The Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal.

[rightwinger]

Why don't YOU do the rest of us a favor. Borrow some intellectual integrity from someone and answer the question. Why exactly do we need to interpret the constitution based on court ruling precedent as opposed to what it actually says? And explain to the rest of us your 'informed' opinion as to why a limited government is so darn dangerous for a society.

Because courts have the constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution and right wing libertarian message board posters do not

Their authority is not in question. The presumption that they are infallible and or only capable of interpreting correctly, is. Since you're so keen and askig us to cite things out of the constitution why don't you do so for us? Where exactly is it stated that however a judge rules, no matter what the ruling, it is always thereafter to be considered to be constitutional?

The courts are not infallible, but over time they get things right. Courts will rule one way and then make a correction and rule toward the other side. That is what makes the country great

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why don't YOU do the rest of us a favor. Borrow some intellectual integrity from someone and answer the question. Why exactly do we need to interpret the constitution based on court ruling precedent as opposed to what it actually says? And explain to the rest of us your 'informed' opinion as to why a limited government is so darn dangerous for a society.

Because courts have the constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution and right wing libertarian message board posters do not

Their authority is not in question. The presumption that they are infallible and or only capable of interpreting correctly, is.

Liberals only consider this when the court makes a decision they do not like.
See: Heller

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Rather than reading like a libertarian. You need to read it like the other 98% of Americans and like the courts have interpreted it for 200 years

Why exactly do I need to do that?

Because the Constitution exists in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. That you reject the Court’s authority of judicial review or a particular ruling is irrelevant. Your only recourse is to file suit in Federal court in an effort to overturn a given ruling, amend the Constitution, or advocate for a constitutional convention.

I would also venture that probably fewer than 70% of Americans are even mildly familiar with what's actually in the constitution.

And they are just as ignorant of its case law.

And more broadly why is you libs have such a problem with limited government?

Liberals are the most aggressive advocates of a limited government: in fighting for privacy rights, due process rights, and equal protection rights. Conservatives for the most part have worked to undermine our rights, allowing for greater government intrusion.

Have you really become that dependent on them?

Everyone is equally ‘dependent’ on government: for infrastructure, safe food and water, and other regulatory measures guarding against unsafe goods and services.

The point is you asked where it says that. You were told where it says that. Now you're changing your tune andy saying you didn't really want to know where it says that you just want us all to conform with what the courts have said the constitution says rather than what it actually says.

This makes no sense.

Again, you’re not authorized to interpret the Constitution, only the courts may conduct judicial review.

Everyone is compelled to abide by the Court’s rulings per the rule of law; and for good reason: everyone can’t go about following only his ‘interpretation’ of the Constitution.

Why exactly do we need to interpret the constitution based on court ruling precedent as opposed to what it actually says?

Because the Framers intended for the Constitution to be subject to interpretation, in the context of the rule of law – not Holy Writ. The Constitution is a legal document, not merely a ‘blueprint of government.' Indeed, what you might perceive to be what the Constitution ‘actually says’ is in itself an interpretation.

And Madison's and Jefferson's. Don't forget those guys. Not that the authors opinion should carry any weight.

Framers’ opinions are considered if relevant in a given case, along with legal precedent, case law, and primary and contemporary sources and documents.

 

[Dragon]

I assume you're referring to Hamilton cause he's kind of the liberal's guy when it comes to this clause. They all jump up 'but Hamilton, see! see! but Hamilton said different.' It's really pretty pathetic and laughable

Yes, of course I was referring to Hamilton. Not that I consider him any more the "sole author" of the Constitution than Madison was. (If he had been, the president would have been elected for life, and had a non-overridable veto.) The document was put together by committee; there was no sole author.

However:

Did Hamilton have a broader view of the clause? Yes. But even he noted that it not grant unlimited spending power. Taxes collected still had to spent for the general welfare of the citizens. And to him those two words were important; General Welfare as in for the betterment (welfare) of everyone (general). Even he would still consider social programs like social security, unconstitutional.

