Did the Founders want a LIMITED Federal Government?

[rightwinger]

The term "welfare" as used by the Founding Fathers had a whole different connotation than the way "welfare" is used today.

can you define what the FF meant by welfare?

Here is the view of one of the founders with respect to the "general welfare".

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... they may appoint teachers in every state... The Powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."
-James Madison

In the example of this isolated quote, Madison is talking about Congress appointing every teacher in every state as being excessive use of general welfare. It does not mean that Madison did not think that Congress should act in the best interests of the people.

General Welfare means Congress needs to do those actions which are best for the American people as a whole. Madison just warned about some possible abuses

 

[rightwinger]

Treason is thwarting the intent and power of the Constitution. Anyone that thinks they can just get a Judge to change the meaning of the Constitution is committing treason. Any Judge that thinks they can just change the meaning of the Constitution is committing treason.

Can you provide any link justifying this position?

Disagreeing with you is not treason

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is the view of one of the founders with respect to the "general welfare".

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... they may appoint teachers in every state... The Powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."
-James Madison

Thanks, Shakles. Now give us the full source, please, so that we can read it for ourselves.

Your knowledge should not be limited to what others here provide Jake.

How kindheartedly I agree, Intense. I know that Shakles is at times inaccurate and sloppy, so I wish to read the comment in context. Just doing my due diligence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Treason is thwarting the intent and power of the Constitution. Anyone that thinks they can just get a Judge to change the meaning of the Constitution is committing treason. Any Judge that thinks they can just change the meaning of the Constitution is committing treason.

Can you provide any link justifying this position?

Disagreeing with you is not treason

WHAT?, roared the little queen. OFF WITH HIS HEAD! Yeah, sometimes I think we are in Wonderland.

 

[Intense]

Madison, from Federalist #45.


We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us.

Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale.

We have seen, in all the examples of ancient and modern confederacies, the strongest tendency continually betraying itself in the members, to despoil the general government of its authorities, with a very ineffectual capacity in the latter to defend itself against the encroachments. Although, in most of these examples, the system has been so dissimilar from that under consideration as greatly to weaken any inference concerning the latter from the fate of the former, yet, as the States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty, the inference ought not to be wholly disregarded.........



If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them. The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens; and the latter will be no more bound than the States themselves have been, to pay the quotas respectively taxed on them. Had the States complied punctually with the articles of Confederation, or could their compliance have been enforced by as peaceable means as may be used with success towards single persons, our past experience is very far from countenancing an opinion, that the State governments would have lost their constitutional powers, and have gradually undergone an entire consolidation. To maintain that such an event would have ensued, would be to say at once, that the existence of the State governments is incompatible with any system whatever that accomplishes the essental purposes of the Union.

Federalist Papers: FEDERALIST No. 45

 

[JakeStarkey]

Intense, are you confusing confederate federalism with dual federalism?

 

[Intense]

Intense, are you confusing confederate federalism with dual federalism?

Nope. Just contributing to the conception of The Federal Government operating under Federalist Principles, light hand, light touch, respecting the Individual States, and giving them breathing space.
You do understand that no where in the Federalist Papers, or anywhere in the argument for a Federal Constitution, was there any argument at all to justify what the role of the Federal Government in relation to General Welfare, as it is seen today. Only by connecting dots that are not there, can your argument be made.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And there was not our world today. Can't ignore either point.

 

[Intense]

And there was not our world today. Can't ignore either point.

From my perspective, Remedies need to be within the Rule of Law and Due Process, with Consent, they need to be compatible with true Federalist Principles, not in conflict with them. There is no excuse for abandoning true principle. Grabbing at any or every opportunity to expand Government power, Authority, and Influence, is a dangerous path. We have been on it way too long.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, since 1789 and 90. Give you a hint: not gonna stop. Intense, the world changes; it always has. We are no different than any other human beings generally who have ever lived. We work with what we got. In our day and age, the amendment process does not work because we don't have a unified center. We have to work with what we have.

 

[Greenbeard]

Here is the view of one of the founders with respect to the "general welfare".

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... they may appoint teachers in every state... The Powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."
-James Madison

And here's the view of another Founder (and author of many of the Federalist papers):

The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

And here's a leader of the strict constructionist Democratic-Republicans (and a future attorney general under both the Jefferson and Madison administrations), carrying water for President Jefferson in 1803 and arguing that the Louisiana Purchase is constitutional:

By the Constitution Congress 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." To provide for the general welfare! The import of these terms is very comprehensive indeed. If this general delegation of authority be not at variance with other particular powers specially granted, nor restricted by them; if it be not in any degree comprehended in those subsequently delegated, I cannot perceive why, within the fair meaning of this general provision is not include the power of increasing our territory, if necessary for the general welfare or common defence.

An expansive understanding of that phrase is not unprecedented, nor is it particularly modern. Members of the founding generation (prominent members of the Jefferson and Madison cabinets, even) used that argument, either because they believed it or because it suited their political aims at the time they used it. People--and politics--haven't changed. I'll repeat what I said before: There aren't "right" answers to this one, folks, that's why we have elections every two years.

Throwing dueling quotes around ultimately doesn't mean shit. The current opinions of the living on these matters are significantly more important than those of the dead. Even if it is easy to find quotes from some of them that support our particular viewpoints.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here's a good discriptive video of what the founders truely wanted for this country. Or at least it fits for me.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC_BzMptnlk&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5G1VnOEjao&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8o_fdh1xg4&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPlOTuSGYeQ&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBkYaKaah18&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlLWQZ4p4eM&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJLbxlIWztg&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhEi1ZXc0Fk&feature=related[/ame][/QUOTE]

 

[rightwinger]

2 hours worth of videos??

I think I will pass

 

[JakeStarkey]

Little Saul of the Far Right loves posting videos.

He must have loved cartoons as a child.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

2 hours worth of videos??

I think I will pass

Each video but the last one is 15 minutes. The last video is 5 minutes.
They have been seperated so you don't have to watch all of it at once.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Little Saul of the Far Right loves posting videos.

He must have loved cartoons as a child.

the communist is projecting his thoughts again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Little Saul of the Far Right is muttering in his corner again.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Little Saul of the Far Right is muttering in his corner again.

\Whats your problem goof ball tried of bowing are the alter of stalin?

 

[The T]

2 hours worth of videos??

I think I will pass

Each video but the last one is 15 minutes. The last video is 5 minutes.
They have been seperated so you don't have to watch all of it at once.

As a matter of course they aren't interested in looking. They think a True Democracy [Mob Rule] is where it's at.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Little Saul of the Far Right is muttering in his corner again.

\Whats your problem goof ball tried of bowing are the alter of stalin?

I know it is after 7 over there in Boone Lick Corners Gap at the Junction, but you are in the bag early tonight, Little Saul. You drinking with The T and namvet tonight?