More Chat about Originalism, Constitutionalism and German Liberalism

[NotNow]

LOL...StephenDare!, you have written an excellent little piece of fiction again.  Cute little twist of language:

"This particular era of history has been a passion of mine since boyhood, with a special emphasis on the intellectual backgrounds and opinions of the Philosophes."

does not = real history.  I'm not sure what has been your real "passion" since boyhood except maybe baffling people with BS.  And BS is exactly the nature of the content of that post. 

Your consistent confusion of my arguments with the short lived Articles of Confederation is either a sure sign of your confusion with the subject or your intentional confusion of facts in order to avoid addressing them.

How convenient it must be to conflate the accomplishments of this country over the past two hundred years with your arguments to continue the disastrous governance of the recent past which has us teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.   Even when your call for income tax rates of 75%+ would not stop the bleeding, you refuse to recognize reality.  Your claims of Reagan conservatism are as laughable as your "lifelong" study of the founders of this country and their "philosophes". 

I don't claim to be an expert in this field (and every other field), but the ideas and thoughts of the founding fathers are VERY well documented.  I sincerely hope that the people who post here can actually read, and use the internet for a few hours to familiarize themselves with what these men did, risked, and created for us.  For you to attempt to use their names and words for the political ends that you seek is just...well, let's just say dishonest. 

Just as dishonest as your attempts to color me a racist, or an apologist for slavery or ignorance.  I have admitted none of what you assert in your post, which makes those statements...what? incorrect?  unfounded?  mistaken?  or would another term fit better?

The only starbursts here are in your own mind StephenDare!  And people who "think like me" are a majority in this country, and we have actually read the founding documents of this country. 

An eloquently written line of BS is still just crap, but prettied up.

[NotNow]

For those of you who prefer concise English and honesty, the gist of the argument is the proper employment of the "general welfare" clause of the U S Constitution.  The founding fathers debated whether the federal government was limited to the "enumerated powers" (those powers spelled out as authorized activities of the Federal Government in the Constitution) and the ability to legislate the "general welfare".  Some of them, Hamilton was a leading proponent, believed that the government should be able to legislate for the equal and common good of the country.  Most of these early debates surrounded public works projects.  

Here is a good synopsis of what I am talking about from Wikipedia:

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are exceptions to the typical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government[2] as the U.S. Supreme Court has held:

the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments";[3][4] and,
that Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction of the Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clauseâ€"as elaborated in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United Statesâ€"is the correct interpretation.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.
Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] 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.”[7]

In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall described in obiter dictum a further limit on the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."[8]

The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare 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 The Federalist essays set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:

James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting 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.[9][10]
Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could 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.[11]
While Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, historians argue that his view of the General Welfare Clause was repudiated in the election of 1800, and helped establish the primacy of the Democratic-Republican Party for the subsequent 24 years.[12]

Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed a narrow interpretation on the Clause, as demonstrated by the holding in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.,[13] in which a tax on child labor was an impermissible attempt to regulate commerce beyond that Court's equally narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This narrow view was later overturned in United States v. Butler. There, the Court agreed with Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Story had concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not a general grant of legislative power, but also dismissed Madison's narrow construction requiring its use be dependent upon the other enumerated powers. Consequently, the Supreme Court held the power to tax and spend is an independent power and that the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare.

Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[14] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole.[15] To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This entry adequately explains the change in interpretation by the FDR USSC.  As a result, the USG has utilized this new found power to implement legislation that was not allowed by the enumerated powers of the Constitution, but was at the whim of Congress.  Taxation to pay for these "whims" followed.  So today we have a Federal Government that has literally NO limits on what it can do.  They think that the "general welfare" clause allows ANY legislation deemed necessary, and the power to tax to pay for it or just demand that the states pay for it (unfunded mandates).  

I am one of many people who feel that the FDR court of 1936 got it wrong and that the interpretation of the previous one hundred and fifty years was the correct one.  

As one of our famous British friends would say,"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."   That is where we are.

So the argument is about this one device, this one clause and the havoc it has brought on our country.  Statements that "people like me" are arguing for anything else is simply a sad attempt to deflect the debate.  This is a common tactic for those who don't have a real argument to offer.

[NotNow]

If you have a factual argument, make it.  Just wishing something and saying it doesn't make it true.  Trying to discredit the argument by calling IT names is not a reasonable argument.  

Saying I don't know what I am talking about is not a reasonable argument.  

The history of the "general welfare" clause is well documented.  You have been mistaken in this argument on several points in several threads.  I have clearly stated the boundary of the debate for you.  If you can manage to avoid calling me stupid, or accusing me of wanting to do away with public education or something, then make an argument for the Hamiltonian side of the argument.  But if all you have is "you don't know what your talking about", then this little debate is clearly over.

[BridgeTroll]

At which point you gracefully called the entire government an abomination and concluded that we were all going to hell in a handbasket because of communists and other interlopers.

I don't see that anywhere.  We must all be using different lenses when reading the same texts...