No, likely he would not have, although there was no perceived need for such a program in pre-industrial times, so the issue never arose.

You are somewhat mistaken about what "general welfare" means. It doesn't refer to the welfare of each individual, but rather to the welfare of "the United States" as a whole -- i.e., not to the specific welfare of one particular state or other, which is a state responsibility. A good example (from a later time) is the subsidies that helped build the trans-continental railroads. As these crossed multiple states and benefited the national economy as a whole, they were a federal responsibility rather than that of any state government.

That said, I agree of course that any spending by the federal government must serve the general welfare, but it seems obvious to me that a national old-age pension program does exactly that. The only basis for saying otherwise is that it ought to be a state responsibility, but considering the way people move from one state to another today over the course of their working lives that argument doesn't really hold.

And I would think objective scholars such as yourselves might take note of the fact that of the many authors of the constition, Hamilton seems to be the ONLY one of them any of you are ever able to point to as supporting your view (even though he really didn't).

That's untrue. He's just the most obvious and eloquent. George Washington and John Adams were of the same mind and in fact so was the whole Federalist Party.

It's also worth noting that if the framers had wanted the tax-and-spend clause to be restricted to defraying the costs of the other enumerated powers, they did a piss-poor job of writing it down. These were men of no mean legal and literary gifts. As an example of how easy it would have been to avoid all this controversy, I give you the corresponding passage of the Constitution of the Confederate States.

"Sec. 8. The Congress shall have power-

(I) To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States"

If he Confederates could come up with that language, so could the members of the Constitutional Convention. It seems clear, since they didn't, that they wanted a broad (but not unlimited) power to tax and spend. Perhaps Madison did not, but if so his view did not prevail.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Liberals are the most aggressive advocates of a limited government: in fighting for privacy rights, due process rights, and equal protection rights.

When and if it suits them and their political goals.
In contrast, liberals -unquestioningly- support the expansion of government when it comes to the entitlement state.
Thus, an argument that liberals are for limited government is facrical at best.

Everyone is equally ‘dependent’ on government: for infrastructure, safe food and water, and other regulatory measures guarding against unsafe goods and services.

False.
Those that rely on the government to provide them the means to exercise their rights are necessarily more dependant on government than those that are not.

Again, you’re not authorized to interpret the Constitution, only the courts may conduct judicial review.

False.
Evryone is 'authorized' to interpret the Constitutuion.
The difference betwen you and the court is that the court's interpretation carries force.

Because the Framers intended for the Constitution to be subject to interpretation, in the context of the rule of law

This doesnt answer the question, and, in fact, denotes a failure to understand said question. The -actual- answer is the practice of Emglish common law, where future decisions are, when possible, based upon previous decisions. This provides continuity within the system and prevents court decisions from having all the force of a collegiate law review article.

Framers’ opinions are considered if relevant in a given case, along with legal precedent, case law, and primary and contemporary sources and documents.

Interesting.
Please illustrate the soundness of the reasoning behind the adoption of the Hamiltonian viiew on the 'general welfare clause' and how, in terms of relevance, precedent, case law, and primary source material, it is superior to the Madisonian view, held prior.

 

[Dragon]

Liberals are the most aggressive advocates of a limited government: in fighting for privacy rights, due process rights, and equal protection rights.

When and if it suits them and their political goals.

This is an important point. What you say here is true. Liberals are neither for nor against big government as such, but view it, depending on specifics, as either a benefit or a danger.

