wisdom. If only the world could know of your brilliant minds, people would dance in the streets, goodness would flow in abundance, and flowers would fly from everybody's a$$.[/SARCASM]

[SERIOUS]You don't want to listen to me or respect me, you go right ahead. Guess how much respect I have for you. No... go on, try. Well guess what? In reality, it's even a little less than that.[/SERIOUS]

See you at the polls, fools.

More name calling from the one losing the debate. You would think one would stop after losing over and over, but no.

We do admire your persistence CZ.