[NotNow]

My best argument can be found here:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The decision taken by the Roosevelt Supreme Court has allowed Congress to foolishly bribe special interests in order to retain power, spending our country into abdominal debt.  

It is that simple.  You can misstate my points all you want.  You can put forth red herrings like "the Louisiana Purchase" (really?) all you want.  All you are doing is continuing to obfuscate the real gist of this discussion.  

If the general welfare clause allows the USG to legislate anything and tax to pay for it, then there is no point to the rest of the Constitution.  Why enumerate their powers?  The answer is painfully obvious to thinking persons, it is because the USG was never intended to have such powers.  

I don't know if I am "a somewhat intelligent chap" or not.  I don't know about you either.  But your arguments on this subject lack research and attention to detail.   I suppose that is what leads to your disappointing tendency to call others names or label their arguments "dumb".

Perhaps to break out of this repetitive narrative, you could tell us what restrictions you believe the Federal government is bound by?

[NotNow]

Comprehension skills?

"It is my opinion that the "general welfare" clause has been misused.  It is laughable to anyone with a lick of sense to propose that any of the Founding Fathers would approve of the disastrous course our current government is on (largely due to the abuse of that clause) or the use of their name or words to support that abomination of governance."

The current course, the outrageous spending, the unfunded mandates, the overreach into areas reserved for the States...that is what I abhor. 

I see no reference to "communists".

Along with what you see as boundries of the Federal Government, if any, I would ask you if you think the current national debt and the projected debt are reasonable or sustainable?

[NotNow]

And I have quoted the Founding Fathers own words as well.  I have also quoted the history of the interpretation of the general welfare clause in this nation, and pointed out the horrible interpretation of Roosevelt's Supreme Court.  That is what we are debating by the way.  Paragraphs of your high school studies, friends, and teachers have nothing to do with the facts of the debate.  

Try to focus...the general welfare clause....got it?

I have an education as well.  I have studied the Constitution and the words of the men who founded this country.  I am familiar with current law and the history that produced it.  Lecturing, as if you have some profound special understanding that others don't, is just embarrassing yourself.  I am lucky enough to be acquainted with a very few real scholars.  Their ability to concisely define the facts of their points amazes me and I really enjoy the education I get when given a chance to converse.  

With all due respect, you are not one of those persons.  If you would attempt to limit your arguments to the question at hand (again, the general welfare clause), then perhaps we could exchange some useful ideas.  But a debate about who is smarter or more well read is senseless.

What is ironic is not simply reading and comprehending the greatest document left to us by the Founding Fathers, the U S Constitution.  It is well written and well defined.  Anyone who can read it and then claim that these men favored an unfettered all powerful Federal Government ignores the document itself and the history which led to its creation.

[NotNow]

Ah, the "youtube" argument!  I can see that there is really no further need to attempt to exchange an real ideas on this thread. 

BTW, my "mentality" would have appreciated a good Raquel Welch cavegirl clip! 

[FayeforCure]

I suspected as much, and originally chose this one:

http://www.youtube.com/v/bPf70weHxUk

But I discarded it on grounds that the sexism was too blatant to ascribe to irony and it didnt seem in character with the high regard with which Ms. Notnow seems to be held.

Wait, let me guess:

One is the slut, and the other one is fighting for her righteous indignation...............just one problem............which is which?

Need help on this one 

[NotNow]

Ms. NotNow is to be feared and respected.  But she does dismiss some of my "education and research" in movies with a roll of her eyes.   

[NotNow]

I suspected as much, and originally chose this one:

http://www.youtube.com/v/bPf70weHxUk

But I discarded it on grounds that the sexism was too blatant to ascribe to irony and it didnt seem in character with the high regard with which Ms. Notnow seems to be held.

Wait, let me guess:

One is the slut, and the other one is fighting for her righteous indignation...............just one problem............which is which?

Need help on this one 

Faye,

Manlesson #1: Pay no attention to the story, it doesn't matter.

[FayeforCure]

I suspected as much, and originally chose this one:

http://www.youtube.com/v/bPf70weHxUk

But I discarded it on grounds that the sexism was too blatant to ascribe to irony and it didnt seem in character with the high regard with which Ms. Notnow seems to be held.

Wait, let me guess:

One is the slut, and the other one is fighting for her righteous indignation...............just one problem............which is which?

Need help on this one 

Faye,

Manlesson #1: Pay no attention to the story, it doesn't matter.

Ah, is that how it works? No wonder the US is in so much trouble: we are 85th in the world for women in state and federal government. I guess it is the same for local government 

The 2010 election reduced our percentage in Congress from a measly 17% to an even more measly 16%!!!!!

Can't help it NotNow, gotta throw in some educational figures myself 

[NotNow]

Maybe Cavegirl could run?

[FayeforCure]

Maybe Cavegirl could run?

Well, at least we've progressed from the "dumb blond" poster girl to the dumb brunette, you know who I mean 

[NotNow]

Then I am a "Progressive"!