Liberals have ALWAYS been for the liberty of the common person, and AGAINST the privileges and power of the wealthy elite. I say that because all political philosophies should be defined according to ends, not means. That description of ends fits all liberals from all periods of modern history. It bridges the alleged gap between "classical" liberals such as Thomas Jefferson and "modern" liberals such as Bernie Sanders. Limited government for Jefferson was not an end, it was a means. The end was support for the liberty of the common person against the power of the wealthy elite (such as, ahem, Jefferson himself; some things never change) -- Jefferson simply saw the government as the elite's best servant and enabler, and keeping it as weak as was consistent with national security and general practical considerations was his approach to protecting ordinary people. Modern liberals, faced with the greatly expanded ability of private power to oppress, have resorted to government as the only agency capable of restraining that power. The means have necessarily changed; the ends, however, remain the same.

Where government is the primary threat to the freedom of ordinary people, liberals want government restrained. This applies to the draft, the drug laws, due process, rights of free speech, press, and religion, government accountability and transparency, and any situation where the government threatens to encroach on people's private lives and personal liberty.

Where private power is the primary threat to the freedom of ordinary people, however, liberals want government (carefully channeled by the rule of law) to restrain private power. This applies mostly in economics.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Where exactly is it stated that however a judge rules, no matter what the ruling, it is always thereafter to be considered to be constitutional?

Here:

The Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void. It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.

Marbury v. Madison

When and if it suits them and their political goals.
In contrast, liberals -unquestioningly- support the expansion of government when it comes to the entitlement state. An argument that liberals are for limited government is facrical at best.

Consider the cases of the Warren Court, expanding individual liberty and incorporating the Bill of Rights to the states. Opposed mostly by conservatives.

Cooper v Aaron (1958), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), to name but a few.

Interesting.
Please illustrate the soundness of the reasoning behind the adoption of the Hamiltonian viiew on the 'general welfare clause' and how, in terms of relevance, precedent, case law, and primary source material, it is superior to the Madisonian view, held prior.

The link contains a summary of General Welfare Clause case law:

US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

See also:

United States v. Butler

 

[M14 Shooter]

When and if it suits them and their political goals.
In contrast, liberals -unquestioningly- support the expansion of government when it comes to the entitlement state. An argument that liberals are for limited government is facrical at best.

Consider the cases of the Warren Court, expanding individual liberty and incorporating the Bill of Rights to the states. Opposed mostly by conservatives.

Tell me you realize that your response does nothing to negate my point.

Interesting.
Please illustrate the soundness of the reasoning behind the adoption of the Hamiltonian viiew on the 'general welfare clause' and how, in terms of relevance, precedent, case law, and primary source material, it is superior to the Madisonian view, held prior.

The link contains a summary of General Welfare Clause case law:
US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
See also:
United States v. Butler

Your response does nothing to address what I put to you.
Feel free to try again.

 

[Dragon]

Your response does nothing to address what I put to you.
Feel free to try again.

Actually, his response was very much on target. The case of U.S. v. Butler (which is, please note, case law and thus one of the things you asked for) explains the Court's reasoning behind treating the taxation power as an independent power, and the "general welfare" clause as a modifier of the power to tax and spend.

You also made a misstatement when you referred to the Madisonian view of this power as prevailing prior to modern times and the Hamiltonian view more recently. In fact, a Madisonian view, not so much of what the Constitution allows but rather of what ought to be done by the government, prevailed when the Democratic Republicans/Democrats dominated the government, while a more activist role was undertaken when the Federalists/Whigs/Republicans were in charge, but AFAIK there have been no court cases at all that upheld Mr. Madison's view here by striking down acts of Congress that spent outside the authorization of the other enumerated powers. The opinion of the president (such as Mr. Madison was) on the subject is not authoritative, and as already noted, the libertarian view of Mr. Madison as the "author" of the Constitution and so entitled to present "authoritative" views in another sense is factually incorrect.

 

[Cowman]

OP is proof of our failed education system.

Stand with me in mourning, friends.

 

[Bfgrn]

Liberals are the most aggressive advocates of a limited government: in fighting for privacy rights, due process rights, and equal protection rights.

When and if it suits them and their political goals.

