Where Did Our Republic Go??

[Foxfyre]

All good stuff PC.

However, being a member of that immediate post war generation, we were as rebellious as any generation. Every generation pushes the envelope re values of its parents and grandparents, else civilization would never evolve; never progress; never advance. But in the end, most of us recognized the value of and adopted most of the core culture of our parents and most of us were mostly unaffected and unwooed by the anti culture revolution. It was a segment of the baby boomers who joined the anti-culture revolution, but by no means all of them.

Still, it was that generation of the 1960's which was the first to totally reject the traditional American values of their parents and our society. And because they seized the power in education and the media, I think is a huge reason that our society has been in a state of gradual decline ever since. As we have seen in Russia and China and India, such rejection of the existing culture has generally not turned out well for many of the people.

Those traditional American values had formed the core of a Republic in which people, and not an authoritarian government, successfully governed themselves. Once that responsibility is shifted to government, the society becomes far more selfish, far more self serving, far more demanding. The free market begins breaking down and the nanny state emerges as those with unprecedented power become drunk on it and shift the emphasis to increasing and protecting it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All good stuff PC.

However, being a member of that immediate post war generation, we were as rebellious as any generation. Every generation pushes the envelope re values of its parents and grandparents, else civilization would never evolve; never progress; never advance. But in the end, most of us recognized the value of and adopted most of the core culture of our parents and most of us were mostly unaffected and unwooed by the anti culture revolution. It was a segment of the baby boomers who joined the anti-culture revolution, but by no means all of them.

Still, it was that generation of the 1960's which was the first to totally reject the traditional American values of their parents and our society. And because they seized the power in education and the media, I think is a huge reason that our society has been in a state of gradual decline ever since. As we have seen in Russia and China and India, such rejection of the existing culture has generally not turned out well for many of the people.

Those traditional American values had formed the core of a Republic in which people, and not an authoritarian government, successfully governed themselves. Once that responsibility is shifted to government, the society becomes far more selfish, far more self serving, far more demanding. The free market begins breaking down and the nanny state emerges as those with unprecedented power become drunk on it and shift the emphasis to increasing and protecting it.

1. "... they seized the power in education and the media...."
Yup.
"The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.” Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.


2. "But in the end, most of us recognized the value of and adopted most of the core culture of our parents and most of us were mostly unaffected and unwooed by the anti culture revolution.'

Based on same, any predictions for November?

 

[Foxfyre]

All good stuff PC.

However, being a member of that immediate post war generation, we were as rebellious as any generation. Every generation pushes the envelope re values of its parents and grandparents, else civilization would never evolve; never progress; never advance. But in the end, most of us recognized the value of and adopted most of the core culture of our parents and most of us were mostly unaffected and unwooed by the anti culture revolution. It was a segment of the baby boomers who joined the anti-culture revolution, but by no means all of them.

Still, it was that generation of the 1960's which was the first to totally reject the traditional American values of their parents and our society. And because they seized the power in education and the media, I think is a huge reason that our society has been in a state of gradual decline ever since. As we have seen in Russia and China and India, such rejection of the existing culture has generally not turned out well for many of the people.

Those traditional American values had formed the core of a Republic in which people, and not an authoritarian government, successfully governed themselves. Once that responsibility is shifted to government, the society becomes far more selfish, far more self serving, far more demanding. The free market begins breaking down and the nanny state emerges as those with unprecedented power become drunk on it and shift the emphasis to increasing and protecting it.

1. "... they seized the power in education and the media...."
Yup.
"The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.” Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.


2. "But in the end, most of us recognized the value of and adopted most of the core culture of our parents and most of us were mostly unaffected and unwooed by the anti culture revolution.'

Based on same, any predictions for November?

Not really. Just some gut level impressions mostly.

1. Those who have no grasp or understanding of history or who have bought into the modern progressive rewrite of it or who simply don't give a damn about it will vote for Obama. So he will receive a sizable percentage of the vote. Whether it will be enough to re-elect him, I don't know yet. That will depend on whether the Left is successful in creating an "October surprise" and/or on whether the economy can be shown or manipulated to pretend that it is markedly better and therefore also reel in the most gullible among us.

