James Madison Vetos The Bonus Bill!

[Dr.Traveler]

Tongue in cheek answer: Wilson won his war handily, Madison ended up nearly losing his and the nation.

More Serious Answer:

First up, Madison vs. Wilson: To make the argument you've had to grab a particular snapshot of each man. Madison had an evolving view of the role of the Federal Government over his life span, and indeed over the course of his Presidency. He originally opposed the formation of a centralized bank, but was forced to change his mind when the War of 1812 required funding.

Wilson himself didn't see the principles of the Constitution as something to be shrugged off, but at the same time he was trying to fight and win a global war. While I consider Wilson one of the worst Presidents (up there with Buchanan) thanks to his handling of the Great Influenza Pandemic and his heavy handed almost tolalitarian waging of WWI, I can excuse some of his actions, and even views, in light of what he faced. Barely. With gritted teeth.

That's why some level of Progressivism is inevitable. Government that can not adapt to a changing world will be tossed aside and replaced with one that can meet the populace's needs by the populace. That's a lesson repeatedly learned in history. The Constitution does provide flexiblity to adapt and there absolutely will be times when a developing situation requires intervention by the Federal Government.

I would prefer to see progress done by Constitutional Ammendment after public debate of the pros and cons, rather than how it has been done here in the US in the past.

In summary: Given the choice between a President that would stand by and do nothing (Like say Buchanan) versus one willing to take action to preserve the nation (Like FDR), I'll choose action every time.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

America stands at a crossroads today. Will it be James Madison, or Woodrow Wilson that we follow?

Well I sure hope we don't follow James Madison. I LIKE federal highways and interstates.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Government that can not adapt to a changing world will be tossed aside and replaced with one that can meet the populace's needs by the populace.

Which is why decentralized power, meaning more for the states, less for the Feds is necessary. 50 different answers will find one which is superior, allowing the other 49 to adapt to the optimum solition found by the one. But when there is only one "Big government" solution attempted (Socialist Sceurity, Medifraud, Welfraud) when it fails in hte face of changing conditinos, the entire nation will fail.

In summary: Given the choice between a President that would stand by and do nothing (Like say Buchanan) versus one willing to take action to preserve the nation (Like FDR), I'll choose action every time.

But FDR's actions made things WORSE. A lot worse.

 

[Liability]

A Wonderful topic. Great OP. Here is the full text of the Bonus Bill VETO.

Veto of federal public works bill
March 3, 1817

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

"The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.

To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.

A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.

If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

James Madison,
President of the United States

James Madison: Veto of federal public works bill, March 3, 1817

That which might be beneficial to all of us is not necessarily, on that basis, a power granted by the authority in the Constitution.

Madison said it brilliantly.

Great OP.