This is an important point. What you say here is true. Liberals are neither for nor against big government as such, but view it, depending on specifics, as either a benefit or a danger.

Liberals have ALWAYS been for the liberty of the common person, and AGAINST the privileges and power of the wealthy elite. I say that because all political philosophies should be defined according to ends, not means. That description of ends fits all liberals from all periods of modern history. It bridges the alleged gap between "classical" liberals such as Thomas Jefferson and "modern" liberals such as Bernie Sanders. Limited government for Jefferson was not an end, it was a means. The end was support for the liberty of the common person against the power of the wealthy elite (such as, ahem, Jefferson himself; some things never change) -- Jefferson simply saw the government as the elite's best servant and enabler, and keeping it as weak as was consistent with national security and general practical considerations was his approach to protecting ordinary people. Modern liberals, faced with the greatly expanded ability of private power to oppress, have resorted to government as the only agency capable of restraining that power. The means have necessarily changed; the ends, however, remain the same.

Where government is the primary threat to the freedom of ordinary people, liberals want government restrained. This applies to the draft, the drug laws, due process, rights of free speech, press, and religion, government accountability and transparency, and any situation where the government threatens to encroach on people's private lives and personal liberty.

Where private power is the primary threat to the freedom of ordinary people, however, liberals want government (carefully channeled by the rule of law) to restrain private power. This applies mostly in economics.

Excellent description of my beliefs. As a liberal, I am very skeptical of government, but I am equally or more skeptical of private power i.e. corporations.

My favorite President, quoting another favorite President said it best:

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

JFK's nephew, Bobby's son is excellent at conveying liberalism and the dangers of private entities.

There is nothing wrong with corporations. Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs. I own a corporation. They're a great thing, but they should not be running our government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us.

And that doesn't mean corporations are a bad thing. It just means they're amoral, and we have to recognize that and not let them into the political process. Let them do their thing, but they should not be participating in our political process, because a corporation cannot do something genuinely philanthropic. It's against the law in this country, because their shareholders can sue them for wasting corporate resources. They cannot legally do anything that will not increase their profit margins. That's the way the law works, and we have to recognize that and understand that they are toxic for the political process, and they have to be fenced off and kept out of the political process. This is why throughout our history our most visionary political leaders -- Republican and Democrat -- have been warning the American public against domination by corporate power.

This White House (Bush) has done a great job of persuading a gullible press and the American public that the big threat to American democracy is big government. Well, yeah, big government is a threat ultimately, but it is dwarfed by the threat of excessive corporate power and the corrosive impact that has on our democracy. And you know, as I said, you look at all the great political leaders in this country and the central theme is that we have to be cautious about, we have to avoid, the domination of our government by corporate power.

Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions, would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth, who would erode them from within. Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, in his most famous speech, warned America against domination by the military industrial complex.

Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country, I fear the bankers more." Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of fascism" and Benito Mussolini -- who had an insider's view of that process -- said the same thing. Essentially, he complained that fascism should not be called fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state and corporate power. And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.

RFK Jr - September 10, 2005

 

[Bern80]

I assume you're referring to Hamilton cause he's kind of the liberal's guy when it comes to this clause. They all jump up 'but Hamilton, see! see! but Hamilton said different.' It's really pretty pathetic and laughable

Yes, of course I was referring to Hamilton. Not that I consider him any more the "sole author" of the Constitution than Madison was. (If he had been, the president would have been elected for life, and had a non-overridable veto.) The document was put together by committee; there was no sole author.

However:

Did Hamilton have a broader view of the clause? Yes. But even he noted that it not grant unlimited spending power. Taxes collected still had to spent for the general welfare of the citizens. And to him those two words were important; General Welfare as in for the betterment (welfare) of everyone (general). Even he would still consider social programs like social security, unconstitutional.

No, likely he would not have, although there was no perceived need for such a program in pre-industrial times, so the issue never arose.