2. Those with the strongest grasp of history have to appreciate Gingrich's amazing sense of it and his ability to apply it to everyday problems and issues. However those same folks may also hold on to traditional American values and question whether Gingrich shares them.

3. Romney has the same problem. Those of us with a solid educations in history and economics recognize him as the superior leader, the best at analyzing and solving problems, and a master of getting things done. But does he share the core beliefs of those of us who recognize that and will channel it into a stronger American? Or just more of a big government one?

4. And even when you strip away all the seeming looney tunes and naivete from Ron Paul and focus on his really sound fiscal sense, does he fully understand the concept of a social contract. A principle in which the people voluntarily regulate their local societies to create the kind of environment that supports children, families, and the American way? Does he understand or care about the values that are most important to most people?

5. Santorum has gained unprecedented momentum purely because he is tapping into our deepest desires to return to core values and principles that made America the greatest nation on Earth. In no other election would his more passionate views be as well received (or as much overlooked) as what we have been seeing. He is the one candidate who really seems to 'get it'. And yet he hasn't emerged as the clear front runner because of questions re his leadership ability and whether he will actually walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

There is a part of me that is actualy wanting a brokered convention this year. A convention in which the delegates will come together and raise up the one who will best represent us. And I can't tell you who I think that would be.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All good stuff PC.

However, being a member of that immediate post war generation, we were as rebellious as any generation. Every generation pushes the envelope re values of its parents and grandparents, else civilization would never evolve; never progress; never advance. But in the end, most of us recognized the value of and adopted most of the core culture of our parents and most of us were mostly unaffected and unwooed by the anti culture revolution. It was a segment of the baby boomers who joined the anti-culture revolution, but by no means all of them.

Still, it was that generation of the 1960's which was the first to totally reject the traditional American values of their parents and our society. And because they seized the power in education and the media, I think is a huge reason that our society has been in a state of gradual decline ever since. As we have seen in Russia and China and India, such rejection of the existing culture has generally not turned out well for many of the people.

Those traditional American values had formed the core of a Republic in which people, and not an authoritarian government, successfully governed themselves. Once that responsibility is shifted to government, the society becomes far more selfish, far more self serving, far more demanding. The free market begins breaking down and the nanny state emerges as those with unprecedented power become drunk on it and shift the emphasis to increasing and protecting it.

1. "... they seized the power in education and the media...."
Yup.
"The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.” Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.


2. "But in the end, most of us recognized the value of and adopted most of the core culture of our parents and most of us were mostly unaffected and unwooed by the anti culture revolution.'

Based on same, any predictions for November?

Not really. Just some gut level impressions mostly.

1. Those who have no grasp or understanding of history or who have bought into the modern progressive rewrite of it or who simply don't give a damn about it will vote for Obama. So he will receive a sizable percentage of the vote. Whether it will be enough to re-elect him, I don't know yet. That will depend on whether the Left is successful in creating an "October surprise" and/or on whether the economy can be shown or manipulated to pretend that it is markedly better and therefore also reel in the most gullible among us.

2. Those with the strongest grasp of history have to appreciate Gingrich's amazing sense of it and his ability to apply it to everyday problems and issues. However those same folks may also hold on to traditional American values and question whether Gingrich shares them.

3. Romney has the same problem. Those of us with a solid educations in history and economics recognize him as the superior leader, the best at analyzing and solving problems, and a master of getting things done. But does he share the core beliefs of those of us who recognize that and will channel it into a stronger American? Or just more of a big government one?

4. And even when you strip away all the seeming looney tunes and naivete from Ron Paul and focus on his really sound fiscal sense, does he fully understand the concept of a social contract. A principle in which the people voluntarily regulate their local societies to create the kind of environment that supports children, families, and the American way? Does he understand or care about the values that are most important to most people?

5. Santorum has gained unprecedented momentum purely because he is tapping into our deepest desires to return to core values and principles that made America the greatest nation on Earth. In no other election would his more passionate views be as well received (or as much overlooked) as what we have been seeing. He is the one candidate who really seems to 'get it'. And yet he hasn't emerged as the clear front runner because of questions re his leadership ability and whether he will actually walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

There is a part of me that is actualy wanting a brokered convention this year. A convention in which the delegates will come together and raise up the one who will best represent us. And I can't tell you who I think that would be.

"Those who have no grasp or understanding of history or who have bought into the modern progressive rewrite of it or who simply don't give a damn about it will vote for Obama."

1. Let's add in those who believe that there is some free stuff or 'em in an Obama vote...
...equality has been defined as 'I get to take some of my neighbor's possessions."

Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation: “Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.” Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179

If Schoeck is correct, the nation is doomed; if so, it is not politics, nor lack of education, but simply the flaw in human nature.

I think you can see that the back and forth on the board changes few minds....

I worry for my children.

2. My vote will be as per Buckley suggested: ""we should support the most conservative candidate who is electable"

3. If the same force that has protected this nation throughout history is still behind it, we'll win.

 

[regent]

Historians are usually accused of being liberal. The founders before the ink was dry on the ratification of the Constitution, created a central bank. the Bank of The United States. And what of the Roaring Twenties?

 

[Foxfyre]

Historians are usually accused of being liberal. The founders before the ink was dry on the ratification of the Constitution, created a central bank. the Bank of The United States. And what of the Roaring Twenties?

The Roaring Twebties was a combination of affluence and atni-government sentiment. The folks simply were not allowing the government to dictate to them what liberties they would be permitted. Such has been the history of the American people who don't take well to the concept of having the government ban things when there is no compelling reason, at least in the mind of the people, to do so. America was founded on the principle of self governance and it has become ingrained into the American culture. Elected leaders fail to recognize that at their peril. At least that was true until the government was able to put about half of America on the government dole as is the case now.

And that is putting us perilously close to being back in bondage to a government that answers to nobody but itself.

As for that original central bank, it was not the fed, but was intended to be the agency through which the U.S. treasury could distribute and properly control the distribution of currency. The Founders would have been horrified at the concept of a Federal Reserve that not only operates mostly in secrecy but on its own authority with very little oversight of the people's elected representatives.

 

[Foxfyre]

Historians are usually accused of being liberal. The founders before the ink was dry on the ratification of the Constitution, created a central bank. the Bank of The United States. And what of the Roaring Twenties?

Oh and I failed to address your original point. Historians with integrity are neither liberal nor conservatives but stay as close to the discernable facts as possible. Just as scientists with integrity are not swayed by ideology.

But going back to an earlier point, the public education system has been so infused with the prodigy of those 1960's cultural revolutionaries that we too often see the process of education tainted with ideological bias. Not only are they interpreting the history to justify that bias, but too often are rewriting it for that purpose.

 

[regent]

Historians are usually accused of being liberal. The founders before the ink was dry on the ratification of the Constitution, created a central bank. the Bank of The United States. And what of the Roaring Twenties?

Oh and I failed to address your original point. Historians with integrity are neither liberal nor conservatives but stay as close to the discernable facts as possible. Just as scientists with integrity are not swayed by ideology.

But going back to an earlier point, the public education system has been so infused with the prodigy of those 1960's cultural revolutionaries that we too often see the process of education tainted with ideological bias. Not only are they interpreting the history to justify that bias, but too often are rewriting it for that purpose.

It's good that you have confidence in most of our historians, because as you know they often rate the presidents. In 2010 238 noted historians and presidential experts were polled to rate the presidents on 20 characteristics associated with the office. They rated FDR as America's greatest president and rated Obama thus far in his term of office as the 15th. best, and Bush as 5th worst.

 

[sealybobo]

Where did our Republic go? Down the drain in 2000 when the GOP stole the election and the rich finally pulled off a successful coup. Broke the economy, bankrupted the government, killed a lot of New Deal programs that were good, started a war for oil.

Then appointed two right wing supreme court justices. Most Americans don't know how important this was for the GOP. Just look at Citizens United, and every other case where Alito and Roberts always side with the corporations.

The rich now own our country. They always had too much power but this is different. Now they say corporations are people and money is speech. Great.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So...when you buy a defective product..."Everything is fine."

Pick up your suit and it still has a stain..."Everything is fine."