You are somewhat mistaken about what "general welfare" means. It doesn't refer to the welfare of each individual, but rather to the welfare of "the United States" as a whole -- i.e., not to the specific welfare of one particular state or other, which is a state responsibility. A good example (from a later time) is the subsidies that helped build the trans-continental railroads. As these crossed multiple states and benefited the national economy as a whole, they were a federal responsibility rather than that of any state government.

That said, I agree of course that any spending by the federal government must serve the general welfare, but it seems obvious to me that a national old-age pension program does exactly that. The only basis for saying otherwise is that it ought to be a state responsibility, but considering the way people move from one state to another today over the course of their working lives that argument doesn't really hold.

And I would think objective scholars such as yourselves might take note of the fact that of the many authors of the constition, Hamilton seems to be the ONLY one of them any of you are ever able to point to as supporting your view (even though he really didn't).

That's untrue. He's just the most obvious and eloquent. George Washington and John Adams were of the same mind and in fact so was the whole Federalist Party.

It's also worth noting that if the framers had wanted the tax-and-spend clause to be restricted to defraying the costs of the other enumerated powers, they did a piss-poor job of writing it down. These were men of no mean legal and literary gifts. As an example of how easy it would have been to avoid all this controversy, I give you the corresponding passage of the Constitution of the Confederate States.

"Sec. 8. The Congress shall have power-

(I) To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States"

If he Confederates could come up with that language, so could the members of the Constitutional Convention. It seems clear, since they didn't, that they wanted a broad (but not unlimited) power to tax and spend. Perhaps Madison did not, but if so his view did not prevail.

But what makes that not quite so obvious is that rather general power to tax and spend is followed by a rather specific list. Why would that need to be included if all that was meant was for that spending power to be as general as you claim?

 

[midcan5]

"In a series of elegant and illuminating essays, Wood explores the ideological origins of the revolution-from ancient Rome to the European Enlightenment- and the founders' attempts to forge an American democracy. As Wood reveals, while the founders hoped to create a virtuous republic of yeoman farmers and uninterested leaders, they instead gave birth to a sprawling, licentious, and materialistic popular democracy." [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Idea-America-Reflections-United-States/dp/1594202907/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1]Amazon.com: The Idea of America: Reflections on the Birth of the United States (9781594202902): Gordon S. Wood: Books[/ame]


There should be a History of ideas added to the curriculum of all schools so that when propagandists of the right or left leave out the complexity of change in society, the evolution of politics and culture, the reader can instantly smell the BS.

"This important shift in Wood’s thinking helped him and the rest of us understand more clearly the emergence of liberalism in 19th-century America, since mere feelings of benevolence proved too weak at that time to restrain the overriding commercial values of individualism and self-interest. Whether the modern virtues of fellow feeling and decency (efficacious in social life) can by themselves constitute a significant force in the political realm is the question Wood’s analysis raises. In other words, one is led to wonder whether politeness alone — without a commitment to shared sacrifice — is sufficient to merit the title of civic virtue, and hence to serve as the foundation of a politics that takes seriously the idea of the common good." Tim Casey http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/books/review/evolving-ideas-of-america.html?ref=todayspaper


Also worth your time on Ideas and history.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Mind-Intellectual-History-Century/dp/0060084383/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8[/ame]
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Ideas-History-Thought-Invention-Freud/dp/0060935642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, from Fire to Freud (9780060935641): Peter Watson: Books[/ame]
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Sense-Reality-Studies-Ideas-History/dp/0374260923/ref=lh_ni_t]Amazon.com: The Sense of Reality: Studies in Ideas and Their History (9780374260927): Isaiah Berlin, Henry Hardy, Patrick Gardiner: Books[/ame]

 

[Dragon]

But what makes that not quite so obvious is that rather general power to tax and spend is followed by a rather specific list. Why would that need to be included if all that was meant was for that spending power to be as general as you claim?