Steak is raw....."Everything is fine."

Politicians break their word...."Everything is fine."


I shudder to think, if everyone were like you....

Democracy by definition is a defective product. It's in the fine print.

You truly live in a dream world.

1. "Democracy by definition is a defective product."
Can you produce that definition, from a source other than your imagination?

There are those who find that evincing a world-weary cynicism gives a certain sophistication....I see it as either a lack of understanding or a pretension.

2. "You truly live in a dream world."

a. There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?
Robert Kennedy

b. Our ideals resemble the stars, which illuminate the night. NO one will ever be able to touch them. But the men, who, like the sailors on the ocean, take them for guidelines, will undoubtedly reach their goal.
Carl Schurz

c. “Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?”
Robert Browning


Hope this helps you out.

Democracy is messy.



the republic still stands.

 

[Foxfyre]

Historians are usually accused of being liberal. The founders before the ink was dry on the ratification of the Constitution, created a central bank. the Bank of The United States. And what of the Roaring Twenties?

Oh and I failed to address your original point. Historians with integrity are neither liberal nor conservatives but stay as close to the discernable facts as possible. Just as scientists with integrity are not swayed by ideology.

But going back to an earlier point, the public education system has been so infused with the prodigy of those 1960's cultural revolutionaries that we too often see the process of education tainted with ideological bias. Not only are they interpreting the history to justify that bias, but too often are rewriting it for that purpose.

It's good that you have confidence in most of our historians, because as you know they often rate the presidents. In 2010 238 noted historians and presidential experts were polled to rate the presidents on 20 characteristics associated with the office. They rated FDR as America's greatest president and rated Obama thus far in his term of office as the 15th. best, and Bush as 5th worst.

I would like to have a link to see who chose the 238 noted historians and presidential experts and how they obtained that designation.

But rating of Presidents really has little or nothing to do with how we are losing our great republic, don't you think?

 

[JDzBrain]

Hamilton held little regard for the Individual. He Trumped Enumerated Powers with the General Welfare Clause...

Have any of you folks actually READ Article 8 of Section I of the Constitution. Cause it DAMN SURE doesn't seem like it some times.

It's a list of the powers and responsibilities Congress DOES have that they CAN tax to fund.

Article I, Section 8, clause 1. "The Congress shall 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

The all empowering 'general welfare' clause is NOT a clause. It is PART of a clause that is simply the statement of the congressional power and responsibility they can tax to fund and the parts I bolded are the actual point of the clause....the power to lay taxes to fund 3 things which are described in detail in the 17 clauses that follow the first one!

That first clause also says, "provide for the common Defence." So why don't you call it the common defense clause? Why...BECAUSE IT'S NOT!

How do I know that? Because further down as the founders described the EXACT NATURE of those powers and responsibilities, it says:

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Now just WHY IN THE HELL would the founders say provide for the common defense and then go to all the detailed trouble of stating such an ABSURDLY OBVIOUS thing as telling Congress to maintain an Army...UNLESS the common defense order in the first clause was a GENERAL statement that need defining.

A little COMMON SENSE PLEASE!?

The so called 'general welfare' clause is NO SUCH THING...and just as with the common defense statement, the general welfare STATEMENT is defined further down in Article 8 with clauses like:

"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;"

ALL of which require Congress to lay tariffs and tax to fund!

People, please...apply a little common sense before blindly accepting the nonsensical prattling of pseudo intellectuals that believe they are ghost whispers that know the minds of 200 year old dead men.

There is NO da Vinci code in Constitution. It says what it means and means what it says...as long as your reading comprehension is above a 5th grader that is!

PoliticalChic, you ask what has become of our Republic? THIS is what's become of our republic!!!!

 

[regent]

The Constitution is but a very short framework for government. No document of its length can spell out every detail, some state constitutions try to do that and some have six hundred amendments or so. The national Constitution has 27 amendments, but has been interpreted thousands of times by simple tradition, by useage and Court intrpretations. Conservatives often try to use the Constituton as their anchor to impede changes and it hasn't always worked. As Justice Hughes said, The Constitution is what the Court say it is.
Incidently, try and find the clause in the Constitution that says the Court has the power to interpret the Constitution, the Court just assumed that responsiblity and bingo by that one little act look at what has happened.

 

[Dragon]

JDZBrain:

I refer you to the Supreme Court case United States v. Butler in which the Agricultural Adjustment Act was ruled unconstitutional and in which the language of the tax and spend clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution was clarified legally. United States v. Butler

In Article I, § 8, cl. 1 of the Constitution, which provides that Congress shall 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,

the phrase "to provide for the general welfare" is not an independent provision empowering Congress generally to provide for the general welfare, but is a qualification defining and limiting the power "to lay and collect taxes," etc. P. 64.

14. The power to appropriate money from the Treasury (Constitution, Art. I, § 9, cl. 7) is as broad as the power to tax, and the power to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States implies the power to appropriate public funds for that purpose. P. 65.

15. The power to tax and spend is a separate and distinct power; its exercise is not confined to the fields committed to Congress by the other enumerated grants of power, but it is limited by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. P. 65. [p3]

(Emphasis added.) It's true that the "general welfare" clause is not a separate power, but it is not true as you seem to want to believe that it has no legal meaning. Nor is it true that the power to tax, and by implication the power to spend, is confined to the other enumerated powers. I realize that's what James Madison argued in vetoing an appropriations bill he disapproved of, and perhaps it's what he would have preferred the language to say, but if so his intent did not prevail at the convention, because that's not what the language actually DOES say.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Constitution is but a very short framework for government. No document of its length can spell out every detail, some state constitutions try to do that and some have six hundred amendments or so. The national Constitution has 27 amendments, but has been interpreted thousands of times by simple tradition, by useage and Court intrpretations. Conservatives often try to use the Constituton as their anchor to impede changes and it hasn't always worked. As Justice Hughes said, The Constitution is what the Court say it is.
Incidently, try and find the clause in the Constitution that says the Court has the power to interpret the Constitution, the Court just assumed that responsiblity and bingo by that one little act look at what has happened.

Every judicial decision must be authorized by the Constitution.
Every single one.

Any decision not so decided is a rogue decision.

"All who have studied law, and many who have not, are familiar
with John Marshall’s classic defense of judicial review in
his opinion for the Court in Marbury v. Madison. The ultimate source of authority in this Nation,
Marshall said, is not Congress, not the states, not for that matter the Supreme
Court of the United States. The people are the ultimate
source of authority; they have parceled out the authority that
originally resided entirely with them by adopting the original
Constitution and by later amending it."
Chief Justice William Rehnquist.


He went on to say, in that essay, that any judges or Justices who decide
based on other than the Constitution:

"Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light. Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

 

[Dragon]

Every judicial decision must be authorized by the Constitution.
Every single one.

Any decision not so decided is a rogue decision.

Oh, really? And who gets to decide whether a judicial decision is "authorized by the Constitution" or not?

You?

 

[PoliticalChic]

JDZBrain:

I refer you to the Supreme Court case United States v. Butler in which the Agricultural Adjustment Act was ruled unconstitutional and in which the language of the tax and spend clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution was clarified legally. United States v. Butler

In Article I, § 8, cl. 1 of the Constitution, which provides that Congress shall 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,

the phrase "to provide for the general welfare" is not an independent provision empowering Congress generally to provide for the general welfare, but is a qualification defining and limiting the power "to lay and collect taxes," etc. P. 64.

14. The power to appropriate money from the Treasury (Constitution, Art. I, § 9, cl. 7) is as broad as the power to tax, and the power to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States implies the power to appropriate public funds for that purpose. P. 65.

15. The power to tax and spend is a separate and distinct power; its exercise is not confined to the fields committed to Congress by the other enumerated grants of power, but it is limited by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. P. 65. [p3]

(Emphasis added.) It's true that the "general welfare" clause is not a separate power, but it is not true as you seem to want to believe that it has no legal meaning. Nor is it true that the power to tax, and by implication the power to spend, is confined to the other enumerated powers. I realize that's what James Madison argued in vetoing an appropriations bill he disapproved of, and perhaps it's what he would have preferred the language to say, but if so his intent did not prevail at the convention, because that's not what the language actually DOES say.