If you look at those other powers, you will see that none of them can be accomplished solely through the power to tax and spend. That will not allow the government to borrow money, regulate commerce, establish uniform rules of naturalization or bankruptcy, coin money, fix standards of weights and measure, punish counterfeiting, establish post offices and post roads, legislate patent and trademark law, create courts, punish piracy, declare war, raise armies and navies, regulate the militia, pass all laws for the nation's capital, or pass all legislation necessary and proper to carry out its powers. These are all separate powers. Although spending money is necessary for at least most of them, so are other powers not included in the power to tax and spend.

 

[Bern80]

But what makes that not quite so obvious is that rather general power to tax and spend is followed by a rather specific list. Why would that need to be included if all that was meant was for that spending power to be as general as you claim?

If you look at those other powers, you will see that none of them can be accomplished solely through the power to tax and spend. That will not allow the government to borrow money, regulate commerce, establish uniform rules of naturalization or bankruptcy, coin money, fix standards of weights and measure, punish counterfeiting, establish post offices and post roads, legislate patent and trademark law, create courts, punish piracy, declare war, raise armies and navies, regulate the militia, pass all laws for the nation's capital, or pass all legislation necessary and proper to carry out its powers. These are all separate powers. Although spending money is necessary for at least most of them, so are other powers not included in the power to tax and spend.

Huh? Ummm....NOTHING can be accomplished simply by taxing and spending. They have to tax FOR something and they have to spend it ON something. The point is that it is a list granting the fed authority over specific areas. The fact that it is a specific list alone points to the idea that the framers intended the power of the fed to be limited. There is no other reason to include that level of specificity.

 

[Dragon]

Huh? Ummm....NOTHING can be accomplished simply by taxing and spending.

Sure it can. For example, the government can repair a highway by contracting with a private construction company to do the work. The government doesn't have to pass any laws or make any regulations or legislate in any way to do this. All it has to do is pay the company that's doing the work.

They have to tax FOR something and they have to spend it ON something. The point is that it is a list granting the fed authority over specific areas. The fact that it is a specific list alone points to the idea that the framers intended the power of the fed to be limited. There is no other reason to include that level of specificity.

This is not in dispute. The power of the federal government IS limited. It IS a government of enumerated powers, unlike the state governments. But the power to tax and spend is one of those enumerated powers, and it's restricted only in that any spending or taxing must be to pay the debts or provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, and that all duties, imposts, and excises must be uniform. That's the plain language of the document.

The other enumerated powers are not specifications of ways the government can spend money. They are other, separate enumerated powers, each in itself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But what makes that not quite so obvious is that rather general power to tax and spend is followed by a rather specific list. Why would that need to be included if all that was meant was for that spending power to be as general as you claim?

If you look at those other powers, you will see that none of them can be accomplished solely through the power to tax and spend. That will not allow the government to borrow money, regulate commerce, establish uniform rules of naturalization or bankruptcy, coin money, fix standards of weights and measure, punish counterfeiting, establish post offices and post roads, legislate patent and trademark law, create courts, punish piracy, declare war, raise armies and navies, regulate the militia, pass all laws for the nation's capital, or pass all legislation necessary and proper to carry out its powers. These are all separate powers. Although spending money is necessary for at least most of them, so are other powers not included in the power to tax and spend.

Huh? Ummm....NOTHING can be accomplished simply by taxing and spending.

You can raise an army thru simple spending pursuant to the 'common defense clauuse' and, thru the elastic clause. create the regulations necessary and proper relevant to same. Same with a navy.

So... the fact that Congress would not have had the power to do those things unless it was specifically empowered to do so negates the entire argument that the 'general welfare clause' provides the power to create SocSec, etc.

 

[Dragon]

You can raise an army thru simple spending pursuant to the 'common defense clauuse' and, thru the elastic clause. create the regulations necessary and proper relevant to same. Same with a navy.

Incorrect. There are many things that have to be done with regard to raising an army and navy that aren't encompassed by spending money, and that the "elastic clause" (I suppose you mean the "necessary and proper" clause) only provides for because the power to raise an army and navy are specifically enumerated. Congress also has to provide for discipline, military laws and regulations, all sorts of powers involving determining the rules under which soldiers operated. It can do none of that simply by spending money; an army is not a private company.

The problem here is that while the taxation clause does allow Congress to spend money "to provide for the common defense," it doesn't authorize Congress to do anything ELSE for the common defense, and the "necessary and proper" clause as applied to the taxation clause only empowers Congress to do whatever it has to in order to lay and collect taxes and spend money.

 

[Bern80]

This is not in dispute. The power of the federal government IS limited. It IS a government of enumerated powers, unlike the state governments. But the power to tax and spend is one of those enumerated powers, and it's restricted only in that any spending or taxing must be to pay the debts or provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, and that all duties, imposts, and excises must be uniform. That's the plain language of the document.

The power to tax and spend on pretty much anything is no limitation of power at all. As another poster pointed out, if there were no specific limits set on what the fed could spend money then there would be no need for the 10th ammendment. Education is a good example. If we were to ask the hypothetical question who has the authority/obligation to fund education. So I go through and I read the constitution. I'm going to come to Article I, Section 8 first where I might be convinced that well education is certainly in the general welfare, so it must be the feds job to fund education. But then I get to the 10th ammendment which reads;

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I see that and I think okay, where again was the federal government given the power/authority over education? Other than a loose interpretation of the general welfare clause that such funding via taxation is in the general welfare of the country, no where is any specific authority found. Yet if you side with the general welfare clause anyway as granting that authority it begs some bigger questions. Like what doesn't the fed have the authority to tax for? If they have the authority to tax for pretty much anything what is the point of the 10th ammendment and thus what is the point of a republic of 50 states?

The other enumerated powers are not specifications of ways the government can spend money. They are other, separate enumerated powers, each in itself.

And again that isn't how many of the framer's themselves interpreted it. That is on thing Madison was rather clear about. The list of enumerated powers refers to the clause preceeding it.

 

[Dragon]

The power to tax and spend on pretty much anything is no limitation of power at all.

I disagree. Contrast the power to "lay and collect taxes . . . to provide for the general welfare" with a power to "provide for the general welfare," period. Congress, if endowed with that power, could:

1) Outlaw body piercing.
2) Mandate a vegetarian diet.
3) Require all marriages to be interracial.
4) Impose criminal penalties for wearing polyester suits.

Any of these measures could be justified as "providing for the general welfare." None of them go against the Bill of Rights or any other affirmative restrictions on government. But none of them are authorized by the power actually granted to Congress, which is to tax and spend for the general welfare -- not to do whatever the hell it wants for the general welfare.

As another poster pointed out, if there were no specific limits set on what the fed could spend money then there would be no need for the 10th amendment.

Well, in my opinion there is no need for the 10th Amendment. Its language is just a restatement of the whole concept of federalism: all powers delegated to the federal government belong to it; all those not so delegated belong either to the states, or to no level of government, being retained by the people. Yeah, that about covers all the possibilities.

I guess you could say that the 10th Amendment just reaffirmed that Congress has no powers other than those granted in the Constitution, in case anyone had any doubts about that.

And again that isn't how many of the framer's themselves interpreted it. That is on thing Madison was rather clear about. The list of enumerated powers refers to the clause preceeding it.

Yes, I realize that's how Madison interpreted it, but so what? Obviously, his view of things didn't prevail. If it had, the language of that clause would have been different. He was not the author of the Constitution; it was written by a committee, and represents many compromises. On that point, he did not get his way.

As president, he was of course empowered to veto any act of Congress he wanted to, on any pretext. He vetoed the bill to fund the Erie Canal, on that pretext. He had the legal right. That doesn't mean his opinion on the matter was sound, either legally or politically.