1. Article I, section 8, clause 1: The Congress shall 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;….

a. Hamilton’s view was that this clause gave Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, whatsoever they decide that might be.

b. William Drayton, in 1828, came down on the side of Madison, Jefferson and others, pointing out that if Hamilton was correct, what point would there have been to enumerate Congresses’ other powers? If Congress wished to do anything it was not authorized to do, it could accomplish it via taxing and spending. He said, "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?"
'Charity Not a Proper Function of the American Government' by Walter E. Williams

2. In his farewell address of our first President, George Washington, in reference to our constitution, warned, "Let there be no change [in the Constitution] by usurpation. For though this, in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." But, change there has been: FDR was the culprit.

3. In 1937: up until that year the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes. The Court, in Butler, tried, for the last time, to limit spending as a way to control and coerce state prerogatives. Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Every judicial decision must be authorized by the Constitution.
Every single one.

Any decision not so decided is a rogue decision.

Oh, really? And who gets to decide whether a judicial decision is "authorized by the Constitution" or not?

You?

Let me give you the instruction you so dearly require.

1. The people are the holders of all power in the United States of America.

2. They delegate same by elections.

3. The Congress passes laws they deem constitutional; by signing a law, it is assumed that the President agrees to the constitutionality.

4. Those laws brought to the Court must be judged by the language of the Constitution.

5. If there is no specific unconstitutionality that can be pointed to vis-a-vis the US Constitution, the law must be found constitutional.

a. This obviates any belief that Justices have a view superior to the US Constitution.

6. Changes can be made only through the amendment process.


Don't you feel smarter now?

 

[Dragon]

Hamilton’s view was that this clause gave Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, whatsoever they decide that might be.

Yes. And his view quite obviously prevailed. Otherwise, the language would have been different.

William Drayton, in 1828, came down on the side of Madison, Jefferson and others, pointing out that if Hamilton was correct, what point would there have been to enumerate Congresses’ other powers?

The power to tax and spend does not encompass the other enumerated powers. It does not provide the power to declare war, to set standards of weights and measures, to coin money, to borrow money, or even to create an army or navy, since in addition to spending money that requires the setting of standards of military discipline, authorizing uniforms and chains of command, and many other things that are not simply matters of spending money.

The first clause of I:8 authorizes Congress to tax and spend to provide for the common defense and general welfare; it does not however authorize Congress to do anything BUT tax and spend for those purposes, hence the need for the other enumerated powers.

The Court, in Butler, tried, for the last time, to limit spending as a way to control and coerce state prerogatives.

You are mistaken both that the court in Butler went against the idea of taxation and spending as a separate power, and that it was the last time the Court set limits to federal authority. The quote I presented earlier was from precisely that decision, and it reflected Hamilton's view as to how to interpret the tax and spend clause; the AAA was invalidated on other grounds.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hamilton’s view was that this clause gave Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, whatsoever they decide that might be.

Yes. And his view quite obviously prevailed. Otherwise, the language would have been different.

William Drayton, in 1828, came down on the side of Madison, Jefferson and others, pointing out that if Hamilton was correct, what point would there have been to enumerate Congresses’ other powers?

The power to tax and spend does not encompass the other enumerated powers. It does not provide the power to declare war, to set standards of weights and measures, to coin money, to borrow money, or even to create an army or navy, since in addition to spending money that requires the setting of standards of military discipline, authorizing uniforms and chains of command, and many other things that are not simply matters of spending money.

The first clause of I:8 authorizes Congress to tax and spend to provide for the common defense and general welfare; it does not however authorize Congress to do anything BUT tax and spend for those purposes, hence the need for the other enumerated powers.

The Court, in Butler, tried, for the last time, to limit spending as a way to control and coerce state prerogatives.

You are mistaken both that the court in Butler went against the idea of taxation and spending as a separate power, and that it was the last time the Court set limits to federal authority. The quote I presented earlier was from precisely that decision, and it reflected Hamilton's view as to how to interpret the tax and spend clause; the AAA was invalidated on other grounds.

"Butler was the last case in which the Court would find a constitutional limitation on the power of Congress to tax and spend."